73 SCRA 553 (1976)
- Except in the case of the search of a dwelling house, persons exercising police authority under the customs law may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws.
FACTS:
Respondent Berdiago is the owner of a Rolls Royce car, Model 1966, which arrived in the Port of Manila on January 8, 1968. However, the petitioner, Jose Viduya, then Collector of Customs of Manila, obtained reliable intelligence that fraudulent documents were used by Berdiago in securing the release of the car from the Bureau of Customs, making it appear therein that the car was a 1961 model instead of a 1966 one, thus enabling respondent to pay a much lower customs duty.
There was, accordingly, a formal demand for the payment of the sum to cover the deficiency, respondent manifesting his willingness to do so but failing to live up to his promise. As the car was kept in a dwelling house at the Yabut Compound, two officials of the Customs Police Service as duly authorized agents of petitioner, applied to respondent Judge for a warrant to search said dwelling house and to seize the Rolls Royce car found therein.
Berdiago filed a motion to quash the search warrant issued by the court based on lack of probable cause to issue the warrant. Collector Viduya opposed, alleging that Berdiago could not rely on the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure because it was not shown that he owned the dwelling house which was searched. Nonetheless, respondent Judge in the challenged order quashed such search warrant.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
- Whether or not respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in quashing the warrant
HELD:
The Court opined that except in the case of the search of a dwelling house, persons exercising police authority under the customs law may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws. There is justification then for the insistence on the part of private respondent that probable cause be shown. So respondent Judge found in issuing the search warrant.
Apparently, he was persuaded to quash it when he noted that the warrant for seizure and detention came later than its issuance. In thus acting, respondent Judge apparently overlooked that long before the search warrant was applied for, to be specific on April 15, 1968, the misdeclaration and underpayment was already noted and that thereafter on April 24, 1968, private respondent himself agreed to make good the further amount due but not in the sum demanded.
As the car was kept in a dwelling house, petitioner through two of his officers in the Customs Police Service applied for and was able to obtain the search warrant. Had there been no such move on the part of petitioner, the duties expressly enjoined on him by law assess and collect all lawful revenues, to prevent and suppress smuggling and other frauds and to enforce tariff and customs law would not have been performed.
While therefore, it is to be admitted that his warrant of seizure and detention came later than the search warrant, there were indubitable facts in existence at that time to call for its issuance. Certainly there was probable cause. There was evidently need for the issuance of a search warrant. It ought not to have been thereafter quashed.
