Pasion Vda. De Garcia vs. Locsin G.R. No. L-45950, June 20, 1938 65 Phil 68 (1938)

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)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: