G.R. No.

161106 January 13, 2014 toll center would then meter the call, which will pass through
the PSTN of the called number to complete the circuit. In
WORLDWIDE WEB CORPORATION and CHERRYLL L. contrast, petitioners were able to provide international long
YU, Petitioners, distance call services to any part of the world by using
vs. PLDT’s telephone lines, but bypassing its IGF. This scheme
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and PHILIPPINE LONG constitutes toll bypass, a "method of routing and completing
DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, Respondents. international long distance calls using lines, cables, antenna
x-----------------------x and/or wave or frequency which connects directly to the
local or domestic exchange facilities of the originating
G.R. No. 161266 country or the country where the call is originated."9
PLANET INTERNET CORP., Petitioner, On the other hand, Gali claimed that a phone number
vs. serviced by PLDT and registered to WWC was used to
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE provide a service called GlobalTalk, "an internet-based
COMPANY, Respondent. international call service, which can be availed of via prepaid
or billed/post-paid accounts."10 During a test call using
DECISION
GlobalTalk, Gali dialed the local PLDT telephone number
SERENO, CJ: 6891135, the given access line. After a voice prompt
required him to enter the user code and personal
Petitioners filed the present Petitions under Rule 45 of the identification number (PIN) provided under a GlobalTalk pre-
Rules of Court to set aside the Decision1 dated 20 August paid account, he was then requested to enter the destination
2003 and the Resolution2 dated 27 November 2003 of the number, which included the country code, phone number
Court of Appeals (CA) reversing the quashal of the search and a pound (#) sign. The call was completed to a phone
warrants previously issued by the Regional Trial Court number in Taiwan. However, when he checked the records,
(RTC). it showed that the call was only directed to the local number
6891135. This indicated that the international test call using
Police Chief Inspector Napoleon Villegas of the Regional
GlobalTalk bypassed PLDT’s IGF.
Intelligence Special Operations Office (RISOO) of the
Philippine National Police filed applications for Based on the records of PLDT, telephone number 6891135
warrants3 before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 78, to is registered to WWC with address at UN 2103, 21/F Orient
search the office premises of petitioner Worldwide Web Square Building, Emerald Avenue, Barangay San Antonio,
Corporation (WWC)4 located at the 11th floor, IBM Plaza Pasig City.11 However, upon an ocular inspection conducted
Building, No. 188 Eastwood City, Libis, Quezon City, as well by Rivera at this address, it was found that the occupant of
as the office premises of petitioner Planet Internet the unit is Planet Internet, which also uses the telephone
Corporation (Planet Internet)5 located at UN 2103, 21/F lines registered to WWC.12 These telephone lines are
Orient Square Building, Emerald Avenue, Barangay San interconnected to a server and used as dial-up access
Antonio, Pasig City. The applications alleged that petitioners lines/numbers of WWC.
were conducting illegal toll bypass operations, which
amounted to theft and violation of Presidential Decree No. Gali further alleged that because PLDT lines and equipment
401 (Penalizing the Unauthorized Installation of Water, had been illegally connected by petitioners to a piece of
Electrical or Telephone Connections, the Use of Tampered equipment that routed the international calls and bypassed
Water or Electrical Meters and Other Acts), to the damage PLDT’s IGF, they violated Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
and prejudice of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone 401 as amended,13 on unauthorized installation of telephone
Company (PLDT).6 connections. Petitioners also committed theft, because
through their misuse of PLDT phone lines/numbers and
On 25 September 2001, the trial court conducted a hearing equipment and with clear intent to gain, they illegally stole
on the applications for search warrants. The applicant and business and revenues that rightly belong to PLDT.
Jose Enrico Rivera (Rivera) and Raymund Gali (Gali) of the Moreover, they acted contrary to the letter and intent of
Alternative Calling Pattern Detection Division of PLDT Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7925, because in bypassing the IGF
testified as witnesses. of PLDT, they evaded the payment of access and bypass
charges in its favor while "piggy-backing" on its multi-million
According to Rivera, a legitimate international long distance
dollar facilities and infrastructure, thus stealing its business
call should pass through the local exchange or public switch
revenues from international long distance calls. Further,
telephone network (PSTN) on to the toll center of one of the
petitioners acted in gross violation of Memorandum Circular
international gateway facilities (IGFs)7 in the
8 No. 6-2-92 of the National Telecommunications Commission
Philippines. The call is then transmitted to the other country
(NTC) prohibiting the use of customs premises equipment
through voice circuits, either via fiber optic submarine cable
(CPE) without first securing type approval license from the
or microwave radio using satellite facilities, and passes the
latter.
toll center of one of the IGFs in the destination country. The
Based on a five-day sampling of the phone line of e) PABX or Switching Equipment, Tapes or equipment or
petitioners, PLDT computed a monthly revenue loss of device capable of connecting telephone lines;
₱764,718.09. PLDT likewise alleged that petitioners
deprived it of foreign exchange revenues, and evaded the f) Software, Diskettes, Tapes or equipment or device used
payment of taxes, license fees, and charges, to the prejudice for recording or storing information; and
of the government. g) Manuals, application forms, access codes, billing
During the hearing, the trial court required the identification statement, receipts, contracts, checks, orders,
of the office premises/units to be searched, as well as their communications and documents, lease and/or subscription
floor plans showing the location of particular computers and agreements or contracts, communications and documents
servers that would be taken.14 relating to securing and using telephone lines and/or
equipment.
On 26 September 2001, the RTC granted the application for
search warrants.15 Accordingly, the following warrants were 3. Search Warrant No. Q-01-3858,18 issued for violation of
issued against the office premises of petitioners, authorizing paragraph one (1) of Article 308 (theft) in relation to Article
police officers to seize various items: 309 of the Revised Penal Code against Planet Internet
Corporation/Mercury One, Robertson S. Chiang, Nikki S.
1. Search Warrant No. Q-01-3856,16 issued for violation of Chiang, Maria Sy Be Chiang, Ben C. Javellana, Carmelita
paragraph one (1) of Article 308 (theft) in relation to Article Tuason with business address at UN 2103, 21/F Orient
309 of the Revised Penal Code against WWC, Adriel S. Square Building, Emerald Avenue, Barangay San Antonio,
Mirto, Kevin L. Tan, Cherryll L. Yu, Carmelo J. Canto, III, Pasig City:
Ferdinand B. Masi, Message One International Corporation,
Adriel S. Mirto, Nova Christine L. Dela Cruz, Robertson S. a) Modems or Routers or any equipment or device that
Chiang, and Nolan B. Sison with business address at 11/F enables data terminal equipment such as computers to
IBM Plaza Building, No. 188 Eastwood City, Cyberpark communicate with other data terminal equipment via a
Libis, Quezon City: telephone line;

a) Computers or any equipment or device capable of b) Computers or any equipment or device capable of
accepting information, applying the process of the accepting information applying the prescribed process of the
information and supplying the results of this process; information and supplying the results of this process;

b) Software, Diskettes, Tapes or equipment or device used c) Lines, Cables and Antennas or equipment or device
for recording or storing information; and c) Manuals, capable of transmitting air waves or frequency, such as an
application forms, access codes, billing statements, IPL and telephone lines and equipment;
receipts, contracts, communications and documents relating d) Multiplexers or any equipment or device that enables two
to securing and using telephone lines and/or equipment. or more signals from different sources to pass through a
2. Search Warrant No. Q-01-3857,17 issued for violation of common cable or transmission line;
P.D. 401 against Planet Internet Corporation/Mercury One, e) PABX or Switching Equipment, Tapes or equipment or
Robertson S. Chiang, Nikki S. Chiang, Maria Sy Be Chiang, device capable of connecting telephone lines;
Ben C. Javellana, Carmelita Tuason with business address
at UN 2103, 21/F Orient Square Building, Emerald Avenue, f) Software, Diskettes, Tapes or equipment or device used
Barangay San Antonio, Pasig City: for recording or storing information; and

