Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-342 May 4, 1946
AURELIO S. ALVERO, petitioner,
vs.
ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL., respondent.
Albert and Albert for petitioner.
First Assistant Solicitor General Reyes and Assistant Solicitor General Alvendia for
respondents.
DE JOA, J.!
This is a petition for certiorari with injunction oriinall! filed in this court.
"n the petition it is alleed that petitioner Aurelio #. Alvero has been accused of
treason, in cri$inal case No. % of the People&s Court' that at the hearin on his
petition for bail, the prosecution presented, as part of its evidence, certain docu$ents
which had been alleedl! sei(ed b! soldiers of the )nited #tates Ar$!, acco$panied
b! *ilipino uerrillas, in the petitioner&s house' that petitioner i$$ediatel! objected to
the presentation of said docu$ents, and called the attention of the respondent
judes to the fact that he had filed a petition, in which he protested aainst the
procedure of the overn$ent in the sei(ure of said docu$ents, and as+ed for their
return to the petitioner' that the respondents per$itted the prosecution to present
said docu$ents as evidence, which were considered, upon the ter$ination of the
presentation of the evidence for both parties, in den!in said petition for bail' that the
petition filed on ,ece$ber -, -./0, for the return of the docu$ents alleedl! sei(ed
illeall! in petitioner&s house, was not considered b! the respondents, before the
co$$ence$ent of the trial of petitioner&s case, on the $erits, due perhaps to an
involuntar! oversiht' that at the co$$ence$ent of the trial of said cri$inal case No.
%, and durin its course, the prosecution aain presented, as evidence, aainst the
petitioner said docu$ents which had been ta+en fro$ his house, and petitioner
renewed his objection thereto, and as+ed for their return to hi$, allein that their
sei(ure was illeal and that their presentation would be tanta$ount to co$pellin hi$
to testif! aainst hi$self, in violation of his constitutional rihts' that in decidin the
1uestion so raised, the respondent judes, in open court, stated that the prosecution
$iht in the $eanwhile continue presentin said docu$ents, without prejudice to the
final resolution of said petition, when the prosecution should finish presentin its
evidence' that in concludin the presentation of its evidence and restin the case,
after offerin said docu$ents as part of its evidence, the petitioner aain raised the
1uestion of the ad$issibilit! of said docu$ents, and the respondent judes then
ordered the substantiation of said alleations of petitioner, and set for hearin his
petition for the return of said docu$ents' that said petition was heard on *ebruar! -2,
-./2, and at said hearin, the petitioner and his wife testified, without an!
contradiction that, on *ebruar! -3, -./0, on the occasion of the arrest of the
petitioner b! soldiers of the )nited #tates Ar$!, the latter searched the house of the
petitioner and sei(ed, a$on other thins, the docu$ents which he had in his house'
that when said petition for the return of said docu$ents was sub$itted for the
consideration and decision of the respondent judes, the latter, on *ebruar! 32,
-./2, issued an order den!in said petition, and ad$itted as co$petent evidence the
docu$ents presented b! the prosecution, $ar+ed as E4hibits A, C, 5, 6, 7, 8, P, R,
R9-, R93, ), :, CC, ,,, **, 66' that on the sa$e date that said order was issued,
den!in the petition for the return of said docu$ents, petitioner as+ed for the
reconsideration of said order, which was also denied. ;Petition, pars. -9-3.<
And herein petitioner now clai$s that the respondent judes, in den!in the petition
for the return of said docu$ents, acted without jurisdiction and co$$itted a rave
abuse in the e4ercise of their discretion, allein that even the sei(ure of docu$ents
b! $eans of a search warrant leall! issued, constitutes a violation of the rihts
uaranteed in pararaphs % and -= of section - of Article """ of the Constitution, and,
conse1uentl!, when their sei(ure cannot be justified b! the correspondin search
warrant, the court should order their i$$ediate return' that the petitioner has no
other speed! and ade1uate re$ed! for the protection of his rihts uaranteed b! the
Constitution, other than this petition for certiorari, as the riht of appeal ranted b!
law to a person accused of a cri$e, is costl! and hihl! prejudicial to the petitioner,
as it presupposes that the prosecution has established the uilt of the accused b!
