Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

G.R. No.

L-824 January 14, 1948 required to order the return of such deocumentos the the motion, and only then, illegality could be seen in the
appellant; ( C ) that an injunction prohibiting the Special main trial and the evidence thus obtained should be
Prosecutor to present them as evidence against the excluded. .... "Under the authority of this doctrine of
appellant in the matter of treason handed down. These Weeks v . US, and other decisions of the same school
HILARIO CAMINO Moncado, appellant,
requests show that docmentos relevant evidence, besides recurring exercises this action, asking for the return of
vs. adminisibles because there is no rule that prevents (Model documents illegally removed by ICC members.
Code of Evidence, 87).
prosecutor, appealed.
The Constitution grantiza the inviolability of individual
This well - founded contention of the appellant that the rights Under the following terms; "The right of the people
decision in the cause of Alvero against Dizon (76 Phil., 637) to be secure in their persons, abodes, papers and effects
D. Vicente J. Francisco on behalf of the appellant. is not applicable to the particular case. Documents in the against unreasonable searches and kidnappings arrest shall
case of Alvero have been seized by members of CIC when not be violated, unless probable cause to be determined by
First Assistant Attorney General Mr. Jose BL Reyes, the government miliary exercised in full swing its functions the judge after examination under oath or affirmation the
Assistant Attorney General Mr. Carmelino G. Alvendia, and occupying army. Instead, they cuandose seized on April 11, complainant and witnesses that arises, and detailed
the Special Prosecutor Mr. Juan M. Ladaw on behalf of the 1945, the documents are currently that are the subject of description of the site that is to be recorded and the
respondents. this case, General MacArthur on behalf of the Government people who have to grasp or things to be seized. " (Title III,
of the United States, had already restored on February 27 Article 1 or , paragraph 3 or .)
the same year, the Commonwealth with all its powers and
prerogatives (41 Off. Gaz., 86). The government of the
Commonwealth was already exercising their constitutional
We concur with the appellant's complaint that under these
and legal without restriction in the City of Manila powers.
consitucionales warranty forms, had the right to be
The President had not suspended constitutional guarantees.
respected home, your documents should not be confiscated
In an original request for certiorari , the appellant, accused
by any authority or law enforcement officers without a
of treason in the criminal case No. 3522 of the People 's
search warrant duly issued.
Court, it alleges that on April 4, 1945 at about 6 pm, was
It is well established doctrine in the Philippines, United
arrested by members of the CiC of the United States Army
States, England and Canada that adminisibilidad test is not
at his residence on Calle San Rafael, No. 199-a, Manila,
affected by unlawful means that the party has used to
without a warrant and taken to prisons in Muntinglupa, These constitutional limitations, however, did not go so far
obtain it . 1 is the doctrine followed for many years "until it
Rizal; a week after his wife had moved to his house- as to exclude illegal or improperly obtained the documents
emerged - the Court said in People v Carlos , 47 Jur Fil, 660
residence at Calle Rosario, No. 3, Quezon City, he was as competent evidence. The Rules of the Court, Rule 123,
-.. The unfortunate majority opinion in the cause of Boyd
invited by several members of CIC under the command of determines which are the evidence should be excluded,
vs US in 1885, which has had pernicious influence. in many
Lieutenant Olves to present the log home in the Calle San which are admissible and not classified as competent and
states on judicial subsiquientes opniones. "
Rafael; I refuse to follow them because they had a search incompetent evidence those obtained illegally. Senada
warrant; per as they assured that even without their fundamental law limits how far they can reach the
presence had to do anyway registration, she accompanies executive, legislative and judicial powers in the exercise of
them; that on arrival at the house, he saw several effects "The development of this doctrine of issue of Boyd v . US their fundciones. The executive must not abuse their
were scattered on the floor among which several was as follows (. A ) The cause of continuous Boyd without power, vilando the domicile of the citizen or wrongly
documents; He Olves Lieutenant informed her he was putting into question in the same court for twenty years, seizing their goods and documents; the legislature should
carrying some documents to prove the guilt of her husband; and meanwhile was receiving frequent disapproval in the not pass laws that make it illusory sagrdo home and courts
the June 27, 1946 the appellant filed a motion with the courts of the State ( before , paragraph 2183). ( b ) Then in should punish offenders of the constitution, regardless of
People 's Court pidendo the return of such decumentos the case of Adams v . New York, in 1904, was implicitly whether they are public officials or not. As President
citing as a reason that have been obtained from his rejected by the Federal Supreme Court, and Orthodox Lumpkin said Williams vs . States, 28 SE, 624:
residence without search warrant, and that court, with precedents recorded in the courts of States ( before ,
grave abuse of discretion or excessive jurisdiction and paragraph 2183) were expressly approved (. c ) Then
following the doctrine established in the matter of Alvero depues another twenty years, in 1914, in the cause of
against Dizon rejected it (76 Phil, 637.); that unless the As we understand it, the main, if not the sole, purpose of
Weeks vs US, the Federal Supreme Court moved at this
Court order the Special Prosecutor that the return of the our constitutional inhibitions against unreasonable searches
time not by erroneous history, but by a stray
plaintiff, his contitucionales rights guaranteed by the and seizures, was to place a salutary restriction upon the
sentimentlismo. - stepped back to the original doctrine of
constitution would be violated. And because there is powers of government. That is to say, we believe the
the cause of Boyd, but on one condition , namely that the
another simple, fast and appropriate in the ordinary course framers of the constitutions of the United States and of this
illegality of the search and seizure should first have been
of law remedy, asks the Court ( a ) set aside the order of and other states merely sought to provide against any
directly litigated and settled by a motion made before
the People 's Court of July 9, 1946; ( B ) that the Court is attempt, by legislation or otherwise, to authorize, justify,
trial, for the return of the confiscated things; so that, after
or declare lawful, any unreasonable search or seizure. This
wise restriction was intended to operate upon legislative
bodies, so as to render ineffectual any effort to legalize by "En Com. vs. Dana, 2 Metc., 329. e; Tribunal dijo: "To continue to take our Supreme Court doctrine
statute what the people expressly stipulated could in no "Admitting that the lottery tickets and materials were announced in this decision? We submit that this is a bad
event be made lawful; upon executives, so that no law illegally seized, still this is no legal objection to the rule of law, and our humble opinion, should not adopt our
violative of this constitutional inhibition should ever be admission of them in evidence. If the search warrant where court."
