Bache & Co. (Phil.), Inc v.

Ruiz
GR No. L-32409
February 27, 1971
FACTS:
Bache & Co Inc. is a corporation existing under the laws of the Philippines, and with its
President, Frederick E. Seggerman, now seeks to declare null and void Search Warrant No. 2-M70 issued by respondent Judge Ruiz. The petition also seeks to order respondents from enforcing
the warrant and keeping the documents, papers and effects seized as well as from enforcing the
tax assessments made on the basis of such documents, ordering the return of the latter.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue respondent Misael Vera wrote a letter to Judge Ruiz
requesting for a search warrant against petitioners for violating the National Internal Revenue
Code, authorizing Revenue Examiner De Leon to apply for the warrant. When De Leon went to
CFI Rizal to apply for the warrant, Judge Ruiz was still hearing a case so the latter instructed his
Deputy Clerk of Court to take the depositions of De Leon and his witness, Logronio. After that
Judge Ruiz was informed that the depositions had already been taken so the stenographer was
requested to read to the Judge the notes. After reading the Judge asked the witness to raise his
right hand, take the oath and warned him about perjury if ever his statements are found to be
false, then the search warrant was signed and issued. The BIR agents thus served the warrant at
the office of the petitioner corporation, upon opposition of the lawyers of the latter, which
yielded six boxes of documents. The petitioners filed with the CFI to declare the warrant void
and to seek for damages, but the court dismissed the petition. In the meantime the BIR already
made tax assessments on the basis of the documents seized, thus this petition.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not a search warrant was validly issued based on a personal examination of
the Judge.
2. Whether or not the search warrant was only for one specific offense as required by the
Constitution.
3. Whether or not the search warrant particularly described the place to be searched and
things to be seized.
4. Whether or not the search and seizure clause can be invoked by a corporation.
HELD:
1. No.
The Constitution expressly requires that a search warrant be issued on the basis of a personal
examination by the Judge under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce. This requirement is necessary for the Judge to be able to determine the existence or
non-existence of a probable cause pursuant to Art. 3 Sec. 1 of the Constitution (now Sec. 2) and
the Revised Rules of Court. This task cannot be delegated to another, in the absence of any rule
allowing the same. In the case at bar, it is true that the application for search warrant and the
witness printed-form deposition were subscribed and sworn to before Judge Ruiz, but the latter
did not ask questions the answers to which could possibly be the basis for determining whether
or not there was probable cause. As stated by the facts, The Special Deputy Clerk of Court, took
the depositions of the complainant and his witness, and that stenographic notes thereof were
taken by the stenographer, when the Judge was still hearing a case. After respondent Judge was
Prepared by: Jo-Anne D. Coloquio

through with the hearing, the Judge was informed that they had already finished the depositions.
Respondent Judge then requested the stenographer to read to him her stenographic notes then
requested Mr. Logronio to raise his hand and warned him if his deposition will be found to be
false and without legal basis, he can be charged criminally for perjury. Thereafter the warrant
was issued. The participation of Judge Ruiz was only with listening to the stenographers reading
of the notes, warning the witness of the consequences of perjury and administering the oath. This
is not a personal examination, for the examination was conducted by the Deputy Clerk of the
Court which the Constitution does not allow. The Judge did not have the opportunity to observe
the demeanor of the complainant and his witness, and ask for follow-up questions on account of
his judicial training, which can serve as the basis of a probable cause.
2. No.
The search warrant was issued not for one specific offense but for four distinct offenses all under
the National Internal Revenue Code namely: (1) the filing of income tax returns (2) withholding
of income taxes at source (3) unlawful pursuit of business or occupation (4) failure to make a
return of receipts, sales, business or gross value of output actually removed or to pay the tax due
thereon. Even in their classification the provisions which punish the aforementioned offenses are
embraced in different titles. It is immaterial that the offenses are punished under the same code,
for these are still distinct offenses which the Constitution prohibits stating that no search warrant
shall issue for more than one specific offense.
3. No.
The search warrant issued stated the things to be seized: "Unregistered and private books of
accounts (ledgers, journals, columnars, receipts and disbursements books, customers ledgers);
receipts for payments received; certificates of stocks and securities; contracts, promissory notes
and deeds of sale; telex and coded messages; business communications, accounting and business
records; checks and check stubs; records of bank deposits and withdrawals; and records of
foreign remittances, covering the years 1966 to 1970." This description does not meet the
requirement of the Constitution for the description is so all-embracing as to include all
conceivable records of the petitioners which could possibly render its business inoperative. This
is basically leaving the officers with unbridled discretion to seize anything and makes the duty
susceptible to abuse. A search warrant must at least particularly describe the things as specific as
the circumstances will ordinarily allow, or when it expresses a conclusion of fact and not of law,
or limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense.
4. Yes.
A corporation is still an association of individuals under an assumed name and with a distinct
legal entity. In organizing itself as a collective body it waives no constitutional immunities
appropriate to such body. Its property cannot be taken without compensation. It can only be
proceeded against by due process of law, and is still protected under the Constitution.

Prepared by: Jo-Anne D. Coloquio