[No. L-342.

May 4, 1946]

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

ET AL., respondents.

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

638

638 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alvero vs. Dizon

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 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 them 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-

lNCRIMINATION; ARTICLES UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
SEARCHED AND SEIZED.—The majority of the states
have held that the privilege against compulsory self-
incrimination 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 PROVISIONS 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

639

VOL. 76, MAY 4, 1946 639

 Alvero vs. Dizon

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 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.

ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Albert & Albert for petitioner.
First Assistant Solicitor General Reyes and Assistant
Solicitor General, Alvendia for respondents.

DE JOYA, J.:

This is a petition for 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
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
640

640 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alvero vs. Dizon

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 f or 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
 641

VOL. 76, MAY 4, 1946 641

Alvero vs. Dizon

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
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 intimi-

642
642 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Alvero vs. Dizon

dation 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 manif estly 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 himself
—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 docu-

643

VOL. 76, MAY 4, 1946 643

Alvero vs. Dizon
ments 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 f rom his house and belonging to him.
Considering the allegations made by the parties in their
respective pleadings, and their supporting papers, as well
as the admissions made therein, the f ollowing f acts
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 f rom 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

644

644 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alvero vs. Dizon

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 f or 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 ed.,
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 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.
645

VOL. 76, MAY 4, 1946 645

Alvero vs. Dizon

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.)
646

646 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alvero vs. Dizon

At the hearing on his petition for bail, petitioner himself

requested the production of the document marked as
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 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.)

647

VOL. 76, MAY 4, 1946 647

Alvero vs. Dizon

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, bef ore 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 for
certiorari 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.

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:

"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 vs. United States, 232 U. S.,
383; Burdeau vs. McDowell, 256 U. S., 465.)"

648

648 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alvero vs. Dizon

We also disagree with the following pronouncement in the

other concurring opinion:

"La traición implica renuncia y privación de la garantía contra

irrazonables registros y secuestros, diligencias previas a la
convicción o absolución, 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 mayoría por la denegación del recurso. El

recurrente alega que los documentos relacionados en su
petición, que el Fiscal ha presentado en el proceso por
traición que se sigue contra él ante el Tribunal del Pueblo,
fueron secuestrados de su casa el 12 de Febrero de 1945 sin
mandamiento de registro, y pide su devolución.
El delito de traición tiende a derrocar al gobierno
constituído y la autoridad de los Estados Unidos en
Filipinas. La ley básica del Commonwealth contiene una
declaración de derechos individuales, e incluye el privilegio
contra registros y secuestros irrazonables, que se invoca en
este recurso. Pero esta es una garantía constitucional
condicionada por la lealtad. Repudia las instituciones de su
Gobierno el súbdito que le hace la guerra o se adhiere a sus
enemigos. En el exilio del Commonwealth, enseñoreóse el
régimen japonés, con sus ideologías, normas y principios, y
la ley básica de aquél fué sustituída por las instrucciones
militares a la Comisión Ejecutiva y la constitución de la
llamada Philippine Republic. La deslealtad, por lo tanto,

649

VOL. 76, MAY 4, 1946 649

Alvero vs. Dizon

inherente a la traición, supone renuncia a los beneficios de

la garantía, que ha sido repudiada.
La estabilidad y preservación, necesarias en todo
Gobierno, requieren medidas drásticas, el uso de la fuerza
armada, inclusive, de mayor trascendencia que la retirada
de una garantía constitucional, para reprimir, frustrar la
traición.
El Gobierno otorga derechos y libertades individuales,
pero se previene contra la traición, castigando severamente
hasta la conspiración y la proposición para cometer este
delito, actos preparatorios, ordinariamente no punibles.
Más aún, la abstención de denunciar la conspiración, ante
las autoridades locales, que es, a lo sumo, una delincuencia
por intención, también lo castiga. Estas disposiciones
represivas son más trascendentales que la privación
temporal de un privilegio. De hecho estaban suspendidas
 las garantías constitucionales, con motivo de la guerra,
cuando f ueron secuestrados los documentos en cuestión.
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
devolución solicita. Prima facie, son pruebas o actos de
traición, de modo que el apoderamiento de dichos
documentos, de una manera expedita, sin red tape, antes de
que f uesen ocultados o destruídos, está justificado. Más,
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
investigación previa para ordenar el arresto de un acusado,
privándole de libertad o restringiéndola, antes de su
convicción.
La traición implica renuncia y privación de la garantía
contra irrazonables registros y secuestros, diligencias
previas a la convicción o absolución, actuaciones estas
finales del proceso.
Petition denied.

650

650 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dilag vs. Heirs of Resurreccion

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.