a) Modems or Routers or any equipment or device that g) Manuals, application forms, access codes, billing
enables data terminal equipment such as computers to statement, receipts, contracts, checks, orders,
communicate with other data terminal equipment via a communications and documents, lease and/or subscription
telephone line; agreements or contracts, communications and documents
relating to securing and using telephone lines and/or
b) Computers or any equipment or device capable of equipment.
accepting information applying the prescribed process of the
information and supplying the results of this process; The warrants were implemented on the same day by RISOO
operatives of the National Capital Region Police Office.
c) Lines, Cables and Antennas or equipment or device
capable of transmitting air waves or frequency, such as an Over a hundred items were seized,19 including 15 central
IPL and telephone lines and equipment; processing units (CPUs), 10 monitors, numerous wires,
cables, diskettes and files, and a laptop computer.20 Planet
d) Multiplexers or any equipment or device that enables two Internet notes that even personal diskettes of its employees
or more signals from different sources to pass through a were confiscated; and areas not devoted to the transmission
common cable or transmission line; of international calls, such as the President’s Office and the
Information Desk, were searched. Voltage regulators, as
well as reserve and broken computers, were also seized. 1. PLDT, without the conformity of the public prosecutor, had
Petitioners WWC and Cherryll Yu,21 and Planet no personality to question the quashal of the search
Internet22 filed their respective motions to quash the search warrants;
warrants, citing basically the same grounds: (1) the search
warrants were issued without probable cause, since the acts 2. PLDT assailed the quashal orders via an appeal rather
complained of did not constitute theft; (2) toll bypass, the act than a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
complained of, was not a crime; (3) the search warrants Court.
were general warrants; and (4) the objects seized pursuant II. Whether the assailed search warrants were issued upon
thereto were "fruits of the poisonous tree." probable cause, considering that the acts complained of
PLDT filed a Consolidated Opposition23 to the motions to allegedly do not constitute theft.
quash. III. Whether the CA seriously erred in holding that the
In the hearing of the motions to quash on 19 October 2001, assailed search warrants were not general warrants.
the test calls alluded to by Gali in his Affidavit were shown OUR RULING
to have passed the IGF of Eastern Telecommunications
(Philippines) Inc. (Eastern) and of Capital Wireless I.
(Capwire).24 Planet Internet explained that Eastern and
1. An application for a search warrant is not a criminal
Capwire both provided international direct dialing services,
action; conformity of the public prosecutor is not necessary
which Planet Internet marketed by virtue of a "Reseller
Agreement." Planet Internet used PLDT lines for the first to
give the aggrieved party personality to question an order
phase of the call; but for the second phase, it used the IGF
quashing search warrants.
of either Eastern or Capwire. Planet Internet religiously paid
PLDT for its domestic phone bills and Eastern and Capwire Petitioners contend that PLDT had no personality to
for its IGF usage. None of these contentions were refuted by question the quashal of the search warrants without the
PLDT. conformity of the public prosecutor. They argue that it
violated Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal
The RTC granted the motions to quash on the ground that
Procedure, to wit:
the warrants issued were in the nature of general
warrants.25 Thus, the properties seized under the said SEC. 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. — All criminal
warrants were ordered released to petitioners. actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be
prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor.
PLDT moved for reconsideration,26 but its motion was
denied27 on the ground that it had failed to get the conformity The above provision states the general rule that the public
of the City Prosecutor prior to filing the motion, as required prosecutor has direction and control of the prosecution of
under Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal "(a)ll criminal actions commenced by a complaint or
Procedure. information." However, a search warrant is obtained, not by
the filing of a complaint or an information, but by the filing of
THE CA RULING
an application therefor.34
PLDT appealed to the CA, where the case was docketed as
Furthermore, as we held in Malaloan v. Court of
CA-G.R. No. 26190. The CA reversed and set aside the
assailed RTC Resolutions and declared the search warrants Appeals,35 an application for a search warrant is a "special
criminal process," rather than a criminal action:
valid and effective.28
The basic flaw in this reasoning is in erroneously equating
Petitioners separately moved for reconsideration of the CA
the application for and the obtention of a search warrant with
ruling.29 Among the points raised was that PLDT should
the institution and prosecution of a criminal action in a trial
have filed a petition for certiorari rather than an appeal when
court. It would thus categorize what is only a special criminal
it questioned the RTC Resolution before the CA. The
process, the power to issue which is inherent in all courts,
appellate court denied the Motions for Reconsideration.30
as equivalent to a criminal action, jurisdiction over which is
Rule 45 Petitions were separately filed by petitioners WWC reposed in specific courts of indicated competence. It
and Cherryll Yu,31 and Planet Internet32 to assail the CA ignores the fact that the requisites, procedure and purpose
Decision and Resolution. The Court consolidated the two for the issuance of a search warrant are completely different
Petitions.33 from those for the institution of a criminal action.

ISSUES For, indeed, a warrant, such as a warrant of arrest or a

search warrant, merely constitutes process. A search
I. Whether the CA erred in giving due course to PLDT’s warrant is defined in our jurisdiction as an order in writing
appeal despite the following procedural infirmities: issued in the name of the People of the Philippines signed
by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him
to search for personal property and bring it before the court. Petitioners’ reliance upon Marcelo is misplaced.
A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process akin
to a writ of discovery. It is a special and peculiar remedy, An application for a search warrant is a judicial process
drastic in its nature, and made necessary because of a conducted either as an incident in a main criminal case
public necessity. already filed in court or in anticipation of one yet to be
filed.40 Whether the criminal case (of which the search
In American jurisdictions, from which we have taken our jural warrant is an incident) has already been filed before the trial
concept and provisions on search warrants, such warrant is court is significant for the purpose of determining the proper
definitively considered merely as a process, generally remedy from a grant or denial of a motion to quash a search
issued by a court in the exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction, warrant.
and not a criminal action to be entertained by a court
pursuant to its original jurisdiction. We emphasize this fact Where the search warrant is issued as an incident in a
for purposes of both issues as formulated in this opinion, pending criminal case, as it was in Marcelo, the quashal of
with the catalogue of authorities herein.36 (Emphasis a search warrant is merely interlocutory. There is still
supplied) "something more to be done in the said criminal case, i.e.,
the determination of the guilt of the accused therein."41
Clearly then, an application for a search warrant is not a
criminal action. Meanwhile, we have consistently recognized In contrast, where a search warrant is applied for and issued
the right of parties to question orders quashing those in anticipation of a criminal case yet to be filed, the order
warrants.37 Accordingly, we sustain the CA’s ruling that the quashing the warrant (and denial of a motion for
conformity of the public prosecutor is not necessary before reconsideration of the grant) ends the judicial process.
an aggrieved party moves for reconsideration of an order There is nothing more to be done thereafter.
granting a motion to quash search warrants. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that Marcelo does not apply to
2. An order quashing a search warrant, which was issued this case. Here, the applications for search warrants were
independently prior to the filing of a criminal action, partakes instituted as principal proceedings and not as incidents to
of a final order that can be the proper subject of an appeal. pending criminal actions. When the search warrants issued
were subsequently quashed by the RTC, there was nothing
Petitioners also claim that since the RTC ruling on the left to be done by the trial court. Thus, the quashal of the
motions to quash was interlocutory, it cannot be appealed search warrants were final orders, not interlocutory, and an
under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. PLDT should have filed appeal may be properly taken therefrom.
a Rule 65 petition instead. Petitioners cite, as authority for
their position, Marcelo v. de Guzman.38 The Court held II.
therein as follows: Trial judges determine probable cause in the exercise of
But is the order of Judge de Guzman denying the motion to their
quash the search warrant and to return the properties seized judicial functions. A trial judge’s finding of probable cause
thereunder final in character, or is it merely interlocutory? In for the issuance of a search warrant is accorded respect by
Cruz vs. Dinglasan, this Court, citing American reviewing courts when the finding has substantial basis.
jurisprudence, resolved this issue thus: Petitioners claim that no probable cause existed to justify the
Where accused in criminal proceeding has petitioned for the issuance of the search warrants.
return of goods seized, the order of restoration by an inferior The rules pertaining to the issuance of search warrants are
court is interlocutory and hence, not appealable; likewise, a enshrined in Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution:
denial, by the US District Court, of defendant's petition for
the return of the articles seized under a warrant is such an Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
interlocutory order. (56 C.J. 1253). persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
A final order is defined as one which disposes of the whole purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
subject matter or terminates a particular proceeding or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by be determined personally by the judge after examination
execution what has been determined; on the other hand an under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
order is interlocutory if it does not dispose of a case witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
completely, but leaves something more to be done upon its place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
merits. Tested against this criterion, the search warrant (Emphasis supplied)
issued in Criminal Case No. 558 is indisputably of
interlocutory character because it leaves something more to In the issuance of a search warrant, probable cause requires
be done in the said criminal case, i.e., the determination of "such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably
the guilt of the accused therein.39 prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed
and the objects sought in connection with that offense are in On the other hand, petitioners WWC and Cherryll Yu argue
the place to be searched."42 that there is no theft to speak of, because the properties
allegedly taken from PLDT partake of the nature of "future
There is no exact test for the determination of probable earnings and lost business opportunities" and, as such, are
cause43 in the issuance of search warrants. It is a matter uncertain, anticipative, speculative, contingent, and
wholly dependent on the finding of trial judges in the process conditional. PLDT cannot be deprived of such unrealized
of exercising their judicial function.44 They determine earnings and opportunities because these do not belong to
probable cause based on "evidence showing that, more it in the first place.
likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was
committed" by the offender.45 Upon a review of the records of the case, we understand
that the Affidavits of Rivera and Gali that accompanied the
When a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a applications for the search warrants charge petitioners with
search warrant is made by a trial judge, the finding is the crime, not of toll bypass perse, but of theft of PLDT’s
accorded respect by reviewing courts: international long distance call business committed by
x x x. It is presumed that a judicial function has been means of the alleged toll bypass operations.
regularly performed, absent a showing to the contrary. A For theft to be committed in this case, the following elements
magistrate’s determination of probable cause for the must be shown to exist: (1) the taking by petitioners (2) of
issuance of a search warrant is paid great deference by a PLDT’s personal property (3) with intent to gain (4) without
reviewing court, as long as there was substantial basis for the consent of PLDT (5) accomplished without the use of
that determination. Substantial basis means that the violence against or intimidation of persons or the use of force
questions of the examining judge brought out such facts and upon things.48
circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, Petitioners WWC and Cherryll Yu only take issue with
and the objects in connection with the offense sought to be categorizing the earnings and business as personal
seized are in the place sought to be searched.46 properties of PLDT. However, in Laurel v. Abrogar, 49 we
have already held that the use of PLDT’s communications
The transcript of stenographic notes during the hearing for facilities without its consent constitutes theft of its telephone
the application for search warrants on 25 September 2001 services and business:
shows that Judge Percival Mandap Lopez asked searching
questions to the witnesses and particularly sought x x x "[I]nternational long distance calls," the matter alleged
clarification on the alleged illegal toll bypass operations of to be stolen in the instant case, take the form of electrical
petitioners, as well as the pieces of evidence presented. energy, it cannot be said that such international long
Thus, the Court will no longer disturb the finding of probable distance calls were personal properties belonging to PLDT
cause by the trial judge during the hearing for the application since the latter could not have acquired ownership over such
for the search warrants. calls. PLDT merely encodes, augments, enhances, decodes
and transmits said calls using its complex communications
However, petitioners insist that the determination of the infrastructure and facilities. PLDT not being the owner of
existence of probable cause necessitates the prior said telephone calls, then it could not validly claim that such
determination of whether a crime or an offense was telephone calls were taken without its consent.
committed in the first place. In support of their contention
that there was no probable cause for the issuance of the It is the use of these communications facilities without the
search warrants, petitioners put forward the adage nullum consent of PLDT that constitutes the crime of theft, which is
crimen, nulla poena sine lege – there is no crime when there the unlawful taking of the telephone services and business.
is no law punishing it. Petitioners argue that there is no law
punishing toll bypass, the act complained of by PLDT. Thus, Therefore, the business of providing telecommunication and
no offense was committed that would justify the issuance of the telephone service are personal property under Article
the search warrants. 308 of the Revised Penal Code, and the act of engaging in
ISR is an act of "subtraction" penalized under said article.
According to PLDT, toll bypass enables international calls to However, the Amended Information describes the thing
appear as local calls and not overseas calls, thus effectively taken as, "international long distance calls," and only later
evading payment to the PLDT of access, termination or mentions "stealing the business from PLDT" as the manner
bypass charges, and accounting rates; payment to the by which the gain was derived by the accused. In order to
government of taxes; and compliance with NTC regulatory correct this inaccuracy of description, this case must be
requirements. PLDT concludes that toll bypass is prohibited, remanded to the trial court and the prosecution directed to
because it deprives "legitimate telephone operators, like amend the Amended Information, to clearly state that the
PLDT… of the compensation which it is entitled to had the property subject of the theft are the services and business
call been properly routed through its network."47 As such, toll of respondent PLDT. Parenthetically, this amendment is not
bypass operations constitute theft, because all of the necessitated by a mistake in charging the proper offense,
elements of the crime are present therein. which would have called for the dismissal of the information
under Rule 110, Section 14 and Rule 119, Section 19 of the connected to the IGF of either Eastern or Capwire to
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. To be sure, the crime complete the international calls.
is properly designated as one of theft. The purpose of the
amendment is simply to ensure that the accused is fully and A trial judge’s finding of probable cause may be set aside
sufficiently apprised of the nature and cause of the charge and the search warrant issued by him based on his finding
against him, and thus guaranteed of his rights under the may be quashed if the person against whom the warrant is
Constitution. (Emphasis supplied) issued presents clear and convincing evidence that when
the police officers and witnesses testified, they committed a
In Laurel, we reviewed the existing laws and jurisprudence deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth on
on the generally accepted concept of personal property in matters that are essential or necessary to a showing of
civil law as "anything susceptible of appropriation."50 It probable cause.52 In that case, the finding of probable cause
includes ownership of telephone services, which are is a nullity, because the trial judge was intentionally misled
protected by the penal provisions on theft. We therein by the witnesses.53
upheld the Amended Information charging the petitioner with
the crime of theft against PLDT inasmuch as the allegation On the other hand, innocent and negligent omissions or
was that the former was engaged in international simple misrepresentation of witnesses will not cause the quashal of
resale (ISR) or "the unauthorized routing and completing of a search warrant.54 In this case, the testimonies of Rivera
international long distance calls using lines, cables, and Gali that the test calls they conducted did not pass
antennae, and/or air wave frequency and connecting these through PLDT’s IGF are true. They neglected, however, to
calls directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of look into the possibility that the test calls may have passed
the country where destined."51 We reasoned that since through other IGFs in the Philippines, which was exactly
PLDT encodes, augments, enhances, decodes and what happened. Nevertheless, the witnesses did not commit
transmits telephone calls using its complex communications a deliberate falsehood. Even Planet Internet stated that the
infrastructure and facilities, the use of these conclusion that the test calls bypassed all IGFs in the
communications facilities without its consent constitutes country was made "carelessly and haphazardly."55
theft, which is the unlawful taking of telephone services and On this score, the quashal of the search warrants is not in
business. We then concluded that the business of providing order. It must be noted that the trial judge did not quash the
telecommunications and telephone services is personal warrants in this case based on lack of probable cause.
property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, and Instead, the issue before us is whether the CA erred in
that the act of engaging in ISR is an act of "subtraction" reversing the RTC, which ruled that the search warrants are
penalized under said article. general warrants.
Furthermore, toll bypass operations could not have been III.
accomplished without the installation of telecommunications
equipment to the PLDT telephone lines. Thus, petitioners The requirement of particularity in the description of things
may also be held liable for violation of P.D. 401, to wit: to
be seized is fulfilled when the items described in the search
Section 1. Any person who installs any water, electrical, warrant bear a direct relation to the offense for which the
telephone or piped gas connection without previous warrant is sought.
authority from the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
System, the Manila Electric Company, the Philippine Long Petitioners claim that the subject search warrants were in
Distance Telephone Company , or the Manila Gas the nature of general warrants because the descriptions
Corporation, as the case may be, tampers and/or uses therein of the objects to be seized are so broad and all-
tampered water, electrical or gas meters, jumpers or other encompassing as to give the implementing officers wide
devices whereby water, electricity or piped gas is stolen; discretion over which articles to seize. In fact, the CA
steals or pilfers water, electric or piped gas meters, or water, observed that the targets of the search warrants were not
electric and/or telephone wires, or piped gas pipes or illegal per se, and that they were "innocuous goods." Thus,
conduits; knowingly possesses stolen or pilfered water, the police officers were given blanket authority to determine
electrical or gas meters as well as stolen or pilfered water, whether the objects were legal or not, as in fact even pieces
electrical and/or telephone wires, or piped gas pipes and of computer equipment not involved in telecommunications
conduits, shall, upon conviction, be punished with prision or Internet service were confiscated.
correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from two
On the other hand, PLDT claims that a search warrant
thousand to six thousand pesos, or both . (Emphasis
already fulfills the requirement of particularity of description
supplied)
when it is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily
The peculiar circumstances attending the situation compel allow.56 Furthermore, it cites Kho v. Makalintal,57 in which
us to rule further on the matter of probable cause. During the the Court allowed leeway in the description of things to be
hearing of the motions to quash the search warrants, the test seized, taking into consideration the effort and the time
calls conducted by witnesses for PLDT were shown to have element involved in the prosecution of criminal cases.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in its Within the context of the above legal requirements for valid
Comment58 filed with the CA, likewise prayed for the search warrants, the Court has been mindful of the difficulty
reversal of the quashal of the search warrants in view of the faced by law enforcement officers in describing the items to
OSG’s position that the scheme was a case of electronic be searched, especially when these items are technical in
theft, and that the items sought to be seized could not be nature, and when the extent of the illegal operation is largely
described with calibrated precision. According to the OSG, unknown to them. Vallejo v. Court of Appeals61 ruled as
assuming that the seized items could also be used for other follows:
legitimate businesses, the fact remains that the items were
used in the commission of an offense. The things to be seized must be described with particularity.
Technical precision of description is not required. It is only
A general warrant is defined as "(a) search or arrest warrant necessary that there be reasonable particularity and
that is not particular as to the person to be arrested or the certainty as to the identity of the property to be searched for
property to be seized."59 It is one that allows the "seizure of and seized, so that the warrant shall not be a mere roving
one thing under a warrant describing another" and gives the commission. Indeed, the law does not require that the things
officer executing the warrant the discretion over which items to be seized must be described in precise and minute detail
to take.60 as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching
authorities. If this were the rule, it would be virtually
Such discretion is abhorrent, as it makes the person, against impossible for the applicants to obtain a warrant as they
whom the warrant is issued, vulnerable to would not know exactly what kind of things to look for. Any
abuses.1âwphi1 Our Constitution guarantees our right description of the place or thing to be searched that will
against unreasonable searches and seizures, and enable the officer making the search with reasonable
safeguards have been put in place to ensure that people and certainty to locate such place or thing is sufficient.
their properties are searched only for the most compelling (Emphasis supplied)
and lawful reasons.
Furthermore, the Court also had occasion to rule that the
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides: particularity of the description of the place to be searched
Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, and the things to be seized is required "wherever and
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches whenever it is feasible."62 A search warrant need not
and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall describe the items to be seized in precise and minute
be inviolable, and no such search warrant or warrant of detail.63 The warrant is valid when it enables the police
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be officers to readily identify the properties to be seized and
determined personally by the judge after examination under leaves them with no discretion regarding the articles to be
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he seized.64
may produce, and particularly describing the place to be In this case, considering that items that looked like
searched and the persons or things to be seized.In "innocuous goods" were being used to pursue an illegal
furtherance of this constitutional provision, Sections 3 and 4, operation that amounts to theft, law enforcement officers
Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, amplify the rules regarding would be hard put to secure a search warrant if they were
the following places and items to be searched under a required to pinpoint items with one hundred percent
search warrant: precision. In
SEC. 3. Personal property to be seized. — A search warrant People v. Veloso, we pronounced that "[t]he police should
may be issued for the search and seizure of personal not be hindered in the performance of their duties, which are
property: difficult enough of performance under the best of conditions,
a) Subject of the offense; by superficial adherence to technicality or far-fetched judicial
interference."65
b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the
offense; or A search warrant fulfills the requirement of particularity in the
description of the things to be seized when the things
c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing described are limited to those that bear a direct relation to
an offense. the offense for which the warrant is being issued.66
SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A search To our mind, PLDT was able to establish the connection
warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in between the items to be searched as identified in the
connection with one specific offense to be determined warrants and the crime of theft of its telephone services and
personally by the judge after examination under oath or business. Prior to the application for the search warrants,
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may Rivera conducted ocular inspection of the premises of
produce, and particularly describing the place to be petitioners a d was then able to confirm that they had utilized
searched and the things to be seized which may be various telecommunications equipment consisting of
anywhere in the Philippines. computers, lines, cables, antennas, modems, or routers,
multiplexers, PABX or switching equipment, a d support
equipment such as software, diskettes, tapes, manuals and
other documentary records to support the illegal toll bypass
operations."67

