GR No.

L-1486 April 26, 1948

ZACARIAS MAGONCIA, appellant, vs. PERFECT R. PALACE,

THE PROVINCIAL FISCAL Pangasinan, appealed.

Justin Z. D. Benito on behalf of the appellant.

The Provincial Prosecutor, Mr. Jose Bonton, on its own behalf.
Messrs. Quijano, Rosete and Tizon representing the private
prosecutors.

PAUL J. :

Zacarias Magoncia was arrested for the crime of robbery gang

committed in the house of Hilario Enovejas in the neighborhood
of Ariston Township asingan, Pangasinan on October 17, 1946.
credible reports that had the chief of police ordered four
policemen queregistrasen the defendant's home. When these
without search warrant, they made the requiesa, the wife of the
accused upbraided them "because registrais the house when my
husband is away?" The police found in the house for a paltik , a
shotgun clandestine manufacture a Granada hand (hand
grenade), a box containing 42 bullets and some pieces of cotton
fabric property Hilario Enovejas, homeowner assaulted. chanrob lesvi rtua lawlib rary vi rtua l law lib ra ry chan roble s

A complaint for robbery gang, Criminal Case No. 53 and other

poor illegal possession of firearms were filed against the accused
before the magistrate Asingan, Pangasinan. Records elevated to
the Court of First Instance, the first was registered as Criminal
Case No. 17290 and the second as Criminal Case No. 17289. chanroblesvi rtua lawlib rary vi rtu al law li bra ry chan roble s

In this criminal case for illegal possession of firearms, the

defendant filed a motion on 8 January 1947 asking the Court to
order the return of the effects illegally seized by four policemen of
asingan, Pangasinan and who ordered the Provincial Prosecutor
desist from using such defects as evidence at the hearing. The
Hon. Judge Palace denied the petition on April 1. in 21 of the
same month, the defendant presented his motion for
reconsideration which was denied on May 10. Failed all his
esfuerezos, the defendant and appellant comes before the Court
in a writ of certiorari and requests that the order of the Hon
revoked. Judge resorted May 10, 1947 and who ordered the
Provincial Prosecutor and Chief of Police asingan, Pangasinan
desist from such effects as evidence for the reason that they have
been illegally seized by four policemen. chanroblesv irt ualawli bra ry virtual law lib rary c hanro bles

Founds its request that the defendant has not given up, according
to the documents before purebas car, your protection under the
constitutional provision against unreasonable registration; that no
municipal police were justified under the consitucional ban, to
make registration as a legal arrest incident; and that the
municipal police for not being provided with a search warrant
could not verify the registration for the simple razzon that went in
search of contraband. chanroble svirtualawl ibra ry vi rtual law lib rary chan robles

In support of its first contention, the defendant opresento as

a witness to his ejsposa, which state that did not give permission
to the police to search the house. Santiago Mauricio, one of the
municipal police to register on the defendant's home, was
presented as a government witness and asked poor Judge:
"During The Time That you were searching the room, did
Raymunda Ballasca, the wife of Zacarias Magoncia, ever prohibit
you to search the room or the house? "replied" "Yes, sir." There
was, therefore, consent to the registration or the defendant who
was absent from his home because he was arrested for the crime
of theft was being . research, or his wife Raymunda Ballasca is
true that she did not oppose the entry of the police at home
because it is proverbial Filipino custom of having its doors for all
open, but this demonstration of good breeding or excessive
hospitality should not be considered permission to the police to
search your house. the accused was arrested for a felony and
immediate action was needed to locate the stolen effects. the
record was essential if they wanted to re cuperarlos. There was
no time to lose. Relied on the reports, Police Chief instead of
asking for a search warrant from a judge ordered four policemen
registration of the defendant's home and found pieces of stolen
cloth together with a paltik, ammunition and Granada of
hand. Today the defendant claims the return of these effects and
is silent as to the pieces of fabric which is part of the crime of
robbery body. It is unnecessary to decide whether the record
without corresponding mandammiento in this case was
unreasonable or not, whether it was justified or not. The legality
of his seizure by the police does not matter. The question is
whether the defendant is entitled to what you ask for : the return
of the effects of contraband found in his poosesion. Law No. 4 of
the Republic porohibe possession of firearms and accessories; its
simple possession is a criminal offense. Possession of contraband
is punished by law. When an individ has a contraband is
committing a crime, and can be stopped if mandmiento arrest not
only by an agent of authority but also by a particular and
contraband can be seized without warrant. The Constitution does
not guarantee immunity to the smuggler. Return the accused
smuggling and prevent the Provincial Prosecutor to present it as
evidence is exonerate the criminal liability provided by Law No. 4.
Is disable the State.Chanroblesvirtualawl ibra ry vi rtual law lib rary c han robles

Do not confuse the possession of a thing that is susceptible to

legal appropriation and is the subject of free trade, as a clock, a
box of firearms whose possession is prohibited. In the first
instance, it is invoked consitucional guarantee against
unreasonable searches and kidnappings unreasonable because
owning a watch is not a crime; but the possession of a firearm
without a license is a flagrant violation of the law and is subject
to an arrest holder without mandamineto debidamento issued and
smuggling may be confiscated.

There is a wide distinction Between the seizure of property

lawfully Within the possession of a person and the seizure of
property held and used in violation of law. THUS contraband
articles, and Those Things Which one under the law have no right
to POSSESS, for the purpose of issue or disposition, are not
embraced in the protection of the constitutional
guaranty. Indeed, an individually in the possession of goods Such
is Entitled to no protection whatsoever, for Such goods are not
subject to ownership, and May be forefeited or destroyed. They
are, Therefore, subject to search and seizure. (56 CJ, 116.)

In the case of Uy Kheyten against Villareal (42 Phil. Rep., 935),

the appellants requested the return of opium that the
Constabulary is inacutaron to register your house armed with a
search warrant issued without complying with the provisions of
Articles 96 and 98 of the General Order No. 58; They argued that
the requirements of those articles had not been met and
therefore the search warrant was illegal, it does not exist; queel
registration has been done without search warrant duly
issued. The Court denied the motion, stating that the irregularity
of the issue of a search warrant was not sufficient cause to order
the return of opium. Chanroblesvirtualawl ibra ry vi rtua l law lib rary chan roble s

The Hon. Judge resorted not abuse its discretion in denying the
return of the accused of platik, 42 nes Municio and agranada
hand, not abuse its sound discretion in denying the request of the
accused that prohibits the Provincial Prosecutor and the Chief
Police asingan, Pangasinan to submit such effects as evidence in
the hearing. chanroblesvi rtualaw lib rary vi rtua l law lib ra ry chan roble s

The application is dismissed with costs. Chanroblesvi rtua lawlib rary v irt ual law li bra ry cha nrob les

Fair and Bengzon, JJ., Concur.