Hilario Camino Moncado v. People's Court, 80 Phil 1 (1948)

CASE DIGEST

Facts:

Petitioner stands accused of treason before the people’s Court, the information against him having been filed by Prosecutor Ladaw on February 28, 1946. Almost a year before, on April 4, 1945, at about 6:00 p.m., petitioner was arrested by members of the Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States Army at his residence at 199-A San Rafael St., Manila, without any warrant of arrest, and taken to the Bilibid Prison at Muntinglupa, where he was detained.

On April 11, 1945, petitioner's wife, who transferred to their house at 3 Rosario Drive, Quezon City, was approached by several CIC officers, headed by Lt. Olves, and ordered to accompany them to the house at San Rafael to witness the taking of documents and things belonging to petitioner. Upon hearing from the officers that they did not have any search warrant for the purpose, she refused to go with them, but after the officers told her that with or without her presence they would search the house at San Rafael, Mrs. Moncado decide to accompany them. Upon arrival at the house, Mrs. Moncado noticed that their belongings had been ransacked by American officers and that the trunks which she had kept in the attic and in the garage when she left the house, had been ripped open and their contents scattered on the floor. Lt. Olves informed Mrs. Moncado that they were going to take a bundle of documents and things, which were separated from the rest of the scattered things, because they proved the guilt of her husband. Mrs. Moncado protested in vain. No receipt was issued to her. Subsequently, after making an inventory of their belongings at San Rafael, Mrs. Moncado found the important documents and correspondence missing.

Issue:  Whether or not illegally seized evidence is admissible in court.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court, following the U.S. case of Wolf V. Colorado, rules that evidence illegally obtained is not necessarily excluded if is otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence in such case, the evidence admitted, without prejudice to any criminal, civil or administrative liability of the officer who illegally seized it. In other words, the admissibility of the evidence is not effected  by the illegality of the means by which it was acquired.

The evidence illegally seized is still admissible as long as it is not excluded by the rules of court, on the theory that the criminal should not be allowed to go free merely because “the constable has been blundered”.