You are on page 1of 2

Bache v Ruiz

Vera, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue wrote a letter to


Judge Ruiz requesting for the issuance of a search warrant
against Bache & Co., Inc., a corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the Philippines for violation of Sec.
46(a) of the National Revenue Code in relation with Secs. 53,
72, 73, 208 and 209
De Leon was authorized by Vera to make and file for the
application for the search warrant.
De Leon and his witness Logronio when to the court to apply.
Judge Ruiz instructed his deputy clerk of court to take the
depositions of De Leon and Logronio. And later instructed the
stenographer to read to him the stenographic notes.
The Judge then asked the Logronio to take the oath and warned
him that in case his deposition was found to be false, he could
be charged for perjury.
Subsequenty, a search warrant was signed and issued by Judge
Ruiz
The BIR agents then served the search warrant on petitioners at
the offices of petitioner corporation on Ayala Ave., Makati,
Rizal.
But petitioners lawyers protested the search arguing that there
was no formal complaint or transcript of testimony attached.
But the agents proceeded with the search and took 6 boxes of
documents.
petitioners filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of
Rizal praying that the search warrant be quashed, dissolved or
recalled, that preliminary prohibitory and mandatory writs of
injunction be issued, that the search warrant be declared null
and void, and that the respondents be ordered to pay
petitioners, jointly and severally, damages and attorneys fees
DISMISSED.
ISSUE: Should the SW be null and void? YES
HELD:YES.Judgeshouldhavedeterminedtheprobablecause.

RATIO:
LAWS:
(3)Therightofthepeopletobesecureintheirpersons,houses,
papersandeffectsagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizuresshallnot
beviolated,andnowarrantsshallissuebutuponprobablecause,tobe
determinedbythejudgeafterexaminationunderoathoraffirmationof
thecomplainantandthewitnesseshemayproduce,andparticularly
describingtheplacetobesearched,andthepersonsorthingstobe
seized."(Art.III,Sec.1,Constitution.)
SEC.3.Requisitesforissuingsearchwarrant.Asearchwarrant
shallnotissuebutuponprobablecauseinconnectionwithonespecific
offensetobedeterminedbythejudgeorjusticeofthepeaceafter
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesseshemayproduce,andparticularlydescribingtheplacetobe
searchedandthepersonsorthingstobeseized.
"Nosearchwarrantshallissueformorethanonespecificoffense.
"SEC.4.Examinationoftheapplicant.Thejudgeorjusticeofthe
peacemust,beforeissuingthewarrant,personallyexamineonoathor
affirmationthecomplainantandanywitnesseshemayproduceand
take their depositions in writing, and attach them to the record, in
additiontoanyaffidavitspresentedtohim."(Rule126,RevisedRules
ofCourt.)
The examination of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce,requiredbyArt.III,Sec.1,par.3,oftheConstitution,andby
Secs.3and4,Rule126oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,shouldbe
conductedbythejudgehimselfandnotbyothers.
Personal examination by the judge of the complainant and his
witnessesisnecessarytoenablehimtodeterminetheexistenceornon
existenceofaprobablecausepursuanttoArt.III,Sec.1,par.3,ofthe
Constitution,andSec.3,Rule126oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,both
of which prohibit the issuance of warrants except "upon probable

cause."

taxesatsource).

Inthecaseatbar,nopersonalexaminationatallwasconductedby
respondentJudgeofthecomplainant(respondentDeLeon)andhis
witness(respondentLogronio).Whileitistruethatthecomplainants
applicationforsearchwarrantandthewitnessprintedformdeposition
weresubscribedandsworntobeforerespondentJudge,thelatterdid
not ask either of the two any question the answer to which could
possibly be the basis for determining whether or not there was
probablecauseagainsthereinpetitioners

oThethirdistheviolationofSec.208(unlawfulpursuitofbusiness
oroccupation);

AfterrespondentJudgewasthroughwiththehearing,DeputyClerk
Gonzales, stenographer Gaspar, complainant De Leon and witness
LogroniowenttorespondentJudgeschamberandinformedtheJudge
that they had finished the depositions. Respondent Judge then
requestedthestenographertoreadtohimherstenographicnotes.

oandthefourthistheviolationofSec.209(failuretomakeareturn
ofreceipts,sales,businessorgrossvalueofoutputactuallyremovedor
topaythetaxduethereon).
[THE SEARCH WARRANT DOES NOT PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBETHETHINGSTOBESEIZED]Thedescriptiondoesnot
meettherequirementinArtIII,Sec.1,oftheConstitution,andofSec.
3,Rule126oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,thatthewarrantshould
particularlydescribethethingstobeseized.

In the Stonehill case only the officers of the various


corporations inwhoseoffices documents,papers andeffects
weresearchedandseizedwerethepetitioners.Whereininthat
case, the corporate officers were the one who invoked the
seizure in their individual capacity. And such right only
belongs to the corporations to whom the seized effects
belong.

In the case at bar, the corporation to whom the seized


documents belong, and whose rights have thereby been
impaired,isitselfapetitioner.

TheparticipationofrespondentJudgeintheproceedingswhichledto
the issuance of Search Warrant No. 2M70 was thus limited to
listeningtothestenographersreadingsofhernotes,toafewwordsof
warningagainstthecommissionofperjury,andtoadministeringthe
oathtothecomplainantandhiswitness.Thiscannotbeconsidera
personalexamination.
OTHER ISSUES [SEARCH WARRANT: ISSUED FOR MORE
THANONEOFFENSEinvalid]Thesearchwarrantinquestionwas
issuedforatleastfourdistinctoffensesundertheTaxCode.

o ThefirstistheviolationofSec.46(a),Sec.72andSec.73(the
filingofincometaxreturns),whichareinterrelated.
o ThesecondistheviolationofSec.53(withholdingofincome

Note:
The search warrant was also declared void because Judge Ruiz
failed to personally examine the complaint and his witness, the
search warrant was issued for more than 1 specific offense and
the search warrant does not particularly describe the things to
be seized.

You might also like