Lessons Applicable: Violation of Civil and Political Rights (Torts and Damages)
Laws Applicable: Articles 32 and 2219 of the New Civil Code
FACTS:
- Jikil Taha sold to a certain Alberto Timbangcaya of Brooke's Point, Palawan a motor launch named M/L "SAN RAFAEL"
- Alberto Timbangcaya filed a complaint with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Palawan alleging that after the sale Jikil Taha forcibly took away the motor launch from him
- Criminal Case for Robbery the Force and Intimidation upon Persons against Jikil Taha with the CFI
- Fiscal Francisco Ponce de Leon, upon being informed that the motor launch was in Balabac, Palawan, wrote the Provincial Commander of Palawan requesting him to direct the detachment commander-in Balabac to impound and take custody of the motor launch. He reiterated this and explaining that its subsequent sale to a third party, Delfin Lim cannot prevent the court from taking custody of the same
- Delfin Lim and Jikil Taha filed against Fiscal Francisco Ponce de Leon and Orlando Maddela, for violation of constitutional rights alleging that on July 6, 1962 Orlando Maddela entered the premises of Delfin Lim without a search warrant and then and there took away the hull of the motor launch without his consent; that he effected the seizure upon order of Fiscal Ponce de Leon who knew fully well that his office was not vested with authority to order the seizure of a private property; that said motor launch was purchased by Delfin Lim from Jikil Taha in consideration of P3,000 (P2,000 advance payment)
- The motor launch had been moored at the Balabac Bay, Palawan and because of exposure to the elements it had become worthless and beyond repair
- RTC: upholding the validity of the seizure of the motor launch on the ground that "the authority to impound evidences or exhibits or corpus delicti in a case pending investigation is inherent in the Provincial Fiscal who controls the prosecution and who introduces those exhibits in the court
ISSUE: W/N Fiscal de Leon
HELD: NO. reversed and another one entered declaring the seizure illegal and ordering defendant-appellee Fiscal Francisco Ponce de Leon to pay to plaintiff-appellant Delfin Lim the sum of P3,000.00 as actual damages, plus P1,000.00 moral damages, and, in addition, P750.00 for attorney's fees
- search warrant to be valid: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized
- Under the old Constitution the power to issue a search warrant is vested in a judge or magistrate and in no other officer and no search and seizure can be made without a proper warrant. Republic Act No. 732 has broadened the power of provincial fiscals to conduct preliminary investigations, but said law did not divest the judge or magistrate of its power to determine, before issuing the corresponding warrant, whether or not probable cause exists therefor. Moreover, under Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 122 of the Rules of Court 9 which complement the constitutional provision earlier cited, two principles are made clear, namely: (1) that in the seizure of a stolen property search warrant is still necessary; and (2) that in issuing a search warrant the judge alone determines whether or not there is a probable cause. The fact that a thing is a corpus delicti of a crime does not justify its seizure without a warrant
- The mere fact that a man is an officer, whether of high or low degree, gives him no more right than is possessed by the ordinary private citizen to break in upon the privacy of a home and subject its occupant to the indignity of a search for the evidence of crime, without a legal warrant procured for that purpose. No amount of incriminating evidence whatever its source, will supply the place of such warrant.
- the fact that there was no time to secure a search warrant would not legally justify a search without one
ART. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages.
xxx xxx xxx
(9) The rights to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
xxx xxx xxx
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
ART. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:
xxx xxx xxx
(6) Illegal search;
xxx xxx xxx
(1) Acts and action referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35.
- Claims of Delfin Lim amply supported by the evidence and therefore should be awarded the sum of P3,000.00 as actual damages; P1,000.00 as moral damages and P750.00 for attorney's fees. However, with respect co plaintiff Jikil Taha, he is not entitled to recover any damage which he alleged he had suffered from the unlawful seizure of the motor launch inasmuch as he had already transferred the ownership and possession of the motor launch to Delfin Lim at the time it was seized and therefore, he has no legal standing to question the validity of the seizure.
- To be liable under Article 32 of the New Civil Code it is enough that there was a violation of the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and it is not required that defendants should have acted with malice or bad faith.
- The very nature of Article 32 is that the wrong may be civil or criminal.
- Orlando Maddela cannot be held accountable because he impounded the motor launch upon the order of his superior officer