In HPS Software and Communication Corp. v. PLDT,68 we

upheld a s milady worded69 description of items to be seized
by virtue of the search warrants, because these items had
been sufficiently identified physically and s own to bear a
relation to the offenses charged. WHEREFORE, the
petitions are DENIED. The Court of Appeals decision dated
20 August 2003 and Resolution dated 27 November 2003 in
CA-G.R. CR No. 26190 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
EN BANC[G.R. No. 94902-06. April 21, 1999] Upon verification with the Firearms and Explosives Unit in
Camp Crame, the NBI agents found out that no license has
BENJAMIN V. KHO and ELIZABETH ever been issued to any person or entity for the confiscated
ALINDOGAN, Petitioners, v. HON. ROBERTO L. firearms in question. Likewise, the radio agents found out
MAKALINTAL and NATIONAL BUREAU OF that no license has ever been issued to any person or entity
INVESTIGATION, Respondents. for the confiscated firearms in question. Likewise, the radio
DECISION tranceivers recovered and motor vehicles seized turned out
to be unlicensed and unregistered per records of the
PURISIMA, J.: government agencies concerned.
This is a petition for certiorari assailing the Order, dated July On May 22, 1990, the raiding teams submitted separate
26, 1990, of Branch LXXVII of the Metropolitan Trial Court returns to the respondent Judge requesting that the items
of Paranaque, which denied petitioners Motion to Quash seized be in the continued custody of the NBI (Annexes O,
Search Warrants emanating from the same Court. P, and Q, Petition).
Petitioners sought to restrain the respondent National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) from using the objects seized On May 28, 1990, the petitioners presented a Motion to
by virtue of such warrants in any case or cases filed or to be Quash the said Search Warrants, contending that:
filed against them and to return immediately the said items, 1. The subject search warrants were issued without
including the firearms, ammunition and explosives, radio probable cause;
communication equipment, hand sets, transceivers, two
units of vehicles and motorcycle. 2. The same search warrants are prohibited by the
Constitution for being general warrants;
The antecedent facts are as follows:
3. The said search warrants were issued in violation of the
On May 15, 1990, NBI Agent Max B. Salvador applied for procedural requirements set forth by the Constitution;
the issuance of search warrants by the respondent Judge
against Banjamin V. Kho, now petitioner, in his residence at 4. The search warrants aforesaid were served in violation of
No. 45 Bb. Ramona Tirona St., BF Homes, Phase I, the Revised Rules of Court; and
Paranaque. On the same day, Eduardo T. Arugay, another
NBI agent, applied with the same court for the issuance of 5. The objects seized were all legally possessed and issued.
search warrants against the said petitioner in his house at On July 26, 1990, respondent Judge issued the assailed
No. 326 McDivitt St., Bgy. Moonwalk, Paranaque. The Order denying the said Motion To Quash interposed by
search warrants were applied for after teams of NBI agents petitioners.
had conducted a personal surveillance and investigation in
the two houses referred to on the basis of confidential Petitioners question the issuance of subject search
information they received that the said places were being warrants, theorizing upon the absence of any probable
used as storage centers for unlicensed firearms and chop- cause therefor. They contend that the surveillance and
chop vehicles. Respondent NBI sought for the issuance of investigation conducted by NBI agents within the premises
search warrants in anticipation of criminal cases to be involved, prior to the application for the search warrants
instituted against petitioner Kho. under controversy, were not sufficient to vest in the
applicants personal knowledge of facts and circumstances
On the same day, the respondent Judge conducted the showing or indicating the commission of a crime by them
necessary examination of the applicants and their (petitioners).
witnesses, after which he issued Search Warrant Nos. 90-
11, 90-12, 90-13, 90-14, and 90-15. Petitioners contention is untenable. Records show that the
NBI agents who conducted the surveillance and
On the following day, May 16, 1990, armed with Search investigation testified unequivocably that they saw guns
Warrant Nos. 90-11 and 90-12, NBI agents searched being carried to and unloaded at the two houses searched,
subject premises at BF Homes, Paranaque, and they and motor vehicles and spare parts were stored therein. In
recovered various high-powered firearms and hundreds of fact, applicant Max B. Salvador declared that he personally
rounds of ammunition. Meanwhile, another search was attended the surveillance together with his witnesses (TSN,
conducted at the house at No. 326 McDivitt St. Bgy. May 15, 1990, pp. 2-3), and the said witnesses personally
Moonwalk, Paranaque, by another team of NBI agents using saw the weapons being unloaded from motor vehicles and
Search Warrant Nos. 90-13, 90-14 and 90-15. The said carried to the premises referred to. NBI Agent Ali Vargas
second search yielded several high-powered firearms with testified that he actually saw the firearms being unloaded
explosives and more than a thousand rounds of ammunition. from a Toyota Lite-Ace van and brought to the
The simultaneous searches also resulted in the confiscation aformentioned house in BF Homes, Paranaque because he
of various radio and telecommunication equipment, two was there inside the compound posing as an appliance
units of motor vehicles (Lite-Ace vans) and one motorcycle. agent (TSN, May 15, 1990, pp. 4-5). It is therefore decisively
clear that the application for the questioned search warrants procedure and legal requirements. It can be gleaned that the
was based on the personal knowledge of the applicants and sworn statements and affidavits submitted by the witnesses
their witnesses. were duly attached to the pertinent records of the
proceedings. It was within the discretion of the examining
In the case of Central Bank v. Morfe (20 SCRA 507), this Judge to determine what questions to ask the witnesses so
Court ruled that the question of whether or not a probable long as the questions asked are germane to the pivot of
cause exists is one which must be determined in light of the inquiry - the existence or absence of a probable cause.
conditions obtaining in given situations. In Luna v. Plaza (26
SCRA 310), it held that the existence of a probable cause Petitioners claim that subject search warrants are general
depends to a large extent upon the finding or opinion of the warrants proscribed by the Constitution. According to them,
judge who conducted the required examination of the the things to be seized were not described and detailed out,
applicants and the witnesses. i.e. the firearms listed were not classified as to size or make,
etc.
After a careful study, the Court discerns no basis for
disturbing the findings and conclusions arrived at by the Records on hand indicate that the search warrants under
respondent Judge after examining the applicants and scrutiny specifically describe the items to be seized thus:
witnesses. Respondent judge had the singular opportunity
to assess their testimonies and to find out their personal Search Warrant No. 90-11
knowledge of facts and circumstances enough to create a Unlicensed radio communications equipments such as
probable cause. The Judge was the one who personally transmitters, transceivers, handsets, scanners, monitoring
examined the applicants and witnesses and who asked device and the like.
searching questions vis-a-vis the applications for search
warrants. He was thus able to observe and determine Search Warrant No. 90-13
whether subject applicants and their witnesses gave
Unlicensed radio communications equipments such as
accurate accounts of the surveillance and investigation they
transmitters, transceivers, handsets, radio communications
conducted at the premises to be searched. In the absence
equipments, scanners, monitoring devices and others.
of any showing that respondent judge was recreant of his
duties in connection with the personal examination he so The use of the phrase and the like is of no moment. The
conducted on the affiants before him, there is no basis for same did not make the search warrants in question general
doubting the reliability and correctness of his findings and warrants. In Oca v. Maiquez (14 SCRA 735), the Court
impressions. upheld the warrant although it described the things to be
seized as books of accounts and allied papers.
Petitioners brand as fatally defective and deficient the
procedure followed in the issuance of subject search Subject Search Warrant Nos. 90-12 and 90-15 refer to:
warrants, reasoning out that the same did not comply with
constitutional and statutory requirements. They fault Unlicensed firearms of various calibers and ammunitions for
respondent Judge for allegedly failing to ask specific the said firearms.
questions they deem particularly important during the
Search Warrant No. 90-14 states:
examination of the applicants and their witnesses. To
buttress their submission, petitioners invite attention to the Chop-chop vehicles and other spare parts.
following question, to wit:
The Court believes, and so holds, that the said warrants
How did you know that there are unlicensed firearms being comply with Constitutional and statutory requirements. The
kept by Benjamin Kho at No. 45 Bb. Ramona Tirona St., law does not require that the things to be seized must be
Phase I, BF Homes, Paranaque, Metro Manila? (TSN, Ali described in precise and minute detail as to leave no room
Vargas, May 15, 1990, p. 4) for doubt on the part of the searching authorities. Otherwise,
it would be virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain a
Petitioners argue that by propounding the aforequoted
warrant as they would not know exactly what kind of things
question, the respondent Judge assumed that the firearms
they are looking for. Since the element of time is very crucial
at the premises to be searched were unlicensed, instead of
in criminal cases, the effort and time spent in researching on
asking for a detailed account of how the NBI agents came to
the details to be embodied in the warrant would render the
know that the firearms being kept thereat were unlicensed.
purpose of the search nugatory.
This stance of petitioners is similarly devoid of any
In the case under consideration, the NBI agents could not
sustainable basis. Nothing improper is perceived in the
have been in a position to know before hand the exact
manner the respondent Judge conducted the examination of
caliber or make of the firearms to be seized. Although the
subject applicants for search warrants and their witnesses.
surveillance they conducted did disclose the presence of
He personally examined them under oath, and asked them
unlicensed firearms within the premises to be searched,
searching questions on the facts and circumstances
they could not have known the particular type of weapons
personally known to them, in compliance with prescribed
involved before seeing such weapons at close range, which 4. Defendant Khos hands were immediately tied behind his
was of course impossible at the time of the filing of the back (initially with a rag and later with the electric cord of a
applications for subject search warrants. rechargeable lamp) and was restrained in a kneeling
position with guns pointed at him throughout the duration of
Verily, the failure to specify detailed descriptions in the the search. It was only after the search was completed and
warrants did not render the same general. Retired Justice the seized items stuffed in carton boxes (and a T-bag) that
Ricardo Franciscos book on Criminal Procedure has this his hands were untied so he can sign the search warrants
useful insight: which he was forced to do.
A description of the property to be seized need not be 5. All throughout the search, defendant Kho and his
technically accurate nor necessarily precise; and its nature companions were kept in the dining room and continuously
will necessarily vary according to whether the identity of the intimidated of being shot while the raiders search all the
property, or its character, is the matter of concern. Further, rooms all by themselves and without anybody seeing
the description is required to be specific only so far as the whatever they were doing.
circumstances will ordinarily allow. x x x
The question of whether there was abuse in the enforcement
In People v. Rubio (57 Phil 384), the Court held that, ... But of the challanged search warrants is not within the scope of
where, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their a Motion to Quash. In a Motion to Quash, what is assailed is
description must be rather general, it is not required that a the validity of the issuance of the warrant. The manner of
technical description be given, for this would mean that no serving the warrant and of effecting the search are not an
warrant could issue. issue to be resolved here. As aptly opined and ruled by the
It is indeed understandable that the agents of respondent respondent Judge, petitioners have remedies under
Bureau have no way of knowing whether the guns they pertinent penal, civil and administrative laws for their
intend to seize are a Smith and Wesson or a Beretta. The problem at hand, which cannot be solved by their present
surveillance conducted could not give the NBI agents a motion to quash.
close view of the weapons being transported or brought to According to petitioner Kho, the premises searched and
the premises to be searched. Thus, they could not be objects seized during the search sued upon belong to the
expected to know the detailed particulars of the objects to Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) of
be seized. Consequently, the list submitted in the which he is an agent and therefore, the NBI agents involved
applications for subject search warrants should be adjudged had no authority to search the aforesaid premises and to
in substantial compliance with the requirements of law. confiscate the objects seized.
Petitioners contend that the searching agents grossly Whether the places searched and objects seized are
violated the procedure in enforcing the search warrants in government properties are questions of fact outside the
question. The petition avers supposedly reprehensible acts scope of the petition under consideration. The Court does
perpetrated by the NBI agents. Among the irregularities not see its way clear to rule on such issues lest it preempts
alluded to, are: the disposition of the cases filed by the respondent NBI
1. The raiding team failed to perform the following before against the herein petitioners.
breaking into the premises: Considering that cases for Illegal Possession of Firearms
a. Properly identify themselves and showing necessary and Explosives and Violation of Section 3 in relation to
credentials including presentation of the Search Warrants; Section 14 of Republic Act No. 6539, otherwise known as
the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, have been instituted
b. Furnishing of Search Warrants and allowing the against the petitioners, the petition for mandamus with
occupants of the place to scrutinize the same; preliminary and mandatory injunction to return all objects
seized and to restrain respondent NBI from using the said
c. Giving ample time to the occupants to voluntarily allow the objects as evidence, has become moot and academic.
raiders entry into the place and to search the premises.
WHEREFORE, for want of merit and on the ground that it
2. The team entered the premises by climbing the fence and
has become moot and academic, the petition at bar is
by forcing open the main door of the house.
hereby DISMISSED. No pronoucement as to costs.SO
3. Once inside the house, the raiders herded the maids and ORDERED.
the sixteen year-old son of defendant Kho into the dining
room where they were confined for the duration of the raid.
In the case of the son, he was gagged with a piece of cloth,
his hands were tied behind his back and he was made to lie
face down.
G.R. Nos. 140546-47 January 20, 2003 Philippine National Police Narcotics Command (PNP
NARCOM) at premises allegedly leased by appellant and at
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, his residence yielded huge quantities of marijuana.
vs.
MODESTO TEE a.k.a. ESTOY TEE, accused-appellant. On July 20, 1998, appellant moved to quash the search
warrant on the ground that it was too general and that the
QUISUMBING, J.: NBI had not complied with the requirements for the issuance
For automatic review is the consolidated judgment1 of the of a valid search warrant. The pendency of said motion,
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 6, dated however, did not stop the filing of the appropriate charges
September 17, 1999, in Criminal Cases Nos. 15800-R and against appellant. In an information dated July 24, 1998,
15822-R, involving violations of Section 8, Article II, of the docketed as Criminal Case No. 15800-R, the City
Dangerous Drugs Law.2 Since appellant was acquitted in Prosecutor of Baguio City charged Modesto Tee, alias
the second case, we focus on the first case, where appellant "Estoy Tee," with illegal possession of marijuana, allegedly
has been found guilty and sentenced to death and fined one committed as follows:
million pesos. That on or about the 1st day of July, 1998 in the City of
The decretal portion of the trial court’s decision reads: Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows: there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly have in
his possession the following, to wit:
1. In Crim. Case No. 15800-R, the Court finds the accused
Modesto Tee guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense 1. Ninety-two (92) bricks of dried flowering tops separately
of illegal possession of marijuana of about 591.81 kilos in contained in four (4) boxes; and
violation of Section 8, Article II of RA 6425 as amended by
Section 13 of RA 7659 as charged in the Information, seized 2. One hundred fifty-eight (158) bricks, twenty-one (21)
by virtue of a search warrant and sentences him to the blocks, and twenty-three (23) bags of dried flowering tops
supreme penalty of death and to pay a fine of 1 million pesos separately contained in thirteen (13) sacks, with a total
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. weight of 336.93 kilograms; and