enforced; and upon the judiciary, so as to render it the illegal, or if the officer serving the warrant exceeded his
duty of the courts to denounce as unlawful every authority, the party on whose complaint the warrant
unreasonable search and seizure, whether confessedly issued, or the officer, would be responsible for the wrong
The recurring appointment decisions after some State
without any color of authority, or sought to be justified done. But this is no good reason for excluding the papers
seized, as evidence, if they were pertinent to the issue, as Supreme Courts that have not adopted the doctrine of the
under the guise of legislative sanction. For the misconduct Federal Supreme Court. It is not weird. Each court adopts
of private persons, acting upon their individual they unquestionably were. When papers are offered in
its own discretion. But of the 45 States of the American
responsibility and of their own volition, surely none of the evidence the Court can take no notice how they were
Union - according to Judge Cardozo in his decision rendered
three divisions of government is responsible. If an official, obtained, whether lawfully or unlawfully, nor would
in 1926 in People vs . Defore, 150 NE 585 - fourteen
or a mere petty agent of the state, exceeds or abuses the they form a collateral issue to determine that question."
adopted the heterodox doctrine of Weeks and 31 rejected
authority with which he is clothed, he is to be deemed as it , and according Wigmore, in 1940, fourteen years later,
acting, not for the state, but for himself only; and six States more, 37 in total, including Hawaii and Puerto
therefore he alone, and not the state, should be held The appellant cites the case of Bureau vs . McDowell in the Rico rejected it , maintaining orthodox doctrine . (8
accountable for his acts. If the constitutional rights of a following terms: Wigmore on Evidence, 3. a . Ed . , Pages 5-11) And depues
citizen are invaded by a mere individual, the most that any to consider the various decisions of the two schools,
branch of government can do is to afford the citizen such Cardozo made the pertinent observations on the doctrine
redress as a possible, and bring the wrongdoer to account of Weeks:
for his unlawful conduct. . . . . Certain books, papers, memoranda, etc., of private
property McDowell were stolen by some people who were
interested in research that would practice the Grand Jury
against Mcdowell by certain offense was said to have done We are confirmed in this conclusion when we reflect how
We believe that the authors of the Philippine Constitution this, concerning the fraudulent use mail. These documents far-reaching in its effect upon society the new
have never had the slightest idea to grant immunity from were then delivered to lobros Burdeau by the people who consequences would be. The pettiest peace officer would
prosecution violates the sanctity of the home, or any had rabaod. Burdeau was the Special Assistant to the have it in his power, through over-zeal or indiscretions, to
violator of the criminal law by the mere fact that the Attorney-General of the United States, which would have confer immunity upon an offender for crimes the most
evidence against him have been obtained illegally. Healthy, the direction and control of the United States prolos, which flagitious. A room is searched against the law, and the body
juto and orderly procedure is to be punished in accordance would have the direction and control of the prosecution of a murdered man is found. If the place of discovery may
with Article 128 of the Revised Penal Code the individual before the Grand Jury. McDowell Burdeau try to prevent not be proved, the other circumstances may be insufficient
who, under the guise of pubic official, without mandmiento such books and documents used by a motion he had to connect the defendant with the crime. The privacy of
registration unduly defiles the home of a ciuadano and submitted to that effect. Burdeau opposed the motion, the home has been infringed, and the murder goes free.
seizes his papers and that that citizen also punished if arguing that he was entitled to use these papers. The Another search, once more against the law, discloses
guilty of a crime, no matter if proof of their guilt has been Supreme Court of the United States upheld the contention counterfeit money or the implements of forgery. The
obtained ileglmente. The medium used in the acquisition of of Burdeau, saying: absence of a warrant means the freedom of the forger.
the document does not alter its probative value. So in Like instances can be multiplied.
Stevenson vs . Earnest, 80, Ill. 513, stated: "It is
Contemplated, and such ought ever to be the fact, That
the records of courts remains permanently in the places "We know of no constitutional principal which requires the
Assigned by the law for Their custody It does not logically government to surrender the papers under such Concretemonos to this case. If documenteos whose
follow, however, That the records, being. Obtained, can circumstances. develucion asked the appellant prove their culpabiblidad
not be used as instruments of evidence;. for the mere fact the crime of treason, why the state has to return and save
of (illegally) does not change them Obtaining That Which is him from the accusation? Is not this consent and validate
written in them ... Suppose the presence of a witness to the crime? Is it not a court approval of the commission of
"The papers having come into possession of the government
Have Been procured by fraud or violence, while the party crimes, the violation of the defendant committed by
without a violation of petitioner's rights by governmental
THUS procuring the attendance of the witness would be members of the CIC address and treason committed oppor
authority, we see no reason why the fact that individuals
liable to severe punishment, Surely That Could not be recurring? Such practices encourage crime rather than
unconnected with the government may have wrongfully prevent its commission. In addition, the collection of
urged us Against the competency of the witness. If I Could
taken them, should prevent them from being held for use
not, why Shall a record, , Although illegally taken from ITS documents does not alter its probative value. If it had
in prosecuting an offense where the documents are of brokered a search warrant, the documents would be
proper place of custody and brought` before the Court, but
incriminatory character." (Burdeau vs. McDowell.)