$eans of leal and co$petent evidence, as alleed in the last three ;%< pararaphs
of the petition.
Conse1uentl!, herein petitioner as+s for the annul$ent of the order issued b! the
respondent judes, on *ebruar! 32, -./2, in said cri$inal case No. %, entitled >
People of the Philippines vs. Aurelio #. Alvero, > the return to hi$ of the docu$ents
presented b! the prosecution, $entioned above, and the issuance of a writ of
preli$inar! injunction. ."n their answer filed on March 3-, -./2, herein respondents
have substantiall! ad$itted the alleations $ade and contained in the first twelve
;-3< pararaphs of the petition, e4cept the portions allein that the docu$ents in
1uestion had been obtained b! $eans of force and inti$idation or throuh coercion'
and that certain soldiers of the A$erican Ar$! too+ certain personal properties of
herein petitioner, at the ti$e the search was $ade' and that the ac1uisition of said
docu$ents was $anifestl! a violation of petitioner&s constitutional rihts and that their
ad$ission, as evidence for the prosecution, would be tanta$ount to co$pellin
petitioner, as accused, to testif! aainst hi$self > all of which portions have been
e4pressl! denied b! the respondents.
Respondents have also e4pressl! denied the alleations contained in the re$ainin
three ;%< pararaphs of the petition.
1
And as defenses, respondents allee ;-< that petitioner hi$self has ad$itted the
lealit! of the sei(ure of the docu$ents in 1uestion in his $otion for reconsideration,
dated *ebruar! 32, -./2' ;3< that petitioner has not proven that said docu$ents had
been illeall! sei(ed for hi$' ;%< that the sei(ure of the docu$ents in 1uestion too+
place, on *ebruar! -3, -./0, in Pasa!, Ri(al, which was then still a co$bat (one,
and that the sei(ure of certain papers in the house of the petitioner was $ade b!
soldiers of the )nited #tates Ar$! of 8iberation or its instru$entalities' ;/< that said
sei(ure was effected lawfull! under the ter$s of the procla$ation of the Co$$ander
in Chief of the )nited #tates 8iberation *orces, dated ,ece$ber 3., -.//, in which
he declared his purpose to re$ove alleed collaborators, when apprehended, fro$
an! position of political and econo$ic influence in the Philippines and to hold the$ in
restraint for the duration of the war' ;0< that the docu$ents in 1uestion had been
properl! ad$itted as evidence for the prosecution in cri$inal case No. %, as herein
petitioner, as accused in said case, had e4pressl! waived his riht to object to their
ad$issibilit!, particularl! E4hibits A, **, 66 and P' ;2< that petitioner&s evidence of
alleed ownership, relative to E4hibits C, 5, 6, 7, ", P, R, R9- and R93, is altoether
insufficient, and petitioner hi$self has e4pressl! ad$itted that said docu$ents are
not his personal papers but part of the files of the New 8eaders& Association, which
was proven to be an orani(ation created, for the purpose of collaboratin with the
ene$!' ;?< and that none of the e4hibits referred to in the petition has been
satisfactoril! identified b! the petitioner as included a$on the papers alleedl!
wronfull! sei(ed fro$ his house and belonin to hi$.