The 591.81 kilos of marijuana contained in 26 boxes and 3 Six hundred two (602) bricks of dried flowering tops
one yellow sack (Exhibits U-1 to U-27) are ordered forfeited separately contained in twenty-six (boxes) and a yellow
in favor of the State to be destroyed immediately in sack, weighing 591.81 kilograms,
accordance with law. all having a grand total weight of 928.74 kilograms, a
2. In Crim. Case No. 15822-R, the Court finds that the prohibited drug, without the authority of law to possess, in
prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused Modesto Tee violation of the above-cited provision of law.
beyond reasonable doubt and hereby acquits him of the CONTRARY TO LAW.4
charge of illegal possession of marijuana in violation of
Section 8, Art. 2 of RA 6425 as amended by Section 13 of On August 7, 1998, the prosecution moved to "amend" the
RA 7659 as charged in the Information since the marijuana foregoing charge sheet "considering that subject marijuana
confiscated have to be excluded in evidence as a product of were seized in two (2) different places."5
unreasonable search and seizure.
As a result, the information in Criminal Case No. 15800-R
The 336.93 kilos of marijuana contained in 13 sacks and four was amended to read as follows:
boxes (Exh. B to S and their component parts) although
excluded in evidence as the product(s) of unreasonable That on or about the 1st day of July, 1998, in the City of
search and seizure, are nevertheless ordered forfeited in Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
favor of the State to be destroyed immediately in accordance Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and
with law considering that they are prohibited articles. there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly have in
his possession the following, to wit:
The City Jail Warden is, therefore, directed to release the
accused Modesto Tee in connection with Crim. Case No. - Six hundred two (602) bricks of dried flowering tops
15822-R unless held on other charges. separately contained in twenty-six (26) boxes and a yellow
sack, weighing 591.81 kilograms
COST(S) DE OFFICIO.
a prohibited drug, without the authority of law to possess, in
3
SO ORDERED. violation of the above-cited provision of law.

Appellant is a Chinese national in his forties, a businessman, CONTRARY TO LAW.6

and a resident of Baguio City. A raid conducted by
operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and
A separate amended information docketed as Criminal Case transporting strawberries. Upon reaching La Trinidad,
No. 15822-R was likewise filed, the accusatory portion of however, appellant directed Abratique to proceed to Sablan,
which reads: Benguet, where appellant proceeded to load several sacks
of marijuana in Abratique’s taxi. He then asked Abratique to
That on or about the 1st day of July, 1998 in the City of find him a place where he could store the contraband.13
Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and Abratique brought appellant to his grandmother’s house at
there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly have in No. 27 Dr. Cariño St., QM Subdivision, Baguio City, which
his possession the following, to wit: was being managed by Abratique’s aunt, Nazarea Abreau.
Nazarea agreed to rent a room to appellant. Abratique and
1. Ninety-two (92) bricks of dried flowering tops separately appellant unloaded and stored there the sacks of marijuana
contained in four (4) boxes; and brought from Sablan.14 Abratique was aware that they were
2. hundred fifty-eight (158) bricks, twenty-one (21) blocks, transporting marijuana as some of the articles in the sacks
and twenty-three (23) bags of dried flowering tops became exposed in the process of loading.15
separately contained in thirteen (13) sacks, with a total Eventually, Abratique and Nazarea were bothered by the
weight of 336.93 kilograms; nature of the goods stored in the rented room. She confided
a prohibited drug, without the authority of law to possess, in to her daughter, Alice Abreau Fianza, about their
violation of the above-cited provision of law. predicament. As Alice Fianza’s brother-in-law, Edwin
Fianza, was an NBI agent, Alice and Abratique phoned him
CONTRARY TO LAW.7 and disclosed what had transpired.16
On September 4, 1998, the trial court denied the motion to On the morning of July 1, 1998, alerted by information that
quash the search warrant and ordered appellant’s appellant would retrieve the sacks of prohibited drugs that
arraignment. day, Edwin Fianza and other NBI operatives conducted a
stake out at No. 27, Dr. Cariño St. While the NBI agents
When arraigned in Criminal Cases Nos. 15800-R and
were conducting their surveillance, they noticed that several
15822-R, appellant refused to enter a plea. The trial court
PNP NARCOM personnel were also watching the
entered a plea of not guilty for him.8 Trial on the merits then
place.17 The NBI then learned that the PNP NARCOM had
ensued.
received a tip from one of their informers regarding the
The facts of this case, as gleaned from the records, are as presence of a huge amount of drugs in that place. The NBI
follows: and PNP NARCOM agreed to have a joint operation.

