GR No.

L-27360
Papa vs. Mago

Zaldivar, J.
Facts:
On November 4, 1966, Martin Alagao, head of the counter-intelligence unit of the Manila Police
Department, together with his group intercepted two trucks at the Agripina Circle, Ermita
Manila, and the two trucks were seized on instructions of the Chief of Police. The interception
was based to the information the load of the said trucks was misdeclared and undervalued, and
believed to be contrary to law. Subsequently, the owner of the cargo, Remedios and Valentin B.
Lanopa filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila a petition for preliminary injunction on
the ground that the their trucks were seized without search warrant. Forthwith, the order of ex
parte had been issued by Judge Hilarion which prevented the bales from opening. However,
when the restraining order was received, some bales had already opened.
Furthermore, upon hearing, the lower court with respondent Judge Hilarion issued an
order releasing the goods to Remedios Mago upon filing her bond amounting of P40, 000. The
dicision of Judge Hilarion prompted the petioners to file a petition for prohibition and certiorari
citing that the court and Judge Hilarion has no jurisdiction over the case.
Issue: Whether or not the inception and seizure of goods without warrant is in contravene with
constitutional rights.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the petitioners, stating that there is no violation of
constitutional rights despite the absence of search warrant.
The Tariff and Customs Code does not require said warrant in the case at bar. The Code
to enter, pass through or search any land, inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a
dwelling house; and alsoto inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk,
package, or envelope or any person on board, or to stop and search and examine any vehicle,
beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced
into the Philippines contrary to law, without mentioning the need of a search warrant in said
cases with exception to the dwelling since the latter requires search warrant.
In this instance, the contention in the sense of private ownership, the trucks are but a
vehicle constructed for travel and transportation on highways. Their active use is not in homes
or on private premises, the privacy of which the law especially guards from search and seizure
without process.