otherwise free from suspicion, be hold incompetent? admissible evidence. No niguna constitutucional disposal or
release the accused legal all criminal ACCOUNTABILITY court? It seems to us rather an independent proceeding to Separate Opinions
because there was no warrant. The vindicta public enforce a civil right in no way Involved in the criminal case.
demands that criminal law offenders are punished. To The right of the defendant is not to exclude the
release the culpabale for the simple fact that the evidence incriminating documents from evidence to civil right in no
YARN, J., concurring:
against has not been obtained legally is legally punish the way Involved in the criminal case. The right of the
crime. defendant is not to exclude the incriminating documents
from evidence, but to recover the possession of articles
Which Were wrongfully taken from him. That right exists I concur, but I would further support the conclusion arrive
entirely apart from any Proposed use of the property by the at by the following additional considerations:
Consider a case: Juan who witnesses a murder, the
State or Whereas it was the invasion of His premises and
murderer gets arrebator the dagger, and with which he the taking of His goods That constituted the offense
ordered to be arrested and per leads him to the presidency
irrespective of what was taken or what use was made of
of the people. Along the way he meets Peter who ITS, and the law Having Declared That the articles taken In April, 1945, when the CIC Detachment of the United
intercedes for the murderer; Juan, for a misunderstood States Army made the search at petitioner's house and
are competent and admissible evidence, notwithstanding
sentimentality, returns the dagger and helps the accused to effect the seizure of his papers and effects mentioned in
the unlawful search and seizure, how can the circumstance
make disappear all traces of the crime not to be the majority decision, as is of general knowledge and
That the court erred in an independent proceeding for the
discovered. John and Peter, not only unworthy acts within the judicial notice of this Court, fighting continued
return of the property on defendant's demand add anything
committed debuena citizenship, but must be punished for in Luzon; in fact, as late as June, 1945, the cannonades
to or detract from the violation of the defendant's
abetting (art. 19, cod. Pen. Rev.) The public never come to and shellings could still be clearly heard in this City of
constitutional rights in the unlawful search and seizure?
understand that these two indivduos should be punished Manila, and there were still units of the Japanese Army
and, instead, a court, under the doctrine of Weeks, may resisting the liberation forces. Under such circumstances,
order the return of the stolen document proving the guilt the war was continuing not only technically but actually in
of a defendant and to free this and that document theft. The Constitutional and the laws of the land are not the island of Luzon; and the military security and safety of
solicitous to aid persons charged with crime in their efforts the liberation forces demanded such measures as were
to conceal or sequester evidence of their iniquity. (8 Wig., adopted by the CIC Detachment of the United States Army
37.) in making said search and effecting said seizure to the end
Another case. For suspicious catadura, a certain Jose is
that the activities of pro-Japanese elements and their
arrested by two policemen to lirigirse to the podium where
chances of effectively aiding the Japanese forces which
are gathered senior officials of the executive, legislative
thus still continued to resist might be brought down to a
and judiciary together with the diplomatic representatives Weeks's theory vs . US not acceptable that subverts the
minimum and, if possible, entirely foiled. The difference
of friendly nations to witness stop anniversary of rules of evidence in this jurisdiction: it is contrary to the
between this case and the case in L-342, (Alvero vs. Dizon,
independence; in your pocket they find a pump that is sense of justice and healthy adminsitracion ordenanda and
43 Off. Gaz., 429), is, to my mind, merely one of degree
capable of flying across the rostrum. Two other policemen, justice. The orthodox doctrine is imposed by its proven
the principle involved is identical in both cases.
after learning of the arrest, confiscate the house of Jose through years muchimos consistency. No need to leave if
and found documents that reveal that received orders of a you want that constitutional rights are respected and not
foreign organization for all staff polverizar high desecrated. The culprits should get their condign
government at the first opportunity. The police have no punishment, although the evidence against them have been
arrest warrant or search warrant. Is it fair that a motion of obtained illegally. 2 And those who in violation of the law
Jose in the criminal case against him, is ordered by the and the Constitution unduly take over such purebas should PERFECT, J., dissenting:
court the return of the documents proving their crime? Is also be punished. This is how the law prevails, majestic and
not anarchism incentive daria with such practice? The court incolume.
would play the sad role of helping those who wish to
Petitioner stands accused of treason before the People's
undermine the foundations of our institutciones. US vs . .
Court, the information against him having been filed by
Snyder, 278 Fed 650, the Court said: "To hold that no
the request is denied with costs. Prosecutor Juan M. Ladaw on February 28, 1946.
criminal can, in any case, be arrested and searched for the
evidence and tokens of His crime without a warrant, would
be to leave society, to a large extent , at the mercy of the
shrewdest, The most expert, and The most depraved of Moran, Pres., Feria, y Padilla, MM., estan conformes. Almost a year before, on April 4, 1945, at about 6:00 p.m.,
criminals, Facilitating Their escape in many instances. " petitioner was arrested by members of the Counter
And in People vs . . (For the return of the articles) is an Tuason, J., concurs in the result. Intelligence Corps of the United States Army at his
incident of the trial, in Such a sense That the ruling residence at 199-A San Rafael St., Manila, without any
thereon goes up on appeal as "Upon what theory can it be warrant of arrest, and taken to the Bilibid Prison at
held That Such proceeding: Mayen, 205 Pac, 435, he said Muntinglupa, where he was detained.
