Frank Uy & Unifish Packing Corp.

v BIR  Acting on these warrants, BIR agents

seized the records and documents of
Unifish
Facts:

 Rodrigo Abos, a former Operating Chief of

Unifish, reported to the BIR that petitioners
are committing acts in violation of the
National Internal Revenue Code
o Selling by the thousands cartons
of canned sardines without
issuing receipts
o Selling of imported oil and cans to
local customers, when these
exempted from tax on the condition
that they are to be used in the
manufacturing of tuna for export
 Nestor Labaria, Asst. Chief of the Special
Investigation Branch of the BIR applied for
search warrants, which the RTC Judge
Gozo issued for violation of Sec 153 of the
NIRCode
 A second warrant was issued, almost
identical to the first, except for the city
address (changed from Cebu City to
Mandaue City), and the addition of “alias
Frank Uy”
 A third warrant was issued for violations of
Sec 238 of the NIRCode. Aside from this, it
was identical to the first two warrants
issued
Issue: Whether or not the search warrant is valid, incorrectly, it is not a defect so fatal that it
considering the facts that there are: A) voids the whole warrant
inconsistencies with the description of place to be
searched; B) inconsistencies with the names of
the persons against whom the warrants were
issued; C) two warrants issued for the same
crime, same place and same occasion; D) doubts
as to existence of probable cause; and E) doubts
as to particularity of description of the things to
be seized.

Ruling:
A. Place to be searched
 It was not shown that there were two
“Hernan Cortes St.” in Cebu and Mandaue;
further, the officers tasked with the search
had no difficulty in locating the place to be
searched, and was able to distinguish the
same from all other places in the
community. Hence, it satisfied the
constitutional requirement in particularity of
the place to be searched.
B. Persons named in the warrant

 When the search is for specifically

described premises and not for the search
of a person, the failure to name such
person does not invalidate the search
warrant; even if the person is named
C. Two warrants for the same crime, place and places, with accompanying sketches,
occasion and providing photocopied
documents which prove the violations
 The second search warrant was issued being committed by the company
merely for the purpose of correction; it was
an attempt of the Judge to be more precise
in the parties whom the warrant was issued
against, and the place to be searched
 Regarding the first two warrants, which
were issued for the same crime, place and
occasion, the first warrant should be
deemed revoked by the second.

D. Existence of probable cause

 Probable cause must be issued after

personal determination of the Judge based
on the testimonies of the complainant and
his witnesses, which in turn must be based
on their personal knowledge
 Labaria’s testimony is hearsay, as he had
no personal knowledge of the fraudulent
acts of Unifish, and only relied upon the
knowledge of Abos
 The warrant however was not issued
based solely on Labaria’s testimony, but
also Abos’
 Abos had personal knowledge of the
fraudulent acts of the company as he was a
former Operating Chief of the same; in fact,
he testified to the extent of describing the
E. Things to be seized

 The description of things to be seized must

be as specific as the circumstances allow,
and limited to those with direct relation to
the offense
 The description of places, amounts, persons, and
other pertinent data must have been included by
the Judge, considering that he was provided with
photocopies of the same—the circumstance
allows for a more specific description of the
things to be seized
 But as to the terms “unregistered delivery
receipts” and “unregistered purchase and sales
invoices”, serial markings need not be specified,
as it is impossible because they are unregistered
 A search warrant is severable; lack of
particularity with certain things does not render
the others void