Alvarez vs CFI he found them to be correct and true to the best of his

Facts: knowledge and belief. The court ruled that it appears

The chief of the secret service of the Anti-Usury that the affidavit, which served as the exclusive basis of
Board, presented to Judge David of the CFI the search warrant, is insufficient and fatally defective
Tayabas an affidavit alleging that according to by reason of the manner in which the oath was made,
reliable information Alvarez the petitioner kept and therefore, it is hereby held that the search warrant
in his house books, documents, receipts, lists, in question and the subsequent seizure of the books,
chits and other papers used by him in documents and other papers are illegal.
connection with his activities as a money-
lender, charging usurious rates of interest in Asian Surety vs Herrera
violation of the law. In his oath at the end of the Facts:
affidavit, the chief of the secret service 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.
Upon the affidavit, the judge issued a warrant
ordering the search of Alvarezs house at any
time of the day or night and the seizure of the
books and documents mentioned.
With the said warrant, the agents of the Anti-
Usury Board entered Alvarezs house at 7:00
PM and seized and took possession of the
internal revenue licenses, ledgers, journals and
other accounting books, bankbooks, promissory
notes and other documents.
Alvarez now questions the validity of the said
warrant. He contended that said warrant was
invalid because it was based upon the affidavit
of the agent who had no personal knowledge of
the facts, that it was issued without the
affidavits of other witnesses, and there was no
adequate description of the books and
documents to be seized.

Issue: WON the warrant was valid?

Ruling:
NO, the warrant was not valid because the
affidavit in which the warrant was solely based was
from an agent who did not have any personal
knowledge of the facts. According to the agent, the
facts were just reported to him by a person whom he
considered to be reliable, and in attesting the truth of
his statements contained in the affidavit, he stated that