AURELIO S. ALVERO vs ARSENIO P. DIZON, et al.,

AURELIO S. ALVERO vs ARSENIO P. DIZON, et al.,

G.R. No. L-342      May 4, 1946

LawPhil’s Full Text link: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1946/may1946/gr_l-342_1946.html

FACTS:

The petitioner has been accused of treason; that at the hearing on his petition for bail, the prosecution presented, as part of its evidence, certain documents which had been allegedly seized by soldiers of the United States Army, accompanied by Filipino Guerrillas in the petitioner’s house. The Petitioner further contends that the seized documents should be returned as it obtained by means of force and intimidation or through coercion, those are not his personal papers but part of the files of the New Leader’s Association, which was proven to be an organization created for the purpose of collaborating with the enemy. Lastly, the presentation of the seized documents in the trial is tantamount to compelling him to testify against himself, in violation of his constitutional rights.

ISSUES:

1.     Whether or not the “seized” documents are legal?

2.     Whether or not the documents seized should be admitted as evidence in the trial court?

HELD.

No. The petition for Certiorari with Injunction is absolutely no merit.

RATIONALE:

The right of the officer and men of the United States Army to arrest the petitioner as a collaborationist suspect, and to seize his personal papers is unquestionable. Also, proclamation of General Douglas McArthur, as Commander in Chief of the United States of Army, declaring his purpose to remove certain citizens of the Philippines, who had voluntarily given aid and comfort to the enemy, in violation of the allegiance.

            EXCEPTION:

Important exception to the necessity for a Search Warrant is the right of search and seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest. A lawful arrest may be made either while a crime is being committed or after its commission. The right to search includes in both instances that of searching the person of him who is arrested, in order to find and seize things arrested with the crime as its fruits as the means by which it was committed.

The Petitioner consented to the presentation of the seized documents, as part of the evidence for the prosecution, at the hearing in his petition for bail and at the trial of the case on the merits, without having insisted that the question of the alleged illegality of the search and seizure of said papers and documents should first have been directly litigated and established by a motion.

            COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION

Not violated by the use of evidence of articles obtained by an unconstitutional search and seizure. Thus, the petitioner is estopped from questioning their admission.

PURPOSE: (Adam vs New York)

The purpose of the constitutional provisions against unlawful searched and seizures is to prevent violations of private security in person and property, and unlawful invasions of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the law acting under legislative and judicial sanction, and to give remedy against such usurpations when attempted.