Prosecution witness Danilo Abratique, a Baguio-based taxi As the day wore on and appellant did not show up, the NBI
driver, and the appellant Modesto Tee are well acquainted agents became apprehensive that the whole operation could
with each other, since Abratique’s wife is the sister of Tee’s be jeopardized. They sought the permission of Nazarea
sister-in-law.9 Abreau to enter the room rented by appellant. She acceded
and allowed them entry. The NBI team then searched the
Sometime in late June 1998, appellant asked Abratique to rented premises and found four (4) boxes and thirteen (13)
find him a place for the storage of smuggled sacks of marijuana, totaling 336.93 kilograms.18
cigarettes.10 Abratique brought appellant to his friend, Albert
Ballesteros, who had a house for rent in Bakakeng, Baguio Later that evening, NBI Special Agent Darwin Lising, with
City. After negotiating the terms and conditions, Ballesteros Abratique as his witness, applied for a search warrant from
agreed to rent out his place to appellant. Appellant then RTC Judge Antonio Reyes at his residence.19 Judge Reyes
brought several boxes of purported "blue seal" cigarettes to ordered the NBI agents to fetch the Branch Clerk of Court,
the leased premises. Atty. Delilah Muñoz, so the proceedings could be properly
recorded. After Atty. Muñoz arrived, Judge Reyes
Shortly thereafter, however, Ballesteros learned that the questioned Lising and Abratique. Thereafter, the judge
boxes stored in his place were not "blue seal" cigarettes but issued a warrant directing the NBI to search appellant’s
marijuana. Fearful of being involved, Ballesteros informed residence at Km. 6, Dontogan, Green Valley, Baguio City for
Abratique. Both later prevailed upon appellant to remove marijuana.20
them from the premises.11
The NBI operatives, with some PNP NARCOM personnel in
Appellant then hired Abratique’s taxi and transported the tow, proceeded to appellant’s residence where they served
boxes of cannabis from the Ballesteros place to appellant’s the warrant upon appellant himself.21 The search was
residence at Km. 6, Dontogan, Green Valley, Sto. Tomas, witnessed by appellant, members of his family, barangay
Baguio City.12 officials, and members of the media.22 Photographs were
taken during the actual search.23 The law enforcers found 26
On June 30, 1998, appellant hired Abratique to drive him to
boxes and a sack of dried marijuana24 in the water tank,
La Trinidad, Benguet on the pretext of buying and
garage, and storeroom of appellant’s residence.25 The total
weight of the haul was 591.81 kilograms.26 Appellant was 1. On the Validity of the Search Warrant; Its Obtention and
arrested for illegal possession of marijuana. Execution

The seized items were then submitted to the NBI laboratory Appellant initially contends that the warrant, which directed
for testing. NBI Forensic Chemist Maria Carina Madrigal the peace officers to search for and seize "an undetermined
conducted the tests. Detailed microscopic and amount of marijuana," was too general and hence, void for
chromatographic examinations of the items taken from vagueness. He insists that Abratique could already estimate
appellant’s rented room at No. 27, Dr. Cariño St., as well as the amount of marijuana supposed to be found at appellant’s
those from his residence at Green Valley, showed these to residence since Abratique helped to transport the same.
be marijuana.27
For the appellee, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
In his defense, appellant contended that the physical counters that a search warrant is issued if a judge finds
evidence of the prosecution was illegally obtained, being the probable cause that the place to be searched contains
products of an unlawful search, hence inadmissible. prohibited drugs, and not that he believes the place contains
Appellant insisted that the search warrant was too general a specific amount of it. The OSG points out that, as the trial
and the process by which said warrant was acquired did not court observed, it is impossible beforehand to determine the
satisfy the constitutional requirements for the issuance of a exact amount of prohibited drugs that a person has on
valid search warrant. Moreover, Abratique’s testimony, himself.
which was heavily relied upon by the judge who issued the
warrant, was hearsay. Appellant avers that the phrase "an undetermined amount
of marijuana" as used in the search warrant fails to satisfy
In Criminal Case No. 15822-R, the trial court agreed with the requirement of Article III, Section 229 of the Constitution
appellant that the taking of the 336.93 kilograms of that the things to be seized must be particularly described.
marijuana was the result of an illegal search and hence, Appellant’s contention, in our view, has no leg to stand on.
inadmissible in evidence against appellant. Appellant was The constitutional requirement of reasonable particularity of
accordingly acquitted of the charge. However, the trial court description of the things to be seized is primarily meant to
found that the prosecution’s evidence was more than ample enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to: (1) readily
to prove appellant’s guilt in Criminal Case No. 15800-R and identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them
as earlier stated, duly convicted him of illegal possession of from seizing the wrong items;30 and (2) leave said peace
marijuana and sentenced him to death. officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized
and thus prevent unreasonable searches and
Hence, this automatic review. seizures.31 What the Constitution seeks to avoid are search
Before us, appellant submits that the trial court erred in: warrants of broad or general characterization or sweeping
descriptions, which will authorize police officers to undertake
1…UPHOLDING THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds
WARRANT DESPITE LACK OF COMPLIANCE OF (sic) of evidence or articles relating to an offense.32 However, it is
SEVERAL REQUIREMENTS BEFORE IT SHOULD HAVE not required that technical precision of description be
BEEN ISSUED AND IT BEING A GENERAL WARRANT; required,33 particularly, where by the nature of the goods to
be seized, their description must be rather general, since the
2….GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN requirement of a technical description would mean that no
REOPENING THE CASE AND ALLOWING ABRITIQUE TO
warrant could issue.34
TESTIFY AGAINST APPELLANT;
Thus, it has been held that term "narcotics paraphernalia" is
3…GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF
not so wanting in particularity as to create a general
ABRITIQUE;
warrant.35 Nor is the description "any and all narcotics" and
4. NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED IN BOTH CASES "all implements, paraphernalia, articles, papers and records
AND SENTENCING HIM TO DEATH DESPITE THE pertaining to" the use, possession, or sale of narcotics or
ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE AS FOUND IN THE dangerous drugs so broad as to be unconstitutional.36 A
FIRST CASE.28 search warrant commanding peace officers to seize "a
quantity of loose heroin" has been held sufficiently
We find that the pertinent issues for resolution concern the particular.37
following: (1) the validity of the search conducted at the
appellant’s residence; (2) the alleged prejudice caused by Tested against the foregoing precedents, the description "an
the reopening of the case and absences of the prosecution undetermined amount of marijuana" must be held to satisfy
witness, on appellant’s right to speedy trial; (3) the the requirement for particularity in a search warrant.
sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence to sustain a finding Noteworthy, what is to be seized in the instant case is
of guilt with moral certainty; and (4) the propriety of the property of a specified character, i.e., marijuana, an illicit
penalty imposed. drug. By reason of its character and the circumstances
under which it would be found, said article is illegal. A further
description would be unnecessary and ordinarily impossible, statements – – hook, line, and sinker. He points out that
except as to such character, the place, and the since Abratique consented to assist in the transport of the
circumstances.38 Thus, this Court has held that the marijuana, the examining judge should have elicited from
description "illegally in possession of undetermined Abratique his participation in the crime and his motive for
quantity/amount of dried marijuana leaves and squealing on appellant. Appellant further points out that the
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) and sets of evidence of the NBI operative who applied for the warrant is
paraphernalia" particularizes the things to be seized.39 merely hearsay and should not have been given credit at all
by Judge Reyes.
The search warrant in the present case, given its nearly
similar wording, "undetermined amount of marijuana or Again, the lack of factual basis for appellant’s contention is
Indian hemp," in our view, has satisfied the Constitution’s apparent. The OSG points out that Abratique personally
requirements on particularity of description. The description assisted appellant in loading and transporting the marijuana
therein is: (1) as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily to the latter’s house and to appellant’s rented room at No.
allow; (2) expresses a conclusion of fact – not of law – by 27 Dr. Cariño St., Baguio City. Definitely, this indicates
which the peace officers may be guided in making the personal knowledge on Abratique’s part. Law enforcers
search and seizure; and (3) limits the things to be seized to cannot themselves be eyewitnesses to every crime; they are
those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the allowed to present witnesses before an examining judge. In
warrant is being issued.40 Said warrant imposes a this case, witness Abratique personally saw and handled the
meaningful restriction upon the objects to be seized by the marijuana. Hence, the NBI did not rely on hearsay
officers serving the warrant. Thus, it prevents exploratory information in applying for a search warrant but on personal
searches, which might be violative of the Bill of Rights. knowledge of the witness, Abratique.

