De Garcia vs.
Locsin
Facts: Mariano G. Almeda, an agent of the Anti-Usuary Board, obtained from the justice of the
peace of Tarlac, a search warrant commanding any officer of the law to search the person, house
or store of the petitioner at Victoria, Tarlac, for certain books, lists, chits, receipts, documents
and other papers relating to her activities as usurer. The search warrant was issued upon an
affidavit given by the said Almeda.
On the same date, the said Mariano G. Almeda, accompanied by a captain of the Philippine
Constabulary, went to the office of the petitioner in Victoria, Tarlac and, after showing the search
warrant to the petitioners bookkeeper, Alfredo Salas, and, without the presence of the petitioner
who was ill and confined at the time, proceeded with the execution thereof
The papers and documents seized were kept for a considerable length of time by the Anti-Usury
Board and thereafter were turned over by it to the respondent fiscal who subsequently filed six
separate criminal cases against the herein petitioner for violation of the Anti-Usury Law.
While the Solicitor-General admits that, in the light of decisions of this court, the search warrant
was illegally issued, he maintains the waiver may be either express or implied. No express waiver
has been made in the case before us. It is urged, however, that there has been a waiver by
implication.
The legality of the search warrant was challenged by counsel for the petitioner in the six criminal
cases and the devolution of the documents demanded. The respondent Judge denied the
petitioners motion for the reason that though the search warrant was illegal, there was a waiver
on the part of the petitioner.
Issue:
W/N there has been a waiver by the petitioner of her constitutional immunity against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
Ruling:
No. It may be admitted that waiver may be the result of a failure to object within a reasonable time
to a search and seizure illegally made. However, the petitioner, on several occasions, and
prior to the filing of criminal actions against her, had demanded verbally, through counsel,
the return by the Anti-Usuary Board of the properties seized.
It is well-settled that to constitute a waiver of a constitutional right, it must appear, first, that the
right exists; secondly, that the persons involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of
the existence of such right; and, lastly, that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the
right.
It is true that the petitioner did not object to the legality of the search when it was made. She could
not have objected because she was sick and was not present when the warrant was served upon
Alfredo Salas.
Of course, the petitioner came to know later of the seizure of some of her papers and documents.
But this was precisely the reason why she sent her attorneys to the office of the Anti-Usuary Board
to demand the return of the documents seized. In any event, the failure on the part of the petitioner
and her bookkeeper to resist or object to the execution of the warrant does not constitute an
implied waiver of constitutional right.
The delay in making demand for the return of the documents seized is not such as to result
in waiver by implication.