part of the record and subject to review by the appellate
(f) Private correspondence and letters of Dr. obtained by Dr. Moncado while he was studying dancing at
Moncado to and from his Filipino Federation of America in Waldorf-Astoria, New York;
On April 11, 1945, petitioner's wife, who transferred to Hawaii and United States:
their house at 3 Rosario Drive, Quezon City, was
approached by several CIC officers, headed by Lt. Olves,
and ordered to accompany them to the house at San Rafael (o) two (2) volumes of rhumba, zamba and tango obtained
to witness the taking of documents and things belonging to (g) Several law books by Guevara, Albert, Francisco, from Mexico and Argentina by Dr. Moncado." (Pages 3 and
petitioner. Upon hearing from the officers that they did not Harvard Classics (complete set), books on diplomacy, 4, Petition for Certiorari and Injunction.)
have any search warrant for the purpose, she refused to go international law;
with them, but after the officers told her that with or
without her presence they would search the house at San On June 27, 1946, petitioner filed with the People's Court a
Rafael, Mrs. Moncado decide to accompany them. (h) A complete collection of the 'Tribunal' compilation of motion praying that the return of said documents and
the same during occupation until the last day of its things be ordered. The petition was denied on July 9, 1946.
Upon arrival at the house, Mrs. Moncado noticed that their
belongings had been ransacked by American officers and Thereupon, petitioner filed with this Supreme Court on
that the trunks which she had kept in the attic and in the (i) Complete collection of American magazines, from 1940 August 10, 1946, a petition praying that the lower court's
garage when she left the house, had been ripped open and to 1941 Los Angeles Examiner, San Francisco Chronicle, order of July 9, 1946, be set aside, that said court be
their contents scattered on the floor. Lt. Olves informed Los Angeles Evening Herald and newspapers edited and required to order the return of the documents and things in
Mrs. Moncado that they were going to take a bundle of owned by Dr. Moncado and published in the United States; question to petitioner, and that the prosecutor be
documents and things, which were separated from the rest and National Geographic Society; restrained from using and presenting them as evidence at
of the scattered things, because they proved the guilt of the trial of the criminal case for treason.
her husband. Mrs. Moncado protested in vain. No receipt
was issued to her. Subsequently, after making an inventory
of their belongings at San Rafael, Mrs. Moncado found the (j) Personal letters of Dr. Moncado with several
following things missing: members of the United States Senate and Congress of the Before proceeding to consider the question of law raised in
United States including a picture of President Hoover this case, we should not ignore three questions of fact
dedicated to Dr. Moncado; raised in the answers of respondents: at to the identity of
the documents and things, as to whether they were taken
(a) Passes issued by Japanese friends for the personal from the house at San Rafael or from the house at Rosario
safety and conduct of the petitioners; Heights, and as to whether they were taken at the time of
(k) Pictures with personal dedication and autograph to Dr.
petitioner's arrest or later.
and Mrs. Moncado by actors and actresses from Hollywood,
including Mary Astor, Binnie Barnes, Robert Montgomery,
(b) Correspondences of the petitioner as president of the Clark Gable, Gary Cooper, Boris Karloff, Wallace Beery,
Neighborhood Association in Quezon City during the William and Dick Powell, Myrna Loy, Bette Davis and Ceasar The fact that the return of the documents and things were
Japanese occupation; Romero; opposed to in the lower court by the prosecutor, without
disputing their identity, and that in the present proceeding
the prosecutor admits to have them in his possession,
(c) Correspondence of the petitioner with certain Japanese without disputing their identity or correcting any error of
(l) Certificate as first flighter in the Pan-American Airways
officers; description made by petitioner, convinced us that in
and even several stickers issued by Pan American Airways petitioner's and respondent's minds there is no
for passengers' baggage;
disagreement on the identity in question. There should not
be any doubt that the papers and things described and
(d) The personal file and the love letters of Mrs. Moncado claims by petitioner are the ones in the prosecutor's
to Dr. Moncado and vice versa; (m) A promissory note of Dr. Moncado for fifty thousand possession, otherwise, instead of objecting to the return on
pesos (P50,000) in favor of Architect Mr. Igmidio A. legal grounds, he would have alleged that such things are
Marquez of Quezon City; not in his possession, or he does not know where they are,
(e) Marriage certificate of Dr. Moncado with Mrs. Moncado or that they did not exist at all.
issued at Reno, Nevada;
(n) Three (3) volumes of modern ballroom dancing by
Arthur MacMurray of New York, pamphlets of dancing Whether the things were taken at San Rafael or at Rosario
Heights is completely immaterial. The fact is that is that
the reality and existence of things and petitioners' The above are among the elemental questions that must be examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
ownership thereof, are undisputed, and that they were answered in this case, if we are not lacking the moral and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
taken from a house of petitioner. courage to face all the issues raised by the parties. Other describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
questions concern personal liberty as affected by illegal things to be seized.
detention, personal security against illegal searches and
seizures, judicial emancipation from colonial mental
That they were taken not at the time of petitioner's arrest
but much later, is indisputably proved by petitioner's and SEC. 10. Receipt for the property seized. The officer
his wife's depositions not contradicted by any other seizing property under the warrant must give a detailed
evidence. receipt for the same to the person on whom or in whose
Respondents urge us to follow the decision in Alvero vs. possession it was found, or in the absence of any person,
Dizon (L-342), which, besides having been rendered by a must, in the presence of at least two witnesses, leave a
second Supreme Court, whose existence is violative of the receipt in the place in which he found the seized property.