Considerin the alleations $ade b! the parties in their respective pleadins, and
their supportin papers, as well as the ad$issions $ade therein, the followin facts
appear to have been sufficientl! established@
;-< That on *ebruar! -3, -./0, while the battle for Manila was rain, soldiers of the
)nited #tates Ar$!, acco$panied b! $en of *ilipino 5uerrilla *orces, placed herein
petitioner under arrest, havin been suspected of collaboration with the ene$!, and
sei(ed and too+ certain papers fro$ his house in Pasa!, Ri(al'
;3< That on or about Actober /, -./0, petitioner was accused of treason, in cri$inal
case No. % of the People&s Court' after which, on ,ece$ber -, -./0, he filed a
petition, de$andin the return of the papers alleedl! sei(ed and ta+en fro$ his
house'
;%< That petitioner also filed a petition for bail, at the hearin of which the prosecution
presented certain papers and docu$ents, which were ad$itted as part of its
evidence, and said petition was denied'
;/< That at the trial of the case on the $erits, the prosecution aain presented said
papers and docu$ents, which were ad$itted as part of its evidence, and were
$ar+ed as e4hibits, as described in the petition for certiorari, filed in this court'
;0< That herein petitioner had failed to object properl! to the ad$ission of said papers
and docu$ents at the hearin on said petition for bail, and at the trial of the case on
the $erits, in not havin insisted that the 1uestion of the lealit! of the search and
sei(ure of the papers and docu$ents ta+en fro$ his house should have been
litiated and finall! decided first, and thus practicall! waived his objection to their
ad$issibilit!, as evidence for the prosecution'
;2< That at the hearin on his petition for the return of the papers ta+en fro$ his
house, held after the! had been ad$itted as part of the evidence for the prosecution,
at the hearin on the petition for bail and at the trial of the case on the $erits, herein
petitioner had failed to identif! satisfactoril! the docu$ents now in 1uestion, and his
ownership thereof' and
;?< That petitioner hi$self in his petition for reconsideration, dated *ebruar! 32,
-./2, ad$itted the lealit! the lealit! of the sei(ure of the docu$ents ta+en fro$ his
house, and at the hearin on his petition for bail, he hi$self called for so$e of the
docu$ents in 1uestion.
The riht of officers and $en of the )nited #tates Ar$! to arrest herein petitioner, as
a collaborationist suspect, and to sei(e his personal papers, without an! search
warrant, in the (one of $ilitar! operations, is un1uestionable, under the provisions of
article /, Chapter "", #ection ", of the Reulations relative to the 8aws and Custo$s of
Bar on 8and of the 6aue Conventions of -.C?, authori(in the sei(ure of $ilitar!
papers in the possession of prisoners of war ;Bilson, "nternational 8aw, %d ed., -.%.,
p.03/<' and also under the procla$ation, dated ,ece$ber 3., -.//, issued b! 5en.
,oulas MacArthur, as Co$$ander in Chief of the )nited #tates of Ar$!, declarin
his purpose to re$ove certain citi(ens of the Philippines, who had voluntaril! iven
aid and co$fort to the ene$!, in violation of the alleiance due the 5overn$ents of
the )nited #tates and the Co$$onwealth of the Philippines, when apprehended,
fro$ an! position of political and econo$ic influence in the Philippines and to hold
the$ in restraint for the duration of the war. ;/- Aff. 5a(., No. 3, pp. -/=, -/..< As a
$atter of fact, petitioner hi$self, in his $otion for reconsideration, dated *ebruar! 32,
-./2, e4pressl! ad$itted the lealit! of the sei(ure of his personal papers and
docu$ents at the ti$e of his arrest.
The $ost i$portant e4ception to the necessit! for a search warrant is the riht of
search and sei(ure as an incident to a lawful arrest. A lawful arrest $a! be $ade
either while a cri$e is bein co$$itted or after its co$$ission. The riht to search
includes in both instances that of searchin the person of hi$ who is arrested, in
order to find and sei(e thins connected with the cri$e as its fruits or as the $eans
b! which it was co$$itted. ;Anello vs. )nited #tates, 32. ). #., 3C.<
Bhen one is leall! arrested for an offense, whatever is found in his possession or in
his control $a! be sei(ed and used in evidence aainst hi$' and an officer has the
riht to $a+e an arrest without a warrant of a person believed b! the officer upon
reasonable rounds to have co$$itted a felon!. ;Carroll vs. )nited #tates, 32? ). #.,
-%3.<.
