G.R. No. 45358
January 29, 1937
Facts
This is a petition to declare the warrant ordering the search of petitioner’s house and the seizure of accounting books and documents be declared illegal and unconstitutional.
The antecedent facts are as followed. The chief of the secret division of the Anti-Usury Board filed an *affidavit alleging that petitioner is a usurious lender according to a report of a reliable witness. He also said that the information he filed was true according to the best of his knowledge and belief. There is no affidavit coming from a witness. Thereafter, the judge issued a warrant ordering the search of petitioner’s house and the seizure of the accounting books and documents. The seized items was not submitted directly to the presiding judge but was kept by agent Siongco of the Anti-Usury Board.
Petitioner contends that the warrant is illegal because it is only based on the affidavit of an agent of the Anti-Usury Board with whom he declared that he has no personal knowledge of the facts but has only relied on another person. Moreover, there are no other affidavits submitted.
Issues
- Whether or not the search warrant is illegal since it was based upon an affidavit made by a person who has no personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances constituting the offense charged?
- Whether or not there is no probable cause since the affidavit fails to describe in particularity the things to be seized and the place to be searched?
Held
First Issue
Yes. Section 1, paragraph 3, of Article III of the Constitution provides that no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Section 98 of General Orders, No. 58 provides that the judge or justice must, before issuing the warrant, examine under oath the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in writing. In this jurisdiction, affidavit of complainant will be accepted provided that it is sufficient. The affidavit or complaint must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, in order to convince the magistrate that there is a probable cause.
In the case at bar, the affidavit is not sufficient because his knowledge of the facts was not personal but a mere hearsay. The affidavit was made not upon the personal knowledge of the complainant but upon another source. With that, it is the duty of the judge to require the affidavit of one or more witnesses for the purpose of determining the existence of probable cause to warrant the issuance of the search warrant.
In conclusion, warrant issued is likewise illegal because it was based only on the affidavit of the agent who had no personal knowledge of the facts.
Second Issue
No. Section 1, paragraph 3, of Article III of the Constitution, and Section 97 of General Orders, No. 58 provide that the affidavit to be presented, which shall serve as the basis for determining whether probable cause exists and whether the warrant should be issued, must contain a particular description of the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized. However, if by the nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather general, it is not required that a technical description be given, as this would mean that no warrant could issue.
In this case, the only description of the articles given in the affidavit presented to the judge was as follows: “that there are being kept in said premises books, documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by him in connection with his activities as money-lender, charging a usurious rate of interest, in violation of the law.” Taking into consideration the nature of the articles so described, it is clear that no other more adequate and detailed description could have been given, particularly because it is difficult to give a particular description of the contents thereof. The description so made substantially complies with the legal provisions because the officer of the law who executed the warrant was thereby placed in a position enabling him to identify the articles, which he did.
Summary
- Complaints or Affidavits based on hearsay is not sufficient to establish probable cause. Personal knowledge of the complainant is essential.
- If the nature of the things or articles to be seized requires general description, there is no need for particular or technical description of the things about to be seized (Exception to the General Rule that the affidavit must contain particular description of things about to be seized)