Petitioner Martin Alagao, head of the counter-intelligence unit of the Manila Police Department, acting upon a reliable information that a certain shipment
of personal effects, allegedly misdeclared and undervalued, would be released the following day from the customs zone of the port of Manila and
loaded on two trucks,
l Upon orders of petitioner Ricardo Papa, Chief of Police of Manila and a duly deputized agent of the Bureau of Customs, Petitioner Alagao conducted
surveillance at gate No. 1 of the customs zone.
l When the trucks left gate No. 1 at about 4:30 in the afternoon of November 4, 1966, elements of the counter-intelligence unit went after the trucks and
intercepted them at the Agrifina Circle, Ermita, Manila.
The load of the two trucks consisting of nine bales of goods, and the two trucks, were seized on instructions of the Chief of Police.
 Upon investigation, a person claimed ownership of the goods and showed to the policemen a "Statement and Receipts of Duties Collected in Informal Entry
No. 147-5501", issued by the Bureau of Customs in the name of a certain Bienvenido Naguit.
l Remedios Mago, herein respondent, said that she owns the goods seized.
Ø That she purchased them from the Sta. Monica Grocery in San Fernando, Pampanga;
Ø that she hired the trucks owned by Valentin Lanopa to transport, the goods from said place to her residence at 1657 Laon Laan St.,
Sampaloc, Manila;
Ø  that the goods were seized by members of the Manila Police Department without search warrant issued by a competent court;
Ø that Manila Chief of Police Ricardo Papa denied the request of counsel for Remedios Mago that the bales be not opened and the goods
contained therein be not examined;
Ø that then Customs Commissioner Jacinto Gavino had illegally assigned appraisers to examine the goods because the goods were no longer
under the control and supervision of the Commissioner of Customs;
Ø that the goods, even assuming them to have been misdeclared and, undervalued, were not subject to seizure under Section 2531 of the
Tariff and Customs Code because Remedios Mago had bought them from another person without knowledge that they were
imported illegally.
Hence, respondent Mago filed for prohibition and certiorari.
Meanwhile, in Civil Case No. 67496 (regarding restraining respondents from opening 9 bales), Judge Hilarion Jarencio issued an order ex parte restraining the
petitioners. However, when the restraining order was received by herein respondent, some bales had already been opened by the examiners of the
Bureau of Customs in the presence of officials of the Manila Police Department, an assistant city fiscal and a representative of herein respondent
Remedios Mago.
l Also, Remedios Mago filed an ex parte motion to release the goods which the court granted.
l Petitioner Ricardo Papa, on his own behalf, filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the court releasing the goods under bond, upon the ground
that the Manila Police Department had been directed by the Collector of Customs of the Port of Manila to hold the goods pending termination of the
seizure proceedings.
l Without waiting for the court's action on the MR, and alleging that they had no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, herein
petitioners filed the present action for prohibition and certiorari with a preliminary injunction before this Court.

Petitioner Martin Alagao, head of the counter-intelligence unit of the Manila Police Department, acting upon a reliable
information received on November 3, 1966 to the effect that a certain shipment of personal effects, allegedly misdeclared
and undervalued, would be released... the following day from the customs zone of the port of Manila and loaded on two
trucks, and upon orders of petitioner Ricardo Papa, Chief of Police of Manila and a duly deputized agent of the Bureau of
Customs, conducted surveillance at gate No. 1 of the customs zone. When the... trucks left gate No. 1 at about 4:30 in the
afternoon of November 4, 1966, elements of the counter-intelligence unit went after the trucks and intercepted them at the
Agrifina Circle, Ermita, Manila. The load of the two trucks, consisting of nine bales of goods, and the two... trucks, were
seized on instructions of the Chief of Police. Upon investigation, a person claimed ownership of the goods and showed to the
policemen a "Statement and Receipts of Duties Collected on Informal Entry No. 147-5501", issued by the Bureau of Customs
in the name of a... certain Bienvenido Naguit.

WON the seizure of the imported goods is validly done by herein petitioners
WON an automobile truck or an automobile could be searched without search warrant

Facts: Petitioner Martin Alagao, head of the counter-intelligence unit of the Manila Police
Department, acting upon a reliable information received on November 3, 1966 to the effect that a
certain shipment of personal effects, allegedly misdeclared and undervalued, would be released the
following day from the customs zone of the port of Manila and loaded on two trucks, and upon orders
of petitioner Ricardo Papa, Chief of Police of Manila and a duly deputized agent of the Bureau of
Customs, conducted surveillance at gate No. 1 of the customs zone. When the trucks left gate No. 1 at
about 4:30 in the afternoon of November 4, 1966, elements of the counter-intelligence unit went
after the trucks and intercepted them at the Agrifina Circle, Ermita, Manila. The load of the two trucks
consisting of nine bales of goods, and the two trucks, were seized on instructions of the Chief of
Police. Upon investigation, a person claimed ownership of the goods and showed to the policemen a
“Statement and Receipts of Duties Collected in Informal Entry No. 147-5501”, issued by the Bureau of
Customs in the name of a certain Bienvenido Naguit. Claiming to have been prejudiced by the seizure
and detention of the two trucks and their cargo, Private Respondents filed with the Court of First
Instance of Manila a petition “for mandamus with restraining order. That the goods were seized by
members of the Manila Police Department without search warrant issued by a competent court;
Respondent Judge Hilarion Jarencio issued an order ex parte restraining the petitioners from opening
the nine bales in question, and at the same time set the hearing of the petition for preliminary
injunction on November 16, 1966. However, when the restraining order was received by herein
petitioners, some bales had already been opened by the examiners of the Bureau of Customs in the
presence of officials of the Manila Police Department, an assistant city fiscal and a representative of
herein respondent Remedios Mago.
Issue: Whether a warrant issued by a competent court is required to search and seize a moving cargo
or vehicle.
Held: No, The Tariff and Customs Code does not require said warrant in the instant case. The Code
authorizes persons having police authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to
enter, pass through or search any land, enclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a dwelling
house; and also to inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, or
envelope or any person on board, or to stop and search and examine any vehicle, beast or person
suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines
contrary to law, without mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases. But in the search of a
dwelling house, the Code provides that said “dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon
warrant issued by a judge or justice of the peace. The court view, therefor, 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. the court defined 
the difference made as to the necessity for a search warrant between goods subject to forfeiture,
when concealed in a dwelling house of similar place, and like goods in course of transportation and
concealed in a movable vessel, where readily they could be put out of reach of a search warrant. In
the instant case, we note that petitioner Martin Alagao and his companion policemen did not have to
make any search before they seized the two trucks and their cargo. In their original petition, and
amended petition, in the court below Remedios Mago and Valentin Lanopa did not even allege that
there was a search. But even if there was a search, there is still authority to the effect that no search
warrant would be needed under the circumstances obtaining in the instant case. he guaranty of
freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is construed as recognizing a necessary difference
between a search of a dwelling house or other structure in respect of which a search warrant may
readily be obtained and a search of a ship, motorboat, wagon, or automobile for contraband goods,
where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the
locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.