Scribd
Upload
92 views2 pages

Alvero vs. Dizon

1) United States soldiers arrested Aurelio Alvero on suspicion of collaboration with the enemy during World War 2 and seized documents from his home without a search warrant. 2) Alvero challenged the seizure of documents and their use as evidence against him, claiming it violated his constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure. 3) The court ruled the seizure was allowed under military law during wartime and the documents could be used as evidence since the US soldiers, not Philippine authorities, obtained them.

Uploaded by

April Joyce Natad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
92 views2 pages

Alvero vs. Dizon

1) United States soldiers arrested Aurelio Alvero on suspicion of collaboration with the enemy during World War 2 and seized documents from his home without a search warrant. 2) Alvero challenged the seizure of documents and their use as evidence against him, claiming it violated his constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure. 3) The court ruled the seizure was allowed under military law during wartime and the documents could be used as evidence since the US soldiers, not Philippine authorities, obtained them.

Uploaded by

April Joyce Natad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

SEARCH AND SEIZURE: Purpose and Importance of Guaranty


Alvero vs. Dizon
G.R. No. 126858; September 16, 2005

FACTS:

On 12 February 1945, while the battle for Manila was raging, soldiers of the United States
Army, accompanied by men of Filipino Guerrilla Forces, placed Aurelio S. Alvero under arrest,
having been suspected of collaboration with the enemy, and seized and took certain papers from
his house in Pasay, Rizal.

On or about 4 October 1945, Alvero was accused of treason, in criminal case 3 of the
People’s Court; after which, on 1 December 1945, he filed a petition, demanding the return of the
papers allegedly seized and taken from his house. Alvero also filed a petition for bail, at the hearing
of which the prosecution presented certain papers and documents, which were admitted as part of
its evidence, and said petition was denied.

At the trial of the case on the merits, the prosecution again presented said papers and
documents, which were admitted as part of its evidence, and were marked as exhibits.

On 26 February 1946, the judges issued an order denying the petition for the return of the
documents, and admitted as competent evidence the documents presented by the prosecution. On
the same date that said order was issued, denying the petition for the return of said documents,
Alvero asked for the reconsideration of said order, which was also denied. Alvero filed a petition
for certiorari with injunction with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the documents seized by United States Army personnel at Alvero’s home can be
used as evidence against the latter.

RULING:

The right of officers and men of the United States Army to arrest Alvero, as a
collaborationist suspect, and to seize his personal papers, without any search warrant, in the zone
of military operations, is unquestionable, under the provisions of article 4, Chapter II, Section I,
of the Regulations relative to the Laws and Customs of War on Land of the Hague Conventions of
1907, authorizing the seizure of military papers in the possession of prisoners of war; and also
under the proclamation, dated 29 December 1944, issued by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, as
Commander in Chief of the United States 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 due the Governments of the United States and the Commonwealth of the Philippines,
when apprehended, from any position of political and economic influence in the Philippines and
to hold them in restraint for the duration of the war.

The purpose of the constitutional provisions against unlawful searches 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 or judicial sanction, and to give remedy
against such usurpations when attempted. But it does not prohibit the Government from taking
advantage of unlawful searches made by a private person or under authority of state law.
Herein, as the soldiers of the United States Army, that took and seized certain papers and
documents from the residence of Alvero, were not acting as agents or on behalf of the Government
of the Commonwealth of the Philippines; and that those papers and documents came into the
possession of the authorities of the Commonwealth Government, through the Office of the CIC of
the United States Army in Manila, the use and presentation of said papers and documents, as
evidence for the prosecution against Alvero, at the trial of his case for treason, before the People’s
Court, cannot now be legally attacked, on the ground of unlawful or unreasonable searches and
seizures, or on any other constitutional ground, as declared by the Supreme Court of the United
States in similar cases.

You might also like