GR 45950; (June, 1938) (Digest)
G.R. No. 45950; June 20, 1938
LEONA PASION VIUDA DE GARCIA, petitioner, vs. DIEGO LOCSIN, Judge of First Instance of Tarlac, FELIX IMPERIAL, Provincial Fiscal of Tarlac, and the ANTI-USURY BOARD, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Leona Pasion Viuda de Garcia was the subject of a search warrant issued by a justice of the peace upon the affidavit of an agent of the Anti-Usury Board, alleging probable cause that she kept documents related to usurious activities. The warrant was executed at her office in her absence (as she was ill), and her bookkeeper was present. Documents were seized and later turned over to the provincial fiscal, who used them to file six criminal cases against her for violation of the Anti-Usury Law. Petitioner, through counsel, repeatedly demanded the return of the seized documents. In the criminal cases, she challenged the legality of the search warrant and moved for the return of the documents. The respondent judge denied her motion, ruling that although the search warrant was illegal, petitioner had impliedly waived her right by not protesting the search at the time of its execution. Petitioner filed this petition for mandamus to annul the search warrant and the judge’s orders and to secure the restoration of the seized documents.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner waived her constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures, thereby validating the seizure of her documents despite the illegally issued search warrant.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The search warrant was illegally issued because the judge did not personally determine probable cause by examining the complainant and witnesses under oath, as required by the Constitution. The Court held that there was no waiver of the constitutional right. Waiver requires knowledge of the right and an actual intention to relinquish it. Petitioner’s failure to object during the search (due to her absence and her bookkeeper’s mere submission to authority) did not constitute implied waiver. Her subsequent and repeated demands for the return of the documents negated any intention to waive her rights. The Court declared the search warrant void, set aside the respondent judge’s orders, and ordered the respondents to return all seized properties to the petitioner within 48 hours.
AI Generated by Armztrong.