Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 104 views

    YEE SUE KUY V ALMEDA Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Fadel Barambangan
    The Supreme Court upheld the search warrant issued against petitioners Sam Sing & Co. who were accused of illegal money lending. Respondents from the Usury Board applied for the warrant after investigating and gathering testimonies from victims that showed petitioners were lending money without proper licensing and at usurious rates. The Court found the respondents had probable cause based on their sworn applications and testimonies outlining their investigations. While petitioners claimed the warrant was invalid for being applied after the search, the Court dismissed their petition and found no constitutional violations in the issuance or execution of the warrant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    YEE SUE KUY V ALMEDA Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Fadel Barambangan
    104 views1 page
    The Supreme Court upheld the search warrant issued against petitioners Sam Sing & Co. who were accused of illegal money lending. Respondents from the Usury Board applied for the warrant after investigating and gathering testimonies from victims that showed petitioners were lending money without proper licensing and at usurious rates. The Court found the respondents had probable cause based on their sworn applications and testimonies outlining their investigations. While petitioners claimed the warrant was invalid for being applied after the search, the Court dismissed their petition and found no constitutional violations in the issuance or execution of the warrant.

    Original Title

    YEE SUE KUY V ALMEDA case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the search warrant issued against petitioners Sam Sing & Co. who were accused of illegal money lending. Respondents from the Usury Board applied for the warrant after investigating and gathering testimonies from victims that showed petitioners were lending money without proper licensing and at usurious rates. The Court found the respondents had probable cause based on their sworn applications and testimonies outlining their investigations. While petitioners claimed the warrant was invalid for being applied after the search, the Court dismissed their petition and found no constitutional violations in the issuance or execution of the warrant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    104 views1 page

    YEE SUE KUY V ALMEDA Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Fadel Barambangan
    The Supreme Court upheld the search warrant issued against petitioners Sam Sing & Co. who were accused of illegal money lending. Respondents from the Usury Board applied for the warrant after investigating and gathering testimonies from victims that showed petitioners were lending money without proper licensing and at usurious rates. The Court found the respondents had probable cause based on their sworn applications and testimonies outlining their investigations. While petitioners claimed the warrant was invalid for being applied after the search, the Court dismissed their petition and found no constitutional violations in the issuance or execution of the warrant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    YEE SUE KUY V ALMEDA

    G.R. NO. 47021, JUNE 25, 1940

    FACTS:

    Mariano G. Almeda, chief agent of the Usury Board and respondent, applied for a
    search warrant and was approved on the same date, May 5, 1938, before the justice of
    the peace of Sagay, Occidental Negros. They applied for it after taking testimonies of
    himself and Jose Estrada, special agent of the Usury Board. They claimed that Sam
    Sing & Co. is practicing the lending of money with usurious rates. On the same date,
    they seized various materials from the petitioners which include notebooks, etc. that are
    used to keep track of their money lending scheme. Petitioners protested that the search
    and seizure was unconstitutional because the warrant is illegal as it had been applied
    three days after the search of their place of business. After many motions on claiming
    that the search was illegal and unconstitutional, the petitioners now file a petition to the
    Supreme Court on two grounds which were 1) illegal because it was allegedly applied
    three days after the search operation, and; 2) illegal because it is unreasonable and
    violates the petitioners constitutional right against compelling the accused to testify
    against themselves.

    Issue: Whether or not the respondents have probable cause in applying for the search
    warrant?

    Ruling:

    Yes. Respondents have probable cause in this case. The Supreme Court stated
    that the respondent properly followed with the formalities prescribed by section 1,
    paragraph 3, of Article 3 of the Constitution and section 97 of General Orders No. 58.
    The respondents swore in their applications and testimonies that they have done their
    extensive personal investigations before applying for the said search warrant. They
    interviewed dozens of the victims and ensured that the petitioners were indeed lending
    money without a license and at usurious rates. If the facts had been stated otherwise in
    their testimonies, then they would be held liable for perjury. It had also been stated in the
    warrant itself that the Court of First Instance had examined their testimonies and had
    found that there is a just and probable cause for the issuance of the said warrant. The
    description of the items to be seized is sufficient as it is not too specific or technical.

    Therefore the petition is dismissed.

    You might also like