This case offers a conclusive evidence that fundamental
Constitution, cannot claim better merit than a servile
ideas, rules and principles are in constant need of
adherence to a wrong legal doctrine, decorated by the halo
restatement if they are not to lose their vitality. So that of authority of courts of a former metropolis. There are
they may continue radiating the sparks of their truth and SEC. 11. Delivery of property and inventory there of to
minds that forget that duty of thinking by ourselves and of
virtue, they need the repeated pounding of intense not sticking to the teachings of foreign mentors has become court. The officer must forthwith deliver the property to
discussion, as the metal hammered on the anvil. To make the justice of the peace or judge of the municipal court or
more imperative since July 4, 1946.
them glow with all their force, purity and splendor, they of the Court of First Instance which issue the warrant,
need the continuous smelting analysis and synthesis as the together with a true inventory thereof duly verified by
molten iron in a Bessemer furnace. Otherwise, they oath.
become rusty, decayed or relegated as useless scraps in the The seizure of the papers and effects in questions, having
dumping ground of oblivion. What is worse, they are been made without any search warrant, was and is illegal,
frequently replaced by their antitheses, which pose with and was effected in open violation of the following
Even more, the illegality and unconstitutionality amounted
the deceitful dazzle of false gods, clothed in tinsel and provisions of the Constitution:
cellophane. The risks always lurking at every turn of human to two criminal offenses, one of them heavily punished
with prision correccional. The offenses are punished by
life, exacts continuous vigilance. Human minds must always
articles 128 and 130 of the Revised Penal Code, which
be kept well tempered and sharpened as damask swords,
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, reads:
ready to decapitate the hydra of error and overthrow the
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
gilded idols from the muddy pedestals of pretense and
and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall
issue but upon probable cause, to be determine by the
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the 4. ART. 128. Violation of domicile. The penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
any public officer or employee who, not being authorized
May the government profit from an illegality, an particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
by judicial order, shall enter any dwelling against the will
unconstitutional act, or even a crime to serve its aims, persons or things to be seized. (Article III, section 1 [3] of
of the owner thereof, search papers or other effects found
including the loftiest? May justice be administered by the Constitution.)
therein without the previous consent of such owner, or,
making use of the fruits of a lawless action? If a private
having surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and being
individual, when profiting from the fruits of a criminal
offense, is punished by law as an accessory after the fact, required to leave the premises, shall refuse to do so.
The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be
why should the government or an official system of justice
be allowed to ignore and mock the moral principle which inviolable except upon lawful order of the court or when
public safety and order require otherwise. (Article III,
condemns the individual? Is there a moral standard for the If the offense be committed in the nighttime, or if any
government different from the one by which private section 1 [5] of the Constitution.)
papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime be
conduct is measured? While a private citizen is not allowed not returned immediately after the search made by the
to violate any rule of decency and fair play, may the offender, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its
government follow a procedure which shock the common The seizure was also in open violation of sections 3, 10, and medium and maximum periods.
sense of decency and fair play? If a person cannot enrich 11 of Rule 122, which are as follows:
himself with stolen property, why should a government be
allowed to profit and make use of property tainted by theft
or robbery or smeared with the blood of crime? ART. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. The
SEC. 3. Requisites for issuing search warrant. A search penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum
warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause to be periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee
determined by the judge or justice of the peace after who, in cases where a search is proper, shall search the
domicile, papers or other belongings of any persons, in the justify foul means. No one should profit from crime. mere insinuation that a private individual may justifiably
absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their Principles are not to be sacrificed by any purpose. What is profit by the result s of fruits of a criminal offense, they
default, without the presence of two witnesses residing in bad per se cannot be good because it is done to attain a would not measure the government with the same moral
the same locality. good object. No wrong is atoned by good intention. These standard. That the inconsistency may be explained by its
are some of the maxims through which the common sense genesis is no ground why we should surrender to it. To set
of decency and fair play is manifested. two moral standard, a strict one for private individuals and
another vitiated with laxity for the government, is to throw
The main authority upon which respondents rely is the
society into the abyss of legal ataxia. Anarchy and chaos
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in will become inevitable. Such a double standard will
Bordeau vs. MacDowell (256 U.S., 465), the same followed Reason is a fundamental characteristic of man. there is no
necessarily be nomoctonous.
in the decision in Alvero vs. Dizon (L-342). In the Bordeau greater miracle than when its first sparks scintillated in the
case, certain documents were stolen from MacDowell. Upon mind of a child. What before had only the vegetative life of
finding that the documents contained evidence of the a plant or the animal life of a mollusk or frog, suddenly
fraudulent use of the mails by MacDowell, the robbers begins to wield the prodigious power of understanding and The idea of double moral standard is incompatible with the
delivered them to Bordeau, in charge of the prosecution intelligent grasping of the meaning and relations of the temper and idiosyncracy of social order established by our
against MacDowell. The latter filed a motion to prevent things with which he is in direct or remote contact though constitution, and is repugnant to its provisions. all
Bordeau from using the documents as evidence against him. his senses. The power of understanding brings forth the government authority emanates for the people in whom
The federal Supreme Court denied the motion on the freedom of choice. This freedom develops the faculty of sovereignty resides. The Filipino people ordained and
ground that there is no law or constitutional principle discrimination between good and evil. That discrimination promulgated the constitution "in order to established a
requiring the government to surrender papers which may is further developed into a sense of justice. government that shall embody their ideals." Among these
have come into its possession where the government has ideals are justice, democracy, the promotion of social
not violated the constitutional rights of the petitioner. Two justice equal protection of the laws to everybody. Such
of the greatest American Justices, Justices Holmes and ideals are trampled down by the adoption of the double
While the advent of the astounding miracle of reason has so
Brandeis, whose dissenting opinions, written twenty years moral standard which can be taken its place in the ideology
much kindled the pride of men, to the extent of
ago, are now the guiding beacons of the Supreme Court of of the supporters of absolute monarchies. Their is the
symbolizing it wit the fire stolen by Prometeus from the
the United States, dissented, the latter saying: maxim that "the king can do no wrong." The iniquities and
heavens, and of proclaiming himself as the king of the
misery havocked by such maxim would need hundreds or
creation, man had taken millennia of struggles in order to
thousands of volumes to record them. The infamy of
develop the basic ideas which insure his survival and allow Japanese occupation gave our people the bitter taste of
At the foundation of our civil liberty lies the principles him to enjoy the greatest measure of well-being and
the operation of the double moral standard. It is the
which denies to government officials exceptional position happiness. He soon discovered that society is an antithesis of the golden rule. It would place government in
before the law, and which subjects them to the same rules indispensable condition to attain his ends. As a
a category wholly apart from humanity, notwithstanding its
of conduct that commands to the citizen. And in the consequence, he fought against all anti-social ideas and being a human institution, an unredeemable absurdity.
