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.
