GR 129651; (October, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129651 ; October 20, 2000
FRANK UY and UNIFISH PACKING CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE and HON. MERCEDES GOZO-DADOLE, respondents.
FACTS
On October 1, 1993, based on an affidavit executed by a former employee, Rodrigo Abos, alleging that petitioners Unifish Packing Corporation and Frank Uy were engaged in large-scale tax evasion by selling canned sardines without issuing receipts and by illegally selling imported oil and tin cans meant for export, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) applied for search warrants. After examining the applicant, Nestor Labaria, and the witness, Abos, under oath, Judge Mercedes Gozo-Dadole of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu issued two search warrants (A-1 and A-2) for violation of Section 253 of the National Internal Revenue Code. The warrants authorized the seizure of various business and financial records from Unifish’s premises.
The search was conducted, and numerous items were seized. Petitioners subsequently filed a motion to quash the search warrants and for the return of the seized properties, arguing that the warrants were invalid. They contended that the judge failed to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses in the manner required by law and the Constitution, and that the warrants were general warrants that did not particularly describe the things to be seized.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the search warrants issued by Judge Gozo-Dadole are valid and constitutional.
RULING
The Supreme Court declared the search warrants null and void and ordered the return of all seized items. The legal logic rests on the violation of two fundamental constitutional requirements for a valid search warrant. First, the judge failed to conduct a searching examination of the complainant and his witness. The examination was cursory and lacked the depth and particularity required to establish probable cause. The judge merely asked the witness to affirm the contents of his affidavit without probing into the basis of his personal knowledge or the details of the alleged fraudulent schemes. This pro forma examination does not satisfy the constitutional mandate that probable cause must be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
Second, the warrants were general warrants, which are constitutionally prohibited. While they listed categories of documents like “multiple sets of Books of Accounts” and “Corporate Financial Records,” these descriptions were not specific enough to enable the officers conducting the search to identify the items to be seized with reasonable certainty. The warrants effectively gave the searching officers unbridled discretion to seize any and all business records, which is precisely the evil the particularity requirement seeks to prevent. Consequently, the warrants were invalid for failing to particularly describe the things to be seized, and all evidence obtained thereby must be returned.