G.R. No. L-342; May 4, 1946
AURELIO S. ALVERO, petitioner, vs. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Aurelio S. Alvero was accused of treason in Criminal Case No. 3 of the People’s Court. During the hearing on his petition for bail and later during the trial on the merits, the prosecution presented certain documents as evidence. These documents had been seized by soldiers of the United States Army, accompanied by Filipino guerrillas, from Alvero’s house in Pasay, Rizal, on February 12, 1945, when he was arrested on suspicion of collaboration. Alvero objected to the admission of these documents, arguing their seizure was illegal and their use would compel him to testify against himself, violating his constitutional rights. He had filed a petition on December 1, 1945, for the return of these documents, but this petition was not considered before the trial commenced. The respondent judges allowed the prosecution to present the documents provisionally. After the prosecution rested, the court heard Alvero’s petition for return on February 16, 1946. On February 26, 1946, the court denied the petition and admitted the documents as competent evidence (Exhibits A, C, G, H, K, L, P, R, R-1, R-2, U, Z, CC, DD, FF, HH). Alvero’s motion for reconsideration was also denied. Alvero then filed this petition for certiorari with injunction, seeking to annul the order admitting the documents, secure their return, and arguing the respondent judges acted without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judges committed a grave abuse of discretion or acted without jurisdiction in denying the petitioner’s motion for the return of the documents seized from his house and in admitting them as evidence against him.

RULING

The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that the respondent judges did not commit a grave abuse of discretion. The seizure of the documents occurred on February 12, 1945, in Pasay, Rizal, which was then a combat zone, by soldiers of the United States Army of Liberation. This seizure was lawful under the proclamation of the Commander in Chief of the United States Liberation Forces dated December 29, 1944, which aimed to remove alleged collaborators from positions of influence and restrain them for the duration of the war. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to properly and timely object to the admissibility of the documents during the bail hearing and the trial on the merits, thereby waiving his right to object. He also failed to satisfactorily identify the documents in question and prove his ownership over them. The Court also noted that the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures is not available to those charged with treason, as the act of treason implies a renunciation of the protection of the government, including such guarantees. The drastic measures taken, including the seizure of documents to prevent their concealment or destruction, were justified under the circumstances of war and the nature of the offense.