development of our liberty insistence upon procedural conduct and had to discover or invent and then develop the
regularity has been a large factor. Respect for law will not principles and qualities of sociability. The struggle has been
be advanced by resort, in its enforcement, to means which long and it will have to continue until the end of the
shock the common man's sense of decency and fair play. centuries. It is the same eternal struggle between truth and From "Brandeis, A Free Man's Life" by Alpheus Thomas
error, between right and wrong. Mason (pp. 568 and 569), we quote an analogous legal
Taking aside the great intellectual, moral and judicial
prestige of the two dissenters, the poignant logic and rock- While man, in the multifarious ensemble of the universe,
bottom sense of truth expressed by Justice Brandeis is seems to be the lone and exclusive holder of the divine fire "In the famous wire-tapping case Chief Justice Taft,
enough to complete discredit the majority doctrine in the of reason, he had so far failed to find the key to always delivering the opinion, overruled the defendants' claim that
Bordeau case, a doctrine that in principle and by its evil correct thinking. The solution to the failure of reason is the evidence obtained when government agents tapped
effects appears to be irretrievably immoral. riddle yet to be unlocked. Man is easily deceived into their telephone wires violated either unreasonable
committing blunders or led into the most absurd searches and seizures or the constitutional protection
aberrations. The mysterious genes which keep against self-incrimination. No tapped wires entered their
uninterrupted the chain of heredity, while permitting the homes and offices, Taft reasoned, so there was neither
To merit respect and obedience, a government must be
transmission of the best qualities and characteristics, search nor seizure.
just. Justice cannot exist where the good is not
seems to lack the power of checking and staving off the
distinguished from the wicked. To be just, the government
tendencies of atavism. In the moral ctetology, either kind
must be good. to be good it must stick to the principles of
of characteristics and qualities may be originated and
decency and fair play as they are understood by a common "For Justice Brandeis such a narrow construction degraded
developed. The inconsistency of respondents is thus
man's sense, by universal conscience. Good ends do not our great charter of freedom to the level of a municipal
explainable. While they would raise their brows at the
ordinance. Quoting Chief Justice Marshall's famous 'We vs. U.S., 277 [U.S.] 438, [1928], pp. 473-474, 478, 479, destruction. Moral standards are the laws of social life. In a
must never forget that it is a Constitution we are 485.) different plane and order, they are but biological laws,
expounding' he pointed out that just as the power of governing the vital processes and functions of social
Congress had by judicial interpretation been kept abreast organism. They are and should be uniform and universal
of scientific progress, and extended the Fundamental Law and no single unit or organ of human society can disregard
The argument that goods and personal properties illegally
to objects of which the Founding Fathers never dreamed, them or any one of them without alluring catastrophic
taken, stolen, or snatched from the owner of possessor
so also must the judges in construing limitations on the consequences.
without a duly issued search warrant can be retained by
powers of Congress be ever mindful of changes brought
about by discovery and invention. To have a living the prosecution for use as evidence in a criminal case
instituted is initiated by an original and basic flaw. The
Constitution, limitations on power no less than grants of
power must be construed broadly. 'Subtler and more far- argument rests on the assume existence or commission of a Our decision is to grant all the prayers of the petition, and
crime as its minor premise. but, under the orderly it was so ever since February 24, 1947, when this Court
reaching means of invading privacy have become available
to the government,' Brandies observed. ... The progress of processes of law, the assumption has yet to be proved, and took the vote for the disposal of this case. In stating this
it is impossible to be proved before it can be of any use to fact we do not want to put any blame on the distinguished
science in furnishing the government with means of
support and clinch the argument. The prosecution is called member who penned the decision now to be promulgated.
espionage is not likely to stop with wire-tapping. Ways may
upon to make the assumption that the goods and properties In justice to him, we may record that the drafting of the
some day be developed by which the government, without
in question are evidence of a crime. To be valid, the majority decision was transferred and entrusted to him
removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them
assumption has to presuppose the commission or existence many months after a final vote had been taken on the case,
in court, and by which it will be enabled to expose to a
of the crime. That presupposition, in order to be valid, and it did not take him more than a month to have ready
jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. . . .
must in turn stand on an authoritative pronouncement the majority opinion. In exposing the fact we mean only to
which can only be made in a final and executory decision emphasize the crying need of changing a situation or a
rendered by a court of justice. The prosecution cannot system of procedure that permits the promulgation of our
"'Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. make a conclusive pronouncement, as to the existence or decisions one year or more after a case has been submitted
For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by example. commission of a crime, the basic fact which, under the to us for final action. It is only part of the crusade to
Crime is contagious. If government becomes a law-breaker, argument, will entitled the prosecution to retain and use curtail judicial delay which we felt our duty to engaged in
it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become the goods and properties in question. The argument since it had been our privilege to sit in the Supreme Court,
a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in assumes a fact the existence of which still remains to be whose vantage in the legal field imposes upon the members
the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the proved and continues to be enveloped in the mists of the thereof the role of leadership in legal thought and practice
means to declare that the government may commit realm of uncertainties, which fact may lead to the disputed for the most effective administration of justice.
crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private right of the prosecution to retain the goods and properties
criminal would bring terrible retribution. . . . illegally seized as essential evidence of the crime. The line
of reasoning the build up the argument can be restated in
more abstract terms as follows: justify the means by their
necessity to attain an end by starting from the premise that BENGZON, J., dissenting:
"'The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure
the end was accomplished. Such a reasoning process is
conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness,' he
fundamentally subversive to logic and is incompatible with
emphasized. "They recognized the significance of man's
the natural workings of the human mind.
spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. they Sanctity of the home is a by-word anywhere, anytime. The
knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure, and house of man was the first house of God.
satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They
sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, The rules governing the phenomena of diffusion and
their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred, as osmosis, of permeability and isotonic equilibrium, of
against the government, the right to be let alone the assimilation and waste dislodgment, of development and In Rome the citizen's dwelling was a safe asylum. Invasion
most comprehensive of right and the right most valued by reproduction, like all laws of life, are uniform and thereof was anathema. Down through the centuries respect
civilized men. . . . universal. Whether in the nuclear chromatin or the for men's abodes has remained a heritage of civilization.
cytosome of a single protoplasmic cell of amoeba or in the
sinews of the heaviest marsupial, whether in the formation
of the smallest bud or in the formation of the smallest bud
"'Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to In England, the poorest man could in his cottage, defy all
or in the display of color and aroma by the most beautiful
protect liberty when the government's purpose are the forces of the Crown. "It may be frail; it is roof may
flower, whether in the development of a frog or in the
beneficent. Me born to freedom are naturally alert to repel shake; the wind may blow through it, the storm may enter;
attainment of the perfect curves and velvety skin of a
invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest the rain may be enter; but the King England may not enter;
lovely girl, the uniformity and universality of biological
dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined
laws are manifested unrelentlessly. Any disregard of them
zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding.'" (Olmstead tenement." His home was indeed his castle.
is fatal, and will lead to irretrievable disaster and
in his favor, to prevent gradual encroachment or stealthy U.S., 116 U.S., 616 and Gould vs. U.S., 225 U.S., 298,
depreciation of such fundamental rights. (State vs. Custer which the majority of this Court would now discard and
And in the United States: "The right of the citizen to County, 198 Pac., 362; State vs. McDaniel, 231 Pac., 965; overrule. (Aruego op. cit. Vol. I, P. 160; Vol., II, pp. 1043,
occupy and enjoy his home, however mean or humble, free 237 Pac., 373.) 1044.)
from arbitrary invasion and search, has for centuries been
protected with the most solicitous care. . . .

Our constitution in its Bill of Rights decrees that "the right Therefore, it is submitted, with tall due respect, that we
of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, are not at liberty now to select between two conflicting
"The mere fact that a man is an officer, whether of high or and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures theories. The selection has been made by the
low degree, gives him no more right than is possessed by shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon Constitutional Convention when it impliedly chose to abide
the ordinary private citizen to break in upon the privacy of probable cause, to be determined by the judge after by the Federal decisions, upholding to the limit the
a home and subject its occupants to the indignity of a examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant inviolability of man's domicile. Home! The tie that binds,
search for the evidence of crime, without a legal warrant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly the affection that gives life, the pause that soothes, all
procured for that purpose. No amount of incriminating describing the place to be searched, and the persons or nestle there in an atmosphere of security. Remove that
evidence, whatever its source, will supply the place of such things to be seized. (Constitution, Article III, section 1 [3].) security and you destroy the home.
warrant. At the closed door of the home, be it place or
hovel, even bloodhounds must wait till the law, by
authoritative process, bids it open. . . . " (McLurg vs.
Brenton, 123 Iowa, 368, quoted in 20 Phil., 473.) This is an improvement over the provisions of the Jones Under this new ruling the "King's forces" may now "cross the
Law regarding warrants and seizures. It was designed to threshold of the ruined tenement" seize the skeleton from
make our Constitution "conform entirely" to the Fourth the family closet and rattle it in public, in court, to the
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. (Aruego, Framing of vexation or shame of the unhappy occupants. That those
Logical culmination and practical application of the above the Philippine Constitution, Vol., II, p. 1043.) forces may be jailed for trespass, is little consolation. That
principles embodied in our Organic Laws, is the ruling we those forces may be pardoned by the King, their master,
announced in Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas, suggests fearful possibilities. The sanctuary, the castle, are
64 Phil., 33, that documents unlawfully seized in a man's gone with the wind.
home must be returned irrespective of their evidentiary The split between several State Supreme Courts on one
value provided seasonable motions are submitted. We side and the Federal Supreme Court on the other, about
followed the Federal rule in Boyd vs. U.S, 116 U.S., 616 and the admissibility of evidence obtained through illegal
many others. We had said before that "it is better searches and seizures, was familiar to this Court (People An opinion of Mr. Justice Cardozo in the Court of Appeals of
oftentimes that crimes should be unpunished than that the vs. Carlos, 47 Phil., 626, 630) before it voted to adopt the New York is cited as authority for the majority view
citizen should be liable to have his premises invaded, his Federal doctrine in Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance of (People vs. Defore, 150 N.E., 585). Yet it is markworthy
desk broken open, his private books, letters, and papers Tayabas, supra. that, in New York, protection against unreasonable
exposed to prying curiosity, ... under the direction of a searches and seizures is not promised by the Constitution of
mere ministerial officer" ... insensitive perhaps to the the State but by a mere statute. (Civil Rights of Law.) (See
rights and feelings of others. (U.S. vs. De los Reyes and the same case, and 56 C.J., p. 1156.) New York is the only
This last doctrine, applied in several subsequent cases
Esguerra, 20 Phil., 472, citing Cooley, Constitutional state that denies this privilege the status of a
(People vs. Sy Juco, 64 Phil., 667; Rodriguez vs. Villamil, 37
Limitations.) constitutional prerogative. (Supra.) Hence the precedent is
Off. Gaz., 2416) was probably known to the Constitutional
obviously inconclusive.
