Facts: Anti Usury Law
Issue: Whether the issuance of the warrant of search and seizure was valid
Held: No, In the instant case the existence of probable cause was determined not by the judge himself but by the applicant. All that the judge did was to accept as true the affidavit made by agent Almeda. He did not decide for himself. It does not appear that he examined the applicant and his witnesses, if any. Even accepting the description of the properties to be seized to be sufficient and on the assumption that the receipt issued is sufficiently detailed within the meaning of the law, the properties seized were not delivered to the court which issued the warrant, as required by law. instead, they were turned over to the respondent provincial fiscal and used by him in building up cases against the petitioner. Considering that at the time the warrant was issued there was no case pending against the petitioner, the averment that the warrant was issued primarily for exploration purposes is not without basis. The lower court is, therefore, correct in reaching the conclusion that the search warrant was illegally issued by the justice of the peace of Tarlac, Tarlac.
One thought on “Pasion Vda. De Garcia vs. Locsin G.R. No. L-45950, June 20, 1938 65 Phil 68 (1938)”