Frank Uy & Unifish Packing Corp. v BIR
Issue: Whether or not the search warrant is valid, considering the facts that there are: of place to be searched;
the persons against whom the warrants were issued;
Facts:
inconsistencies with the description inconsistencies with the names of
Rodrigo Abos, a former Operating Chief of Unifish, reported to the BIR that petitioners are committing acts in violation of the National Internal Revenue Code Selling by the thousands cartons of canned o
two
warrants issued for the same crime, same place and same occasion; doubts as to existence of probable cause; and doubts as to particularity of description of the things to be seized.
sardines without issuing receipts o
Selling of imported oil and cans to local customers, when these exempted from tax on
Ruling:
the condition that they are to be used in the
A. Place to be searched
manufacturing of tuna for export
Nestor Labaria, Asst. Chief of the Special Investigation Branch of the BIR applied for search warrants, which the RTC Judge Gozo issued for violation of Sec 153 of
be searched, and was able to distinguish the same from all other places in the community. Hence, it satisfied
the NIRCode
the constitutional requirement in particularity of the
A second warrant was issued, almost identical to the first, except for the city address (changed from Cebu
place to be searched.
City to Mandaue City), and the addition of “alias Frank Uy”
B. Persons named in the warrant
A third warrant was issued for violations of Sec 238 of
the NIRCode. Aside from this, it was i dentical to the first two warrants issued
It was not shown that there were two “Hernan Cortes St.” in Cebu and Mandaue; further, the officers tasked with the search had no difficulty in locating the place to
Acting on these warrants, warrants, BIR agents seized the records and documents of Unifish
When the search is for specifically described premises and not for the search of a person, the failure to name such person does not invalidate the search warrant; even if the person is named incorrectly, it is not a defect so fatal that it voids the whole warrant
C. Two warrants for the same crime, place and occasion
The second search warrant was issued merely for the purpose of correction; it was an attempt of the Judge to
E. Things to be seized
be more precise in the parties whom the warrant was issued against, and the place to be searched
The description of things to be seized must be as specific as the circumstances allow, and limited to those with direct relation to the offense
The description of places, amounts, persons, and other
Regarding the first two warrants, which were issued for
pertinent data must have been included by the Judge,
the same crime, place and occasion, the first warrant should be deemed revoked by the second.
considering that he was provided with photocopies of the same—the circumstance allows for a more specific description of the things to be seized
D. Existence of probable cause
Labaria’s testimony is hearsay, as he had no personal knowledge of the fraudulent acts of Unifish, and only relied upon the knowledge of Abos
markings need not be specified, as it is impossible because they are unregistered
Probable cause must be issued after personal determination of the Judge based on the testimonies of the complainant and his witnesses, which in turn must be based on their personal knowledge
The warrant however was not issued based solely on Labaria’s testimony, but also Abos ’ Abos had personal knowledge of the fraudulent acts of the company as he was a former Operating Chief of the same; in fact, he testified to the extent of describing the places, with accompanying sketches, and providing photocopied documents which prove the vi olations being committed by the company
But as to the terms “unregistered delivery receipts ” and “unregistered purchase and sales invoices ”, serial
A search warrant is severable; lack of particularity with certain things does not render the others void