Convention that, the addition, made the Constitutional
mandate on the point more complete and explicit, copying
In the Alvarez decision we reflected that "of all rights of a exactly the wording of the Federal Constitution, a
citizen few are of greater importance or more essential to circumstance which, coupled with the citation of Boyd vs. Moreover, admitting, for purposes of argument only, that
his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, U.S., showed adherence to the Federal doctrine that the Alvarez decision is legally erroneous, I maintain that
and that involves the exemption of his private affairs, debars evidence obtained by illegal search or unlawful the new doctrine should apply to future cases not to
books, and papers from the inspection and scrutiny of seizure. herein petitioner who had relied on it. In Santiago and
others," and while the power to search and seize is Flores vs. Valenzuela, No L-670, April 30, 1947 (44 Off.
necessary to public welfare, still it mist be exercised Gaz., 3291, 3296) I argued for that proposition as follows:
without transgressing the constitutional rights of citizens, It is significant that the Convention readily adopted the
because the enforcement of statutes is never sufficiently recommendation of the Committee on Bill of Rights after
important to justify violation of the basic principles of its Chairman had spoken, explaining the meaning and . . . The reserved right to upset previous decisions is
government. It is agreed that the fundamental rights of the extent of the provision on searches and seizures and likewise qualified by the proposition that such upsetting
individual guaranteed by the Constitution, must be given specifically invoking the United States decisions of Boyd vs. shall have prospective not retroactive effect.
such a liberal construction of strict construction as will be
I disagree with the paper. I consider that the solicitude 1 Moschzisker, Stare Decisis in Courts of Last Resort, 39
submitted by the appellant should be granted. I think in Harvard Law Review 409; Freeman, Retroactive Operation
In Douglass vs. Pike Country, 101 U.S. 677 at p. 687, it was this jurisdiction must to rally to the jurisprudence on the of Decisions, 18 Col. Law Review 230; Kocourek
declared, "The true rule (of stare decisis) is to give a issue of Weeks vs . US cited in the decision of the majority. Retrospective Decisions and Stare Decisis, 17 A. B. A.
change of judicial construction ... the same effect in its Journal 180; Effect of Overruled and Overruling Decisions
operation" ... as to "a legislative amendment, i.e., make it on Intervening Decisions, 47 Harvard Law Review 1403;
prospective but not retroactive." Retroactive Effect of an Overruling Decision, 42 Yale L.J.
If in a democracy like the United States - already mature
779; Retrospective Operation of Overruling Decisions, 35
and well solidficada, strengthened by a tradition of Ill. Law Review 121; Precedent in Legal Systems, Mich. Law
centuries of respect for individual and civil liberties and
And in Great Northern R. Co. vs. Sunburst Oil & Ref. Co., Review, Vol. 44, p. 955 et. seq.
the even-tempered and calm so admirable as the Anglo-
287 U.S., 358, the Supreme Court, through Mr. Justice Saxon race - it was considered necessary to ensure the
Cardozo, said: privileges of the citizen under the breastplate of such a
doctrine, more reason we have and ensure these
guarantees in a democracy like ours, young, barely doing
"A state in defining the limits of adherence to precedent the initial steps in the path of political independence, and
may make a choice for itself between the principle of where demagoguery and anarchy and dangerous to the
forward operation and that of relation backward. It may establishment of freedom won so many trends coast.
say that decisions of its highest court, though later
overruled, are law none the less for intermediate
transactions. Indeed there are cases intimating, too Paras, M., compliant.
broadly (cf. Tidal Oil Co. vs. Flanagan, 263 U.S., 444; 68
Law. ed., 382; 44 S Ct., 197, supra), that it must give them
that effect; but never has doubt been expressed that it
may so treat them if it pleases, whenever injustice or
hardship will thereby be averted Gelpcke vs. Dubuque, 1
Wall., 175; 17 Law. ed., 25; Douglass vs. Pike Country, 101
U. S 677, 687; 25 Law. ed., 968, 971; Loeb vs. Columbia
Twp. 179 U. S., 472, 492; 45 Law, ed., 280, 290, 21 S. Ct.,
174, etc." PAUL, M .:

This view is not unanimous, I know. However, inasmuch as 1 See decisions of England, Canada, the States of Alabama,
one of the principal arguments of the opposing school of Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
thought is that it makes the overruling decision a mere Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
"declaratory judgment", and since that objection is Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
untenable in this jurisdiction where declaratory relief is Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
permitted (Rule 66), the view herein advocated future York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina,
operation only future operation only should all the South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utach, Vermont,
more be acceptable to our system of jurisprudence. More Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming, Hawaii and Puerto
about this in the future, if I should happen to agree to an Rico cited by the author in 8 Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd
overruling of previous decisions and the question should Ed., pages 5-11.
hinge on its backward or forward application. For the
present, enough to note some of the abundant literature on
the point.1
2 Barton contra Leyte Asphalt & Mineral Oil Co., 46 Jur.
Fil., 973.

Briones, M., dissenting: PERFECT, J. , dissenting: