EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-342. May 4, 1946.]

AURELIO S. ALVERO, petitioner, vs. ARSENIO P. DIZON ET AL.,

respondents.

Albert & Albert for petitioner.

First Assistant Solicitor General Reyes and Assistant Solicitor General
Alvendia for respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; SEARCH AND SEIZURE

WITHOUT ANY SEARCH WARRANT; RIGHT OF UNITED STATES ARMY TO SEIZE
PAPERS FROM COLLABORATIONIST SUSPECT. — The right of officers and men
of the United States Army to arrest herein petitioner, 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, authorized the seizure of
military papers in the possession of prisoners of war (Wilson, International
Law, 3d ed., 1939, p. 524) and also under the proclamation, dated December
29, 1944, issued by General 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 then in
restraint for the duration of the war.
2. ID.; ID.; LAWFUL ARREST. — The most 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 connected with the crime as its fruits or as the
means by which It was committed.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS EVIDENCE. — When one is
legally arrested for an offense, whatever is found in his possession or in his
control may be seized and used in evidence against him; and an officer has
the right to make an arrest without a warrant of a person believed by the
officer upon reasonable grounds to have committed a felony.
4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION
ARTICLES UNCONSTITUTIONALLY SEARCHED AND SEIZED. — The majority of
the states have held that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 is not violated by the use in evidence of articles obtained by an
unconstitutional search and seizure.
5. ID.; ID.; WAIVER. — The privilege against compulsory self-
incrimination may be waived.
6. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE; PETITION FOR PRODUCTION OF
PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS; SUFFICIENT DESCRIPTION AND IDENTIFICATION.
— In a petition for the production of papers and documents, they must be
sufficiently described and identified, otherwise the petition cannot prosper.
7. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; PURPOSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL
PROVISION AGAINST UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE, RIGHT OF FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF UNLAWFUL SEARCH MADE BY
PRIVATE PERSONS OR BY AUTHORITY OF STATE LAW. — 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 Federal Government from taking
advantage of unlawful searches made by a private person or under authority
of state law.
8. ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — As the soldiers of the United States
Army, that took and seized certain papers and documents from the
residence of herein petitioner, on February 12, 1945, 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 Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States Army in Manila, the use
and presentation of said papers and documents, as evidence for the
prosecution against herein petitioner, at the trial of his case for treason,
before the People's Court, cannot not 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.

DECISION

DE JOYA, J : p

This is a petition far certiorari with injunction originally filed in this

court.
In the petition it is alleged that petitioner Aurelio S. Alvero has been
accused of treason, in criminal case No. 3 of the People's Court; 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; that petitioner immediately objected to the presentation of said
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 documents, and called the attention of the respondent judges to the fact
that he had filed a petition, in which he protested against the procedure of
the government in the seizure of said documents, and asked for their return
to the petitioner; that the respondents permitted the prosecution to present
said documents as evidence, which were considered, upon the termination
of the presentation of the evidence for both parties, in denying said petition
for bail; that the petition filed on December 1, 1945, for the return of the
documents allegedly seized illegally in petitioner's house, was not
considered by the respondents, before the commencement of the trial of
petitioner's case, on the merits, due perhaps to an involuntary oversight;
that at the commencement of the trial of said criminal case No. 3, and during
its course, the prosecution again presented, as evidence, against the
petitioner said documents which had been taken from his house, and
petitioner renewed his objection thereto, and asked for their return to him,
alleging that their seizure was illegal and that their presentation would be
tantamount to compelling him to testify against himself, in violation of his
constitutional rights; that in deciding the question so raised, the respondent
judges, in open court, stated that the prosecution might in the meanwhile
continue presenting said documents, without prejudice to the final resolution
of said petition, when the prosecution should finish presenting its evidence;
that in concluding the presentation of its evidence and resting the case, after
offering said documents as part of its evidence, the petitioner again raised
the question of the admissibility of said documents, and the respondent
judges then ordered the substantiation of said allegations of petitioner, and
set for hearing his petition for the return of said documents; that said
petition was heard on February 16, 1946, and at said hearing, the petitioner
and his wife testified, without any contradiction that, on February 12, 1945,
on the occasion of the arrest of the petitioner by soldiers of the United States
Army, the latter searched the house of the petitioner and seized, among
other things, the documents which he had in his house; that when said
petition for the return of said documents was submitted for the
consideration and decision of the respondent judges, the latter, on February
26, 1946, issued an order denying said petition, and admitted as competent
evidence the documents presented by the prosecution, marked as Exhibits
A, C, G, H, K, L, P, R, R-1, R-2, U, Z, CC, DD, FF, HH; that on the same date
that said order was issued, denying the petition for the return of said
documents, petitioner asked for the reconsideration of said order, which was
also denied. (Petition, pars. 1-12.)
And herein petitioner now claims that the respondent judges, in
denying the petition for the return of said documents, acted without
jurisdiction and committed a grave abuse in the exercise of their discretion,
alleging that even the seizure of documents by means of a search warrant
legally issued, constitutes a violation of the rights guaranteed in paragraphs
3 and 18 of section 1 of Article III of the Constitution, and, consequently,
when their seizure cannot be justified by the corresponding search warrant,
the court should order their immediate return; that the petitioner has no
other speedy and adequate remedy for the protection of his rights
guaranteed by the Constitution, other than this petition for certiorari, as the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 right of appeal granted by law to a person accused of a crime, is costly and
highly prejudicial to the petitioner, as it presupposes that the prosecution
has established the guilt of the accused by means of legal and competent
evidence, as alleged in the last three (3) paragraphs of the petition.
Consequently, herein petitioner asks for the annulment of the order
issued by the respondent judges, on February 26, 1946, in said criminal case
No. 3, entitled — People of the Philippines vs. Aurelio S. Alvero, — the return
to him of the documents presented by the prosecution, mentioned above,
and the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
In their answer filed on March 21, 1946, herein respondents have
substantially admitted the allegations made and contained in the first twelve
(12) paragraphs of the petition, except the portions alleging that the
documents in question had been obtained by means of force and
intimidation or through coercion; and that certain soldiers of the American
Army took certain personal properties of herein petitioner, at the time the
search was made; and that the acquisition of said documents was manifestly
a violation of petitioner's constitutional rights and that their admission as
evidence for the prosecution, would be tantamount to compelling petitioner,
as accused, to testify against him self — all of which portions have been
expressly denied by the respondents.
Respondents have also expressly denied the allegations contained in
the remaining three (3) paragraphs of the petition.
And as defenses, respondents allege (1) that petitioner himself has
admitted the legality of the seizure of the documents in question in his
motion for reconsideration, dated February 26, 1946; (2) that petitioner has
not proven that said documents had been illegally seized from him; (3) that
the seizure of the documents in question took place, on February 12, 1945,
in Pasay, Rizal, which was then still a combat zone, and that the seizure of
certain papers in the house of the petitioner was made by soldiers of the
United States Army of Liberation or its instrumentalities; (4) that said seizure
was effected lawfully under the terms of the proclamation of the
Commander in Chief of the United States Liberation Forces, dated December
29, 1944, in which he declared his purpose to remove alleged collaborators,
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; (5)
that the documents in question had been properly admitted as evidence for
the prosecution in said criminal case No. 3, as herein petitioner, as accused
in said case, had expressly waived his right to object to their admissibility,
particularly Exhibits A, FF, HH and P; (6) that petitioner's evidence of alleged
ownership, relative to Exhibits C, G, H, K, I P, R, R-1 and R-2, is altogether
insufficient, and petitioner himself has expressly admitted that said
documents are not his personal papers but part of the files of the New
Leaders' Association, which was proven to be an organization created, for
the purpose of collaborating with the enemy; (7) and that none of the
exhibits referred to in the petition has been satisfactorily identified by the
petitioner as included among the papers allegedly wrongfully seized from his
house and belonging to him.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Considering the allegations made by the parties in their respective
pleadings, and their supporting papers, as well as the admissions made
therein, the following facts appear to have been sufficiently established:
(1) That on February 12, 1945, while the battle for Manila was
raging, soldiers of the United States Army, accompanied by men of Filipino
Guerrilla Forces, placed herein petitioner under arrest, having been
suspected of collaboration with the enemy, and seized and took certain
papers from his house in Pasay, Rizal;
(2) That on or about October 4, 1945, petitioner was accused of
treason, in criminal case No. 3 of the People's Court; after which, on
December 1, 1945, he filed a petition, demanding the return of the papers
allegedly seized and taken from his house;
(3) That petitioner 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;
(4) That 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, as described in the petition for
certiorari, filed in this court;
(5) That herein petitioner had failed to object properly to the
admission of said papers and documents at the hearing on said petition for
bail, and at the trial of the case on the merits, in not having insisted that the
question of the legality of the search and seizure of the papers and
documents taken from his house should have been litigated and finally
decided first, and thus practically waived his objection to their admissibility,
as evidence for the prosecution;
(6) That at the hearing on his petition for the return of the papers
taken from his house, held after they had been admitted as part of the
evidence for the prosecution at the hearing on the petition for bail and at the
trial of the case on the merits, herein petitioner had failed to identify
satisfactorily the documents now in question, and his ownership thereof; and
(7) That petitioner himself in his petition for reconsideration, dated
February 26, 1946, admitted the legality of the seizure of the documents
taken from his house, and at the hearing on his petition for bail, he himself
called for some of the documents in question.
The right of officers and men of the United States Army to arrest herein
petitioner, 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 (Wilson, International Law, 3d., 1939, p. 524);
and also under the proclamation, dated December 29, 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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. (41 Off. Gaz., No. 2, pp. 148, 149.) As a matter of fact, petitioner
himself, in his motion for reconsideration, dated February 26, 1946,
expressly admitted the legality of the seizure of his personal papers and
documents at the time of his arrest.
The most 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
connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means by which it was
committed. (Agnello vs. United States, 269 U. S., 20.)
When one is legally arrested for an offense, whatever is found in his
possession or in his control may be seized and used in evidence against him;
and an officer has the right to make an arrest without a warrant of a person
believed by the officer upon reasonable grounds to have committed a felony.
(Carroll vs. United States, 267 U. S., 132.)
The majority of the states have held that the privilege against
compulsory self-incrimination, which is also guaranteed by state
constitutional provisions is not violated by the use in evidence of articles
obtained by an unconstitutional search and seizure. (People vs. Defore, 242
N. Y., 13; 150 N. E., 585.)
It is true that on December 1, 1945, herein petitioner filed a petition,
demanding the return of certain papers and documents allegedly seized and
taken from his house at the time of his arrest; but when he consented to
their presentation, as part of the evidence for the prosecution, at the hearing
on 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, made before the trial, for their return,
he was and should be deemed to have waived his objection to their
admissibility as part of the evidence for the prosecution; since the privilege
against compulsory self-incrimination may be waived. (Weeks vs. United
States, 232 U. S., 383; Silverthorne Lumber Co. vs. United States, 251 U. S.,
385; Gouled vs. United States, 255 U. S., 298; People vs. Carlos, 47 Phil.,
626, 630, 631.)
At the hearing on his petition for bail, petitioner himself requested the
production of the document marked Exhibit A, which was a letter sent by him
to Dr. Jose P. Laurel; the document marked as Exhibit HH, which was a
memorandum to Col. Suzuki, dated December 30 1944; and the document
marked as Exhibit P, which was a memorandum on Nippongo classes. And
he is now, therefore, estopped from questioning their admission.
Furthermore, petitioner could not properly identify many of said
documents, such as Exhibit FF, nor satisfactorily establish his ownership
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 thereof; while the prosecution has sufficiently established the fact that some
of the papers now in question, such as Exhibit C, had been received at the
Office of the CIC of the United States Army in the City of Manila, since
February 11, 1945, that is, one day prior to the seizure of certain papers and
documents in the house of the petitioner. And with reference to Exhibits C, G
H, K, L, P, R, R-1 and R-2, petitioner himself admitted that they are not his
personal papers but part of the files of the New Leader's Association. And it
is well established rule in this jurisdiction that in a petition for the production
of papers and documents, they must be sufficiently described and identified,
otherwise the petition cannot prosper. (Liebenow vs. Philippine Vegetable Oil
Co., 39 Phil., 60, 67, 69; Rule 21, section 1, Rules of Court.)
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. (Adams vs. New York, 192 U. S.,
585.) But it does not prohibit the Federal Government from taking advantage
of unlawful searches made by a private person or under authority of state
law. (Weeks vs. United States, 232 U. S., 383; Burdeau vs. McDowell, 256 U.
S., 465.)
As the soldiers of the United States Army, that took and seized certain
papers and documents from the residence of herein petitioner, on February
12, 1945, 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 herein petitioner, 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. (Burdeau vs. McDowell, 256 U. S., 465; Gambino vs. United
States, 275 U. S., 310.)
In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the petition forcertiorari with
injunction, filed in this case, is absolutely without merit, and it is, therefore,
hereby denied and dismissed with costs. So ordered
Jaranilla, Actg. C. J., Feria, Pablo and Hilado, JJ., and Buenaventura,
Santos, Santiago, and T. Santos, Acting Justices. concur.

Separate Opinions
PERFECTO, J., concurring:

We concur in the decision, but we wish to make of record our express

disagreement with the doctrine as stated in the following paragraphs of said
decision:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 "The majority of the states have held that the privilege against
compulsory self-incrimination, which is also guaranteed by state
constitutional provisions is not violated by the use in evidence of
articles obtained by an unconstitutional search and seizure. (People vs.
Defore, 242 N. Y., 13; 150 N. E., 585.)
"But it does not prohibit the Federal Government from taking
advantage of unlawful searches made by a private person or under
authority of state law. (Weeks V8. United States, 232 U. S., 383;
Burdeau vs. McDowell. 256 U. S., 465.)"
We also disagree with the following pronouncement in the other
concurring opinion:
"La traicion implica renuncia y privacion de la garantia contra
irrazonables registros y sequestros, diligencias previas a la conviccion
o absolucion, actuaciones estas finales del proceso."
The theory is erroneous and retrogressive. It violates the spirit and the
letter of the Constitution. There is no reason, either legal or moral, for
depriving an accused of treason of the benefits of constitutional guarantees.
Even those convicted of the most heinous crimes remain under the pale of
the Constitution, and cannot be punished, including those sentenced to
death, except in accordance with the due process clause of our fundamental
law.

DE LA ROSA, Magistrado Actuante, concurrente:

Voto con la mayoria por la denegacion del recurso.

El recurrente alega que los documentos relacionados en su peticion,
que se sigue contra el ante al Tribunal del Pueblo, fueron secuestrados de su
casa el 12 de febrero de 1945 sin mandamiento de registro, y pide su
devolucion.
El delito de traicion tiende a derrocar al gobierno constituido y la
autoridad de los Estados Unidos en Filipinas. La ley basica del
Commonwealth contiene una declaracion de derechos individuales, e incluye
el privilegio contra registros y secuestros irrazonables, que se invoca en este
recurso. Pero esta es una garantia constitucional de su Gobierno el subdito
que le hace la guerra o se adheire a sus enemigos. En el exilio del
Commonwealth, enseñoreose el regimen japones, con sus ideologias,
normas y principios, y la ley basica de aquel fue sustituida por las
instrucciones militares a la Comision Ejecutiva y la constitution de la llamada
Philippine Republic. la desleated, por lo tanto inherente a la traicion, supone
renuncia a los beneficios de la garantia, que ha sido repudiada.
La estabilidad y preservacion, necesarias en todo Gobierno, requieren
medidas drasticas, el uso de la fuerza armada, inclusive, de mayor
trascendencia que la retirada de una garantia constitucional, para reprimir,
frustrar la traicion.
El Gobierno otorga derechos y libertades individuales, pero se previene
contra la traicion, castigando severamente hasta la conspiracion y la
proposicion para cometer este delito. actos preparatorios, ordinariamente no
punibles. Mas aun, la abstencion de denunciar la conspiracion, ante las
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 autoridades locales, que es, a lo sumo, una delincuencia por intencion,
tambien lo castiga. Estas disposiciones represivas son mas trascendentales
que la privacion temporal de un privilegio. De hecho estaban suspendidas
las garantias constitucionales, con motivo de la guerra, cuando fueron
secuestrados los documentos en cuestion.
La culpabilidad del recurrente, antes de que pronuncie su fallo el
Tribunal del Pueblo, no se prejuzga revisando y apreciando la naturaleza de
los documentos cuya devolucion solicita. Prima facie, son pruebas o actos de
traicion, de modo que el apoderamiento de dichos documentos, de una
manera expedita, sin red tape, antes de que fuesen ocultados o destruidos,
esta justificado. Mas, los mismos no excluyen la inocencia del actor, de la
misma manera que no la repelen las pruebas de cargo antes de ser
rebatidas por la defensa, ni suponen culpabilidad, necesariamente, las
pruebas aportadas en una investigacion previa para ordenar el arresto de un
acusado, privandole de libertad o restringiendola, antes de su conviccion.
La traicion implica renuncia y privacion de la garantia contra
irrazonables registros y secuestros, diligencias previas a la conviccion o
absolucion, actuaciones estas finales del proceso.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com