Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaEN BANCG.R. No. L-45950 June 20, 1938LEONA PASION IU!A !E GARCIA, petitioner, vs.!IEGO LOCSIN, Ju"#e o$ %&'() In()*n+e o$ T*',*+, %ELI- IMPERIAL, P'o.&n+&*, %&(+*, o$ T*',*+, *n" )/e ANTI-USUR0 1OAR!, respondents.Benigo S. Aquino and Marcial P. Lichauco for petitionerAdolfo N. Feliciano for the respondent Anti-Usury Board.Office of the Solicitor-eneral !uason for other respondents.LAUREL, J.:This is a petition for "anda"us presented to secure the annulment of a search warrant and two orders ofthe respondent ud!e, and the restoration of certain documents alle!ed to have been ille!all" sei#ed b"an a!ent of the Anti$%suar" Board.&t appears that on November '(, ')*+, Mariano ,. Almeda, an a!ent of the Anti$%suar" Board, obtainedfrom the ustice of the peace of Tarlac, Tarlac, a search warrant-E.hibit B/ commandin! an" officer of thelaw to search the person, house or store of the petitioner at 0ictoria, Tarlac, for 1certain boo2s, lists, chits,receipts, documents and other papers relatin! to her activities as usurer.1 The search warrant was issuedupon an affidavit !iven b" the said Almeda 1that he has and there -is/ ust and probable cause to believeand he does believe that 3eona Pasion de ,arcia 2eeps and conceals in her house and store at 0ictoria,Tarlac, certainboo2s, lists, chits, receipts, documents, andother papersrelatin!toher activitiesasusurer, all of which is contrar" to the statute in such cases made and provided.1 4n the same date, thesaid Mariano ,. Almeda, accompanied b" a captain of the Philippine Constabular", went to the office ofthepetitionerin0ictoria, Tarlacand, aftershowin!thesearchwarrant tothepetitioner5sboo22eeper,Alfredo 6alas, and, without the presence of the petitioner who was ill and confined at the time, proceededwith the e.ecution thereof. Two pac2a!es of records and a loc2ed filin! cabinet containin! several Papersand documents were sei#ed b" Almeda and a receipt therefor issued b" him to 6alas. The papers anddocuments sei#ed were 2ept for a considerable len!th of time b" the Anti$%sur" Board and thereafterwere turned over b" it to the respondent fiscal who subse7uentl" filed, in the Court of 8irst &nstance ofTarlac, si. separate criminalcases a!ainst the herein petitioner for violation of the Anti$%sur" 3aw. 4nseveraloccasions, after sei#ure,thepetitioner, throu!hcounsel,demanded from the respondent Anti$%sur" Board the return of the documents sei#ed. 4n 9anuar" :. and, b" motion, on 9une +, ')*:, thele!alit" of the search warrant was challen!ed b" counsel for the petitioner in the si. criminal cases andthe devolution of the documents demanded. B" resolution of 4ctober ;, ')*:, the respondent 9ud!e of8irst &nstance denied the petitioner5s motion of 9une + for the reason that thou!h the search warrant wasille!al, there was a waiver on the part of the petitioner. 1#n el caso presente$% declared the respondentud!e, %teniendo en cuenta que la acusada Por si o por "edio de su representante$ no presento protestsalguna contra el registro de autos$ at &erificarse el "is"o$ o despues de un tie"po re'ona(le$ el )u'gadodeclare que la citada con su silencio y conducta$ ha renunciado i"plicitan"ente a su derecho a no serso"etido a un registro irra'ona(le$ por lo que no le es pe"itido que)arse despues$ puesto que cualquierdefecto queha adolecido lo e*pedicion de la orden de registro y su e)ecucion$ ha quidado i"plilcita"entesu(sanado.1 A motion for reconsideration was presented but was denied b" order of 9anuar" *, ')* -?