G.R. No. L-26177, December 27, 1972
OSCAR VILLANUEVA, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE JOSE R. QUERUBIN, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Oscar Villanueva’s residence was raided on March 16, 1966, by a constabulary and police team pursuant to a search warrant issued by respondent Judge Jose R. Querubin. Among the items seized was the amount of P10,350.00. However, the money was not deposited in court as required by the Rules; instead, possession was restored to Villanueva, who issued a written promise to return the money if required by “legal orders.” An information for violation of the gambling laws was subsequently filed against him. On April 23, 1966, the prosecution moved for the return of the money to the Provincial Commander. Villanueva opposed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction, the matter was moot as he had spent the money on laborers’ wages, and his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure and deprivation of property without due process were violated.
Respondent Judge issued the challenged order on June 1, 1966, directing Villanueva to return and deliver the P10,350.00 and a wooden container to the Provincial Commander within forty-eight hours. A motion for reconsideration was denied. Villanueva then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition, asserting the order violated his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures and would expose him to contempt if he could not comply, having allegedly spent the money.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order for the return of the seized money, thereby violating petitioner’s constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the respondent Judge acted in accordance with law and that no constitutional right was violated. The legal logic is clear: the seizure was effected under a valid search warrant issued after examination under oath, satisfying the constitutional requirement. The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures immunizes persons from arbitrary government interference but does not protect items lawfully seized under a valid warrant. The money, seized as potential evidence in a gambling case, was subject to the court’s control.
Critically, the Rules of Court mandate that property seized under a warrant must be delivered to the court. The restoration of the money to Villanueva was irregular and did not negate the court’s authority to order its return for proper custody. Villanueva’s written promise to return the money upon “legal orders” estopped him from claiming ownership as a defense against the lawful order. His claim of having spent the money in good faith was irrelevant to the court’s power to secure evidence. The order was a legitimate exercise of the court’s jurisdiction to ensure compliance with procedural rules and preserve evidence for the criminal case, not a new seizure. Therefore, no violation of the constitutional right occurred, and the extraordinary writs of certiorari and prohibition were unwarranted.