Alvarez vs. CFI G.R. No.

45358, January 29, 1937 Facts: The Anti-Usury Board, presented to the Court according to reliable information, the petitioner kept in his house in Infanta, Tayabas, documents used by him in connection with his activities as a money-lender, charging usurious rates of interest in violation of the law. In his oath the chief stated that his answers to the questions were correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. He did not swear to the truth of his statements upon his own knowledge of the facts but upon the information received by him from a reliable person. The judge then issued the warrant, ordering the search of the petitioner's house at any time of the day or night. With said warrant, several agents of the Anti-Usury Board entered the petitioner's store and residence at seven o'clock on the night and seized and took possession of the all documents of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the warrant be declared illegal and set aside, and prays that all the articles in question be returned to him. Issue: Is the search warrant herein illegally issued? Held: YES.The search and seizure made are illegal for the following reasons: (a) the warrant was based solely upon the affidavit of the petitioner who had NO personal knowledge of the facts necessary to determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause, and also that the warrant was issued for the sole purpose of seizing evidence which would later be used in the criminal proceedings that might be instituted against the petitioner. Further, the warrant had been issued unreasonably, and as it does not appear positively in the affidavit that the articles were in the possession of the petitioner and in the place indicated, neither could the search and seizure be made at night. Although it is not mandatory to present affidavits of witnesses to corroborate the applicant or complainant in cases where the latter has personal knowledge of the facts, when the applicant's or complainant's knowledge of the facts is merely hearsay, it is the duty of the judge to require affidavits of other witnesses so that he may determine whether probable cause exist. Lastly, a detailed description of the person and place to be searched and the articles to be seized is necessary, but where, by the nature of the articles 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.