2
The $ajorit! of the states have held that the privilee aainst co$pulsor! self9
incri$ination, which is also uaranteed b! state constitutional provisions is not
violated b! the use in evidence of articles obtained b! an unconstitutional search and
sei(ure. ;People vs. ,efore, 3/3 N. D., -%' -0C N. E., 0=0.<
"t is true that on ,ece$ber -, -./0, herein petitioner filed a petition, de$andin the
return of certain papers and docu$ents alleedl! sei(ed and ta+en fro$ his house at
the ti$e of his arrest' but when he consented to their presentation, as part of the
evidence for the prosecution, at the hearin on his petition for bail and at the trial of
the case on the $erits, without havin insisted that the 1uestion of the alleed
illealit! of the search and sei(ure of said papers and docu$ents should first have
been directl! litiated and established b! a $otion, $ade before the trial, for their
return, he was and should be dee$ed to have waived his objection to their
ad$issibilit! as part of the evidence for the prosecution' since the privilee aainst
co$pulsor! self9incri$ination $a! be waived. ;Bee+s vs. )nited #tates, 3%3 ). #.,
%=%' #ilverthorne 8u$ber Co. vs. )nited #tates, 30- ). #., %=0' 5ouled vs. )nited
#tates, 300 ). #., 3.=' People vs. Carlos, /? Phil., 232, 2%C, 2%-.<
At the hearin on his petition for bail, petitioner hi$self re1uested the production of
the docu$ent $ar+ed as E4hibit A, which was a letter sent b! hi$ to ,r. Eose P.
8aurel' the docu$ent $ar+ed as E4hibit 66, which was a $e$orandu$ to Col.
#u(u+i, dated ,ece$ber %C, -.//' and the docu$ent $ar+ed as E4hibit P, which
was a $e$orandu$ on Nippono classes. And he is now, therefore, estopped fro$
1uestionin their ad$ission.
*urther$ore, petitioner could not properl! identif! $an! of said docu$ents, such as
E4hibit **, nor satisfactoril! establish his ownership thereof' while the prosecution
has sufficientl! established the fact that so$e of the papers now in 1uestion, such as
E4hibit C, had been received at the Affice of the C"C of the )nited #tates Ar$! in the
Cit! of Manila, since *ebruar! --, -./0, that is, one da! prior to the sei(ure of certain
papers and docu$ents in the house of the petitioner. And with reference to E4hibits
C, 5, 6, 7, 8, P, R, R9- and R93, petitioner hi$self ad$itted that the! are not his
personal papers but part of the files of the New 8eader&s Association. And it is well
established rule in this jurisdiction that in a petition for the production of papers and
docu$ents, the! $ust be sufficientl! described and identified, otherwise the petition
cannot prosper. ;8iebenow vs. Philippine Feetable Ail Co., %. Phil., 2C, 2?, 2.' Rule
3-, section -, Rules of Court.<
The purpose of the constitutional provisions aainst unlawful searches and sei(ures
is to prevent violations of private securit! in person and propert!, and unlawful
invasions of the sanctit! of the ho$e, b! officers of the law actin under leislative or
judicial sanction, and to ive re$ed! aainst such usurpations when atte$pted.
;Ada$s vs. New Dor+, -.3 ). #., 0=0.< But it does not prohibit the *ederal
5overn$ent fro$ ta+in advantae of unlawful searches $ade b! a private person
or under authorit! of state law. ;Bee+s vs. )nited #tates, 3%3 ). #., %=%' Burdeau vs.
Mc,owell, 302 ). #., /20.<
As the soldiers of the )nited #tates Ar$!, that too+ and sei(ed certain papers and
docu$ents fro$ the residence of herein petitioner, on *ebruar! -3, -./0, were not
actin as aents or on behalf of the 5overn$ent of the Co$$onwealth of the
Philippines' and that those papers and docu$ents ca$e in the possession of the
authorities of the Co$$onwealth 5overn$ent, throuh the Affice of the C"C of the
)nited #tates Ar$! in Manila, the use and presentation of said papers and
docu$ents, as evidence for the prosecution aainst herein petitioner, at the trial of
his case for treason, before the People&s Court, cannot now be leall! attac+ed, on
the round of unlawful or unreasonable searches and sei(ures, or on an! other
constitutional round, as declared b! the #upre$e Court of the )nited #tates in
si$ilar cases. ;Burdeau vs. Mc,owell, 302 ). #., /20' 5a$bino vs. )nited #tates,
3?0 ). #., %-C.<
"n view of the foreoin, it is evident that the petition for certiorari with injunction, filed
in this case, is absolutel! without $erit, and it is, therefore, hereb! denied and
dis$issed with costs. #o ordered.
3