Morano vs. Vivo (20 SCRA 562)

Facts: Petitioners are Chinese nationals (Chan Sau Wah from Fukein, with a minor child from prior marriage, Fu Yan Fun) who were granted a temporary visitor’s visa as mom-immigrant for 2 months upon posting P4k cash bond to visit a cousin in the Philippines. She soon married to Esteban Morano, a Filipino Citizen, on January 24, 1962 and gave birth to a child, Esteban Morano, Jr. After several extensions to prolong stay in Philippines, their visas expired on Sept. 10, 1962 and were ordered by Commissioner of Immigration (COI) on Aug. 31, 1962 thru a letter, to leave the country on or before Sept. 10, 1962 with warning of issuance of warrant of arrest for failure to leave and confiscation of bond.

Petitioners then filed with the CFI of Manila for Mandamus to compel COI to cancel their ACR, to stop issuing arrest warrant, and preliminary injunction from confiscating their bond. They argue that Chan Sau Wah became a Filipino Citizen upon marriage to Esteban Morano by virtue of Section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 (Revised Naturalization Act). Likewise, it argues that Section 37 of the Naturalization Law is unconstitutional for allowing the COI to issue warrant of arrest and effecting deportation without judicial intervention enshrined in the Constitution. CFI decided partly against petitioners, thus, COI and petitioners both appealed to SC.

Issues:

• Whether or not the marriage of Chan Sau Wah to Esteban Morano makes her a Filipino citizen.
• Whether or not Section 37 of the Naturalization Law empowering the COI to issue a warrant of arrest, and deport upon a warrant on deportation cases is unconstitutional for are covered by the Constitutional mandate on searches and seizures without judicial intervention required under the Constitution on searches and seizures.

Ruling:

Citizenship. Marriage to a Filipino citizen does not ipso facto make her a Filipino citizen. She must show that she possess all the qualifications, and none of the disqualifications required by the Naturalization Law requiring as follows:

• Valid marriage; and
• Alien woman herself might be lawfully naturalized

In the additional stipulation of facts of July 3, 1963, petitioners admit that Chan Sau Wah is not possessed of all the qualifications required by the Naturalization Law. Thus, she did not become a Filipino citizen.

Searches and seizures. Power to deport aliens is an attribute of sovereignty planted on the accepted maxim of international law, that every sovereign nation has the power, as inherent in sovereignty, and essential to self-preservation, to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions. Section 1 (3), Article III of the Constitution, does not require judicial intervention in the execution of a final order of deportation issued in accordance with law. The constitutional limitation contemplates an order of arrest in the exercise of judicial power as a step preliminary or incidental to prosecution or proceeding for a given offense or administrative action, not as a measure indispensable to carry out a valid decision by a competent official, such as a legal order of deportation, issued by the Commissioner of Immigration, in pursuance of a valid legislation.

Petition for mandamus and prohibition with respect to petitioners Chan Sau Wah is hereby denied; and judgment declaring her a citizen of the Philippines, directing COI to cancel her Alien Certificate of Registration and other immigration papers, and declaring the preliminary injunction with respect to her permanent, are all hereby set aside; and in all other respects, the decision appealed is hereby affirmed.

Castro vs. Pabalan (70 SCRA 477)

Facts: Judge Pabalan ordered the issuance of a search warrant despite failure of the application of Lumang or the warrant itself to specify the offense, to examine the applicant as well as his witnesses on the part of the Judge, and to describe with particularity the place to be searched and the things to be seized. Judge never refuted the assertions when required to answer. Application alleged that applicants wee informed and claimed that they verified the report that Maria Castro and Co Ling are in possession of narcotics and other contraband in Barrio Padasil, Bangar, La Union without specifying the particular place in the Barrio. No complete description of the goods and inquiry was brief. Upon actual search, it turned out that it was in Barrio Ma. Cristina and not in Padasil.

Issue: Whether or not the search warrant is validly issued.

Held: Search warrant issued illegal for violation of the 1935 Constitution and the Rules of Court because the two basic requirements are not complied with: (a) no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, (b) the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized, thus, a general warrant. However, things seized cannot be returned and shall be destroyed, except the liquors, playing cards, distilled water and five bottles of Streptomycin.

Stonehill vs Diokno (20 SCRA 383)

Facts: Respondents issued, on different dates, 42 search warrants against petitioners personally, and/or corporations for which they are officers directing peace officers to search the persons of petitioners and premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences to search for personal properties “books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents showing all business transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins(cigarettes)” as the subject of the offense for violations of Central Bank Act, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Code, and Revised Penal Code.

Upon effecting the search in the offices of the aforementioned corporations and on the respective residences of the petitioners, there seized documents, papers, money and other records. Petitioners then were subjected to deportation proceedings and were constrained to question the legality of the searches and seizures as well as the admissibility of those seized as evidence against them.

On March 20, 1962, the SC issued a writ of preliminary injunction and partially lifted the same on June 29, 1962 with respect to some documents and papers.

Held:

1. Search warrants issued were violative of the Constitution and the Rules, thus, illegal or being general warrants. There is no probable cause and warrant did not particularly specify the things to be seized. The purpose of the requirement is to avoid placing the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers.
2. Document seized from an illegal search warrant is not admissible in court as a fruit of a poisonous tee. However, they could not be returned, except if warranted by the circumstances.
3. Petitioners were not the proper party to question the validity and return of those taken from the corporations for which they acted as officers as they are treated as personality different from that of the corporation.