Appellant next assails the warrant for merely stating that he Before a valid search warrant is issued, both the
should be searched, as he could be guilty of violation of Constitution45 and the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal
Republic Act No. 6425. Appellant claims that this is a Procedure46 require that the judge must personally examine
sweeping statement as said statute lists a number of the complainant and his witnesses under oath or affirmation.
offenses with respect to illegal drugs. Hence, he contends, The personal examination must not be merely routinary
said warrant is a general warrant and is thus or pro forma, but must be probing and exhaustive.47 In the
unconstitutional. instant case, it is not disputed that Judge Antonio Reyes
personally examined NBI Special Investigator III Darwin A.
For the appellee, the OSG points out that the warrant clearly Lising, the applicant for the search warrant as well as his
states that appellant has in his possession and control witness, Danilo G. Abratique. Notes of the proceedings were
marijuana or Indian hemp, in violation of Section 8 of taken by Atty. Delilah Muñoz, Clerk of Court, RTC of Baguio
Republic Act No. 6425. City, Branch 61, whom Judge Reyes had ordered to be
We have carefully scrutinized Search Warrant No. 415 (7- summoned. In the letter of transmittal of the Clerk of Court
98),41 and we find that it is captioned "For Violation of R.A. of the RTC of Baguio City, Branch 61 to Branch 6 of said
6425, as amended."42 It is clearly stated in the body of the court, mention is made of "notes" at "pages 7-11."48 We
warrant that "there is probable cause to believe that a case have thoroughly perused the records of Search Warrant No.
for violation of R.A. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as 415 (7-98) and nowhere find said "notes." The depositions
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as further amended by of Lising and Abratique were not attached to Search Warrant
R.A. 7659 has been and is being committed by one No. 415 (7-98) as required by the Rules of Court. We must
MODESTO TEE a.k.a. ESTOY TEE of Km. 6, Dontogan stress, however, that the purpose of the Rules in requiring
Bgy., Green Valley, Sto. Tomas, Baguio City by having in depositions to be taken is to satisfy the examining
his possession and control an UNDETERMINED AMOUNT magistrate as to the existence of probable cause.49 The Bill
OF MARIJUANA or INDIAN HEMP in violation of the of Rights does not make it an imperative necessity that
aforementioned law."43 In an earlier case, we held that depositions be attached to the records of an application for
though the specific section of the Dangerous Drugs Law is a search warrant. Hence, said omission is not necessarily
not pinpointed, "there is no question at all of the specific fatal, for as long as there is evidence on the record showing
offense alleged to have been committed as a basis for the what testimony was presented.50 In the testimony of witness
finding of probable cause."44 Appellant’s averment is, Abratique, Judge Reyes required Abratique to confirm the
therefore, baseless. Search Warrant No. 415 (7-98) appears contents of his affidavit;51 there were instances when Judge
clearly issued for one offense, namely, illegal possession of Reyes questioned him extensively.52 It is presumed that a
marijuana. judicial function has been regularly performed,53 absent a
showing to the contrary. A magistrate’s determination of
Appellant next faults the Judge who issued Search Warrant probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid
No. 415 (7-98) for his failure to exhaustively examine the great deference by a reviewing court,54 as long as there was
applicant and his witness. Appellant points out that said substantial basis for that determination.55 Substantial basis
magistrate should not have swallowed all of Abratique’s means that the questions of the examining judge brought out
such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably appellant’s mother, testified on the search conducted but
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has she said nothing that indicated the use of force on the part
been committed, and the objects in connection with the of the NBI operatives who conducted the search and
offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to be seizure.61 What the record discloses is that the warrant was
searched. served on appellant,62 who was given time to read it,63 and
the search was witnessed by the barangay officials, police
On record, appellant never raised the want of adequate operatives, members of the media, and appellant’s kith and
depositions to support Warrant No. 415 (7-98) in his motion kin.64 No breakage or other damage to the place searched
to quash before the trial court. Instead, his motion contained is shown. No injuries sustained by appellant, or any witness,
vague generalities that Judge Reyes failed to ask searching appears on record. The execution of the warrant, in our view,
questions of the applicant and his witness. Belatedly, has been orderly and peaceably performed.
however, he now claims that Judge Reyes perfunctorily
examined said witness.56 But it is settled that when a motion 2. On The Alleged Violation of Appellant’s Substantive
to quash a warrant is filed, all grounds and objections then Rights
available, existent or known, should be raised in the original
or subsequent proceedings for the quashal of the warrant, Appellant insists that the prosecution’s unjustified and willful
otherwise they are deemed waived.57 delay in presenting witness Abratique unduly delayed the
resolution of his case. He points out that a total of eight (8)
In this case, NBI Special Investigator Lising’s knowledge of scheduled hearings had to be reset due to the failure or
the illicit drugs stored in appellant’s house was indeed willful refusal of Abratique to testify against him. Appellant
hearsay. But he had a witness, Danilo Abratique, who had insists that said lapse on the prosecution’s part violated
personal knowledge about said drugs and their particular Supreme Court Circular No. 38-98.65 Appellant now alleges
location. Abratique’s statements to the NBI and to Judge that the prosecution deliberately resorted to delaying the
Reyes contained credible and reliable details. As the NBI’s case to cause him untold miseries.
witness, Abratique was a person on whose statements
Judge Reyes could rely. His detailed description of For the appellee, the OSG points out that the two-month
appellant’s activities with respect to the seized drugs was delay in the trial is not such a great length of time as to
substantial. In relying on witness Abratique, Judge Reyes amount to a violation of appellant’s right to a speedy trial. A
was not depending on casual rumor circulating in the trial is always subject to reasonable delays or
underworld, but on personal knowledge Abratique postponements, but absent any showing that these delays
possessed. are capricious and oppressive, the State should not be
deprived of a reasonable opportunity to prosecute the
In Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas, 64 Phil. criminal action.
33, 44 (1937), we held that:
On record, the trial court found that prosecution witness
The true test of sufficiency of a deposition or affidavit to Danilo G. Abratique failed to appear in no less than eighteen
warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been (18) hearings, namely those set for February 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9,
drawn in such a manner that perjury could be charged 10, and 24; March 9, 15, 22, and 23; April 6, 7, 8, 16, and
thereon and affiant be held liable for damages caused.58 19, all in 1999.66 No less than four (4) warrants of arrest
were issued against him to compel him to testify.67 The NBI
Appellant argues that the address indicated in the search agent who supposedly had him in custody was found guilty
warrant did not clearly indicate the place to be searched. of contempt of court for failing to produce Abratique at said
The OSG points out that the address stated in the warrant is hearings and sanctioned.68 The prosecution had to write the
as specific as can be. The NBI even submitted a detailed NBI Regional Director in Baguio City and NBI Director in
sketch of the premises prepared by Abratique, thus ensuring Manila regarding the failure of the Bureau’s agents to bring
that there would be no mistake. Abratique to court.69 Nothing on record discloses the reason
A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the for Abratique’s aforecited absences. On the scheduled
officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable effort, hearing of June 7, 1999, he was again absent thus causing
ascertain and identify the place intended59 and distinguish it the trial court to again order his arrest for the fifth time.70 He
from other places in the community.60 A designation or also failed to show up at the hearing of June 8, 1999.71
description that points out the place to be searched to the Appellant now stresses that the failure of Abratique to
exclusion of all others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the appear and testify on twenty (20) hearing dates violated
peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement appellant’s constitutional72 and statutory right to a speedy
of definiteness. trial.
Appellant finally harps on the use of unnecessary force A speedy trial means a trial conducted according to the law
during the execution of the search warrant. Appellant fails, of criminal procedure and the rules and regulations, free
however, to point to any evidentiary matter in the record to from vexatious, capricious, and oppressive
support his contention. Defense witness Cipriana Tee, delays.73 In Conde v. Rivera and Unson, 45 Phil. 650, 652
(1924), the Court held that "where a prosecuting officer, take into account that a trial is always subject to
without good cause, secures postponements of the trial of a postponements and other causes of delay. But in the
defendant against his protest beyond a reasonable period of absence of a showing that delays were unreasonable and
time, as in this instance, for more than a year, the accused capricious, the State should not be deprived of a reasonable
is entitled to relief by a proceeding in mandamus to compel opportunity of prosecuting an accused.83
a dismissal of the information, or if he be restrained of his
liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom." Appellant next contends that the trial court gravely abused
its discretion, and exhibited partiality, when it allowed the
The concept of speedy trial is necessarily relative. A reopening of the case after the prosecution had failed to
determination as to whether the right has been violated present Abratique on several occasions and had been
involves the weighing of several factors such as the length directed to rest its case. Appellant stresses that the lower
of the delay, the reason for the delay, the conduct of the court’s order to reopen the case to receive Abratique’s
prosecution and the accused, and the efforts exerted by the further testimony is an indication that the trial court favored
defendant to assert his right, as well as the prejudice and the prosecution and unduly prejudiced appellant.
damage caused to the accused.74
On appellee’s behalf, the Solicitor General points out that
The Speedy Trial Act of 1998, provides that the trial period the trial court’s order was in the interest of substantial justice
for criminal cases in general shall be one hundred eighty and hence, cannot be termed as an abuse of discretion. The
(180) days.75 However, in determining the right of an OSG points out that the prosecution had not formally rested
accused to speedy trial, courts should do more than a its case and had yet to present its formal offer of evidence,
mathematical computation of the number of postponements hence, the submission of additional testimony by the same
of the scheduled hearings of the case.76 The right to a witness cannot be prejudicial to the accused, it being but the
speedy trial is deemed violated only when: (1) the mere continuation of an uncompleted testimony.
proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and Furthermore, appellant did not properly oppose the
oppressive delays;77 or (2) when unjustified postponements prosecution’s motion to reopen the case.
are asked for and secured;78 or (3) when without cause or
justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse At the time Criminal Cases Nos. 15800-R and 15822-R were
without the party having his case tried.79 being tried, the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure were in
effect. There was no specific provision at that time governing
In the present case, although the absences of prosecution motions to reopen.84 Nonetheless, long and established
witness Abratique totaled twenty (20) hearing days, there is usage has led to the recognition and acceptance of a motion
no showing whatsoever that prosecution capriciously to reopen. In view of the absence of a specific procedural
caused Abratique’s absences so as to vex or oppress rule, the only controlling guideline governing a motion to
appellant and deny him his rights. On record, after Abratique reopen was the paramount interests of justice. As a rule, the
repeatedly failed to show up for the taking of his testimony, matter of reopening of a case for reception of further
the prosecution went to the extent of praying that the trial evidence after either prosecution or defense has rested its
court order the arrest of Abratique to compel his attendance case is within the discretion of the trial court. 85 However, a
at trial. The prosecution likewise tried to get the NBI to concession to a reopening must not prejudice the accused
produce Abratique as the latter was in the Bureau’s custody, or deny him the opportunity to introduce counter evidence.86
but to no avail. Eventually, the trial court ordered the
prosecution to waive its right to present Abratique and rest Strictly speaking, however, there was no reopening of the
its case on the evidence already offered.80 cases in the proceedings below. A motion to reopen may
properly be presented only after either or both parties have
Nor do we find a delay of twenty (20) hearing days to be an formally offered and closed their evidence, but before
unreasonable length of time. Delay of less than two months judgment.87 In the instant case, the records show that on
has been found, in fact, to be not an unreasonably lengthy April 19, 1999, the prosecution was directed to close its
period of time.81 evidence and given 15 days to make its formal offer of
evidence.88 This order apparently arose from the
Moreover, nothing on record shows that appellant Modesto manifestation of the prosecution on April 16, 1999 that
Tee objected to the inability of the prosecution to produce its should they fail to produce witness Abratique on the next
witness. Under the Rules, appellant could have moved the scheduled hearing the prosecution would rest its case.89 On
trial court to require that witness Abratique post bail to April 19, 1999, which was the next scheduled hearing after
ensure that the latter would testify when April 16, 1999, Abratique was absent notwithstanding
required.82 Appellant could have moved to have Abratique notices, orders, and warrants of arrest. However, on April
found in contempt and duly sanctioned. Appellant did 27, 1999, or before the prosecution had formally offered its
neither. It is a bit too late in the day for appellant to invoke evidence, Abratique was brought to the trial court by the NBI.
now his right to speedy trial. In its order of said date, the trial court pointed out that the
No persuasive reason supports appellant’s claim that his prosecution could move to "reopen" the case for the taking
constitutional right to speedy trial was violated. One must of Abratique’s testimony.90 On May 7, 1999, the prosecution
so moved, stressing that it had not yet formally offered its offenses.93 Though we scrutinized minutely the testimony of
evidence and that the substantial rights of the accused Abratique, we find no cogent reason to disbelieve him. From
would not be prejudiced inasmuch as the latter had yet to his account, Abratique might appear aware treading the thin
present his evidence. Appellant filed no opposition to the line between innocence and feeling guilty, with certain
motion. The trial court granted the motion six days later. portions of his story tending to be self-exculpatory. However,
Plainly, there was nothing to reopen, as the prosecution had his whole testimony could not be discredited. The
not formally rested its case. Moreover, the taking of established rule is that testimony of a witness may be
Abratique’s testimony was not for the purpose of presenting believed in part and disbelieved in other parts, depending on
additional evidence, but more properly for the completion of the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and
his unfinished testimony. In U.S. vs. Base,91 we held that a improbabilities of the case. But it is accepted, as a matter of
trial court is not in error, if it opts to reopen the proceedings common sense, that if certain parts of a witness’ testimony
of a case, even after both sides had rested and the case are found true, his testimony cannot be disregarded
submitted for decision, by the calling of additional witnesses entirely.94
or recalling of witnesses so as to satisfy the judge’s mind
with reference to particular facts involved in the case. A Abratique testified in open court that appellant rented the
judge cannot be faulted should he require a material witness taxicab he was driving, and he helped appellant transport
to complete his testimony, which is what happened in this huge amounts of marijuana to appellant’s rented room at No.
case. It is but proper that the judge’s mind be satisfied on 27 Dr. Cariño St., Baguio City and to appellant’s residence
any and all questions presented during the trial, in order to at Km. 6, Dontogan, Green Valley, Sto. Tomas, Baguio City.
serve the cause of justice. He also declared on the witness stand that out of fear of
being involved, he decided to divulge his knowledge of
Appellant’s claim that the trial court’s concession to "reopen" appellant’s possession of large caches of marijuana to the
the case unduly prejudiced him is not well taken. We note NBI. When the places referred to by Abratique were
that appellant had every opportunity to present his evidence searched by the authorities, marijuana in staggering
to support his case or to refute the prosecution’s evidence quantities was found and seized by the law enforcers. Stated
point-by-point, after the prosecution had rested its case. In plainly, the physical evidence in this case corroborated
short, appellant was never deprived of his day in court. A Abratique’s testimony on material points.
day in court is the touchstone of the right to due process in
criminal justice.92 Thus, we are unable to hold that a grave Appellant imputes questionable motives to Abratique in an
abuse of discretion was committed by the trial court when it effort to discredit him. He demands that Abratique should
ordered the so-called "reopening" in order to complete the likewise be prosecuted. However, by no means is the
testimony of a prosecution witness. possible guilt of Abratique a tenable defense for appellant.
Nor would Abratique’s prosecution mean appellant’s
3. On the Sufficiency of the Prosecution’s Evidence absolution.

In bidding for acquittal, appellant assails the credibility of In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs,
Abratique as a witness. Appellant insists that Abratique’s the following facts must be proven with moral certainty: (1)
testimony is profuse with lies, contrary to human nature, that the accused is in possession of the object identified as
hence incredible. According to appellant, Abratique was prohibited or regulated drug; (2) that such possession is not
evasive from the outset with respect to certain questions of authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely and
the trial court. He adds that it appeared the court entertained consciously possessed the said drug.95
in particular the suspicion that witness Abratique had
conspired with appellant in committing the crime charged. We find the foregoing elements proven in Criminal Case No.
Appellant questions Abratique’s motive in informing the NBI 15800-R beyond reasonable doubt.
about his activities related to the marijuana taking, transfer, In said case, the testimony of Abratique and the recovery of
and warehousing. 591.81 kilograms of marijuana from appellant’s residence
The OSG contends that Abratique’s testimony, taken as a served to prove appellant’s possession of a prohibited drug.
whole, is credible. It points out that Abratique testified in a Tests conducted by the NBI forensic chemist proved the
straightforward manner as to his knowledge of the huge seized articles to be marijuana. These articles were seized
cache of prohibited drugs stashed by appellant in two pursuant to a valid search warrant and hence, fully
different places. His testimony, said the OSG, when fused admissible in evidence.
with the physical evidence consisting of 591.81 kilograms of In People v. de los Reyes, 239 SCRA 439 (1994), we held
marijuana found by law enforcers at appellant’s residence, that the Dangerous Drugs Act applies generally to all
inexorably leads to the inculpation of appellant. persons and proscribes the sale of dangerous drugs by any
It is the bounden duty of the courts to test the prosecution person, and no person is authorized to sell such drugs. Said
evidence rigorously, so that no innocent person is made to doctrine is equally applicable with respect to possession of
suffer the unusually severe penalties meted out for drug prohibited drugs. Republic Act No. 6425, which penalizes
the possession of prohibited drugs, applies equally to all
persons in this jurisdiction and no person is authorized to the quantity involved exceeds those stated in Section 20 of
possess said articles, without authority of law. Republic Act No. 6425 the maximum penalty of death shall
automatically be imposed.103 The statute prescribes two
Anent the third element, we have held that to warrant indivisible penalties: reclusion perpetua and death. Hence,
conviction, possession of illegal drugs must be with the penalty to be imposed must conform with Article 63104 of
knowledge of the accused or that animus possidendi existed the Revised Penal Code. As already held, the death penalty
together with the possession or control of said law, Republic Act No. 7659 did not amend Article 63 of the
articles.96 Nonetheless, this dictum must be read in Revised Penal Code.105 The rules in Article 63 apply
consonance with our ruling that possession of a prohibited although the prohibited drugs involved are in excess of the
drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge quantities provided for in Section 20 of Republic Act No.
or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused 6425.106 Thus, finding neither mitigating nor aggravating
absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession.97 In circumstances in the present case, appellant’s possession
effect, the onus probandi is shifted to accused to explain the of 591.81 kilograms of marijuana in Criminal Case No.
absence of knowledge or animus possidendi98 in this 15800-R, does not merit capital punishment but only the
situation. lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Appellant Modesto Tee opted not to testify in his defense. The trial court imposed a fine on appellant in the sum of One
Instead, he presented his mother as his lone witness, who Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00), without subsidiary
testified on matters totally irrelevant to his case. We can only imprisonment in case of insolvency. The imposition of a fine
conclude that, failing to discharge the burden of the is mandatory in cases of conviction of possession of illegal
evidence on the possession of prohibited drug, appellant’s drugs. This being within the limits allowed by the law, the
guilt in Criminal Case No. 15800-R was established beyond amount of the fine must be sustained. All these sanctions
reasonable doubt. might not remedy all the havoc wrought by prohibited drugs
4. On The Proper Penalty on the moral fiber of our society, especially the youth.107 But
these penalties should warn peddlers of prohibited drugs
Under Republic Act No. 6425 as amended by Republic Act that they cannot ply their trade in our streets with impunity.
No. 7659, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a
fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
(P500,000.00) to ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00)99 shall Baguio City, Branch 6, in Criminal Case No. 15800-R,
be imposed if the quantity of marijuana involved in a convicting appellant MODESTO TEE alias "ESTOY" TEE of
conviction for possession of marijuana or Indian hemp shall violation of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended,
be 750 grams or more.100 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
In