GR L 20749; (July, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20749 and G.R. No. L-20823, July 30, 1965
Case Parties:
ROBERTO S. OCA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. LAURO MAIQUEZ, Presiding Judge of the Night Branch, Municipal Court of Manila, ET AL., respondents.
ASSOCIATED WORKERS CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HON. LAURO MAIQUEZ, Judge of the Municipal Court of Manila, Night Branch, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
1. On November 27, 1962, the Legal Officer of the Department of Labor applied for search warrants in the Municipal Court of Manila, targeting Room 512, Garcia and Boston Sts., Port Area, Manila.
2. The application, under oath, alleged that officers of the Philippines Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO) and the Associated Workers Union (AWU) had in their possession books of accounts and papers used or intended for committing misappropriation of union funds, falsification, and violation of labor laws. The items to be seized were specifically described.
3. The depositions of two Department of Labor agents, based on personal knowledge, were taken.
4. Presiding Judge Lauro Maiquez issued the search warrants around midnight of November 27, 1962.
5. On November 28, 1962, law enforcement agents executed the warrants, seized documents from the specified premises, and filed an inventory with the court.
6. On November 29, 1962, a private car loaded with sacks of documents from Transport Hall was intercepted by police. As the documents were related to the prior seizure, they were turned over to the same team, and an inventory was made.
7. On December 3, 1962, the Department of Labor officer filed criminal charges against the union officers before the City Fiscal of Manila.
8. On December 4, 1962, the union officers filed a petition in the Municipal Court to quash the search warrants and recover the seized items. On the same day, the Associated Workers Consumers Cooperative Association, Inc. and the Associated Workers Cooperative Credit Union, Inc. filed a separate petition alleging the documents seized from the car belonged to them and seeking their return.
9. The Municipal Court denied both petitions on December 14, 1962.
10. Petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus were filed with the Supreme Court: G.R. No. L-20749 (challenging the seizure from Garcia Building and Transport Hall) and G.R. No. L-20823 (seeking return of items taken from the private car).
ISSUE
1. In G.R. No. L-20749: Whether the search warrants were validly issued, specifically concerning (a) the procedure followed by the judge in examining witnesses and issuing the warrants, and (b) whether the warrants were general warrants.
2. In G.R. No. L-20823: Whether the seizure of documents from the private car was legal and whether said documents should be returned.
RULING
1. Regarding G.R. No. L-20749: The petition is denied. The search warrants were validly issued.
* On Procedure: The judge complied with legal requirements. The affidavits were subscribed and sworn to before him, and he personally examined the affiants to determine probable cause. Neither the Rules of Court nor the Constitution requires the judge to personally type the affidavits or warrants. The purpose of the examination was satisfied, as held in Alvarez vs. CFI of Tayabas.
* On the Warrants’ Specificity: The warrants were not general. They amply met the requirement of particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized, as they detailed the articles and specified the buildings and addresses.
Note:* The Court applied the Old Rules of Court (Rule 122), as the case arose under them, but noted that the Revised Rules (Rule 126, effective 1964) now require a warrant to be in connection with one specific offense.
2. Regarding G.R. No. L-20823: The petition is dismissed for being moot and academic.
* The respondents had offered to return the seized documents to the petitioners as early as January 24, 1963, and maintained that offer. Therefore, the issue of return became moot.
* The issue of their use as evidence need not be resolved, as the return would place the evidence in the petitioners’ possession.
DISPOSITIVE:
The petition in G.R. No. L-20749 is denied, with costs against petitioners. The petition in G.R. No. L-20823 is dismissed for being moot and academic, and respondents are ordered to immediately return the properties taken, without costs.