CRIM PRO RULE 126 SEARCHES AND SEIZURE

ASIAN SURETY and INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., G.R. No. L-25232

vs. Date: December 20, 1973

HON. JOSE HERRERA, as Judge, City Court of Ponente:
Manila, NBI Agent CELSO J. ZOLETA, JR. and
MANUEL CUARESMA,
ASIAN SURETY and INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., HON. JOSE HERRERA, as Judge, City Court of
petitioner Manila, NBI Agent CELSO J. ZOLETA, JR. and
MANUEL CUARESMA, respondent

FACTS

On October 27, 1965, respondent Judge Herrera, upon the sworn application of NBI agent Celso Zoleta, Jr.
supported by the deposition of his witness, Manuel Cuaresma, issued a search warrant in connection with
an undocketed criminal case for estafa, falsification, insurance fraud, and tax evasion, against the Asian
Surety and Insurance Co. commaning to make an immediate search at any time in the ----- of the premises
seize and take possession of the following personal property to wit: Fire Registers, Loss Bordereau,
Adjusters Report including subrogation receipt and proof of loss, Loss Registers, Books of Accounts,
including cash receipts and disbursements and general ledger, check vouchers, income tax returns, and
other papers connected therewith ... for the years 1961 to 1964.
Armed with the search warrant Zoleta and other agents assigned to the Anti-graft Division of the NBI
entered the premises of the Republic Supermarket Building and served the search warrant upon Atty. Alidio
of the insurance company, in the presence of Mr. William Li Yao, president and chairman of the board of
directors of the insurance firm. After the search they seized and carried away two (2) carloads of
documents, papers and receipts.
Petitioner assails the validity of the search warrant, claiming that it was issued in contravention of the
explicit provisions of the Constitution and the Rules of Court, particularly Section 3, of Art. IV of the
onstitution, and Sections 3, 5, 8 and 10 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE/S

Whether the search and seizure conducted was valid

RATIO

NO.

1. In the case at bar, the search warrant was issued for four separate and distinct offenses of : (1) estafa, (2)
falsification, (3) tax evasion and (4) insurance fraud, in contravention of the explicit command of Section 3, Rule
126, of the Rules providing that: "no search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense."
2. The property to be searched and seized, viz: Fire Registers, Loss Bordereau, Adjusters Report, including
subrogation receipts and proof of loss, Loss Registers, Books of Accounts including cash receipts and
disbursements and general ledger, etc. are not contraband goods, stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits
of one and the same offense. What is plain and clear is the fact that the respondent Judge made no attempt to
determine whether the property he authorized to be searched and seized pertains specifically to any one of the
three classes of personal property that may be searched and seized under a search warrant under Rule 126, Sec. 2
of the Rules. The respondent Judge simply authorized search and seizure under an omnibus description of the
personal properties to be seized.
3. The search warrant violated the specific injunctions of Section 8 of Rule 126. 6 Annex "A" of the Petition which is
the search warrant in question left blank the "time" for making search, while actual search was conducted in the
evening of October 27, 1965, at 7:30 p.m., until the wee hours of the morning of October 28, 1965, thus causing
untold inconveniences to petitioners herein. Authorities are of the view that where a search is to be made during the
night time, the authority for executing the same at that time should appear in the directive on the face of the warrant.

RULING

petition is GRANTED; the search warrant of October 27, 1965, is nullified and set aside, and the respondents
are rdered to return immediately all documents, papers and other objects seized or taken

2S 2016-17 (LUMIO)