People v. Rubio (1932)

People v. Rubio (1932)

Topic: Unlawful Searches and Seizures, Validity of Search Warrant

PARTIES:

·       Appellant: Jose Rubio

·       Appellee: People of the PH Islands

FACTS:

·       Sec. 1434 of the Admin Code grants police power to internal revenue agents. Acting pursuant to this authority, the Chief Secret Service Agent and Supervising Agent of the BIR gave a testimony under oath before Judge Revilla in which they specified the premises situated in Binondo, occupied by Jose Rubio (manager of Simplex Trading Corporation) that the same had fraudulent books, invoices and records.

·       The agents said that such info had been reported by a reliable source and that they had personally watched the house for several times, thus having probable cause that the prohibited fraudulent books, invoices and records exist in the said house.

·       The search warrant was issued in Dec. 26, 1930. On the same day, BIR agents proceeded to the place indicated in the warrant, searched the premises and took the books, invoices and documents belong to Simplex Trading Corporation.

·       Rubio filed motion to quash the warrant and to declare it null and void which was denied.

·       Particular portions of the Organic Act and Code of Criminal Procedure were relied upon.

ISSUES/HOLDING:

1.     W/N the warrants were illegal and void for the failure to observe the Constitutional and statutory requirements

·       NO. Rubio’s contention that the search warrant was issued without the complainants or any of the witnesses having been examined, is untenable

·       The depositions speak for themselves. The verified statements of the two BIR agents and the warrant issued by the COFI Manila l describe the property sought to be seized as “fraudulent books, invoices and records.”

·       While it is true that the property to be seized under a warrant must be particularly described therein and no other property can be taken, the description is required to be specific only insofar as the circumstances will ordinarily allow. It has been held that, where, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather general, it is not required that a technical description be given, as this would mean that no warrant could issue.

2.     W/N the lower court erred in not holding that the seizure of Rubio’s books and papers was made solely for the purpose of using them as evidence against him in a criminal procedure and was, therefore, unlawful.

·       Question: Were Rubio’s books, invoices and records seized SOLELY for use as evidence of the crime of which he was accused or suspected? – or were the books, invoices, and records seized in order to prevent the further perpetration of fraud?

·       Trial Court: “The search and seizure in this case were made under the provisions of internal revenue laws and the authority of a search warrant, and not for the purpose of obtaining evidence, but with a view to seize the instruments used in the violation of said laws committed by the defendant.”

·       The seizure was made with the object of preventing the use of books of account, documents and papers in the commission of further offenses or fraud against the gov’t.

JUDGMENT:

·       Judgment AFFIRMED.

No constitutional right of the appellant was violated; the letter of the law was followed, and the order of the trial judge was correct in all particulars.