/ the probable cause must be determined b" theud!e himself and not b" the applicant or an" other person> -*/ in the determination of probable cause, theud!e must e.amine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter ma"produce> and -+/ the warrant issued must particularl" describe the place to be searched and persons orthin!s to be sei#ed. These re7uirements are complemented b" the Code of Criminal Procedure -,. 4. No.; and, lastl", that said person had an actual intention to relin7uish the ri!ht.-C: C. 9., ?))./ &t is true that the petitioner did not obect to the le!alit" of the search when it was made.6he could not have obected because she was sic2 and was not present when the warrant was servedupon Alfredo6alas. Certainl",theconstitutional immunit"fromunreasonablesearchesandsei#ures,bein! a personal one, cannot be waived b" an"one e.cept the person whose ri!hts are invaded or onewho is e.pressl" authori#ed to do so in his or her behalf. -;C C. 9., p. '' on November '*, ')*)> that the respondent 9ud!e of theCourt of 8irst &nstance of 4ccidentalNe!ros, in case allor more of the articles in 7uestion should beintroduced as evidence for the prosecution in criminal case No. '';)', entitled 1People of thePhilippines &s. Bee 8oc2 -alias Bee 6ue Go"/, B. Tip and A. 6in!,1 be li2ewise commanded to refrain fromadmittin! the same.The petition is !rounded on the propositions -'/ that the search warrant issued on Ma" ?, ')* Carroll &s. %. 6., ?C:%. 6. '*?/, thesaidrulehasnoapplicable force in the present case. Ehile in the cases of /odrigue' et al. &s. .illa"iel et al.$ supra $ andAlvare# &s. Court of 8irst &nstance of Ta"abas, supra , it appeared that the documents therein involvedwere in fact sei#ed for the purpose of discoverin! evidence to be used a!ainst the persons from whomthe" were sei#ed, in the case at bar this fact is not clear and is furthermore denied. &n the application forthe issuance of the search warrant in 7uestion, it was alle!ed that the articles sei#ed were 1bein! used b"it -6am6in!HCo./inconnectionwithitsactivitiesof lendin!mone"at usuriousrateof interest inviolation of the %sur" 3aw,1 and it is now su!!ested -memoranda for respondents/ that the onl" obect ofthe a!ents of the Anti$%sur" Board in 2eepin! the articles is to prevent the petitioners from em pl"in!them as a means of further violations of the %sur" 3aw. &n this state of the record, without decidin! the7uestion whether the petitioners will in fact use the articles in 7uestion, if returned, for ille!al purposes, weare not prepared to order the return pra"ed for b" the petitioners. -Cf. People &s. Rubio, ;: Phil., * %"Ghe"tin &s. 0illareal, +? Phil., &nterstateCommerceCommission vs Brimson, *< 3aw. ed., '(+:> Bro"d &s. %. 6., ?) 3aw. ed., :+C> Caroll &s. %. 6., C)3aw. ed., ;+*, ;+)/. Ehile the power to search and sei#e is necessar" to the public welfare, still itmust be e.ercised and the law enforced without trans!ressin! the constitutional ri!hts or citi#en,forthe enforcement of nostatueisof sufficientimportancetoustif"indifferencetothebasisprinciples of !overnment -People &s. Elias, '+: N. E., +:?/.&&. As the protection of the citi#en and the maintenance of his constitutionalri!ht is one of thehi!hest duties and privile!es of the court, these constitutional !uaranties should be !iven a liberalconstruction or a strict construction in favor of the individual, to prevent stealth" encroachmentupon, or !radual depreciation on, the ri!hts secured b" them -6tate &s. Custer Count", ')< Pac.,*C?> 6tate &s. McFaniel, ?*' Pac., )C;> ?*: Pac., *:*/. 6ince the proceedin! is a drastic one, itis the !eneralrule that statutes authori#in! searches and sei#ure or search warrants must bestrictl"construed-Rose &s. 6t. Clair,? 6tate &s. 9ac2son, '*: N. E., '(*+> 0n re 6a!e,?+4h. Cir.Ct. @N. 6.A, :> Pumpher" &s.6tate, '??N. E., ')> Priest &s. 6tate, CN. E., +C6tate &s. 9ones, ';+ Pac., *: Atwood &s. 6tate, ''' 6o., 3ambert &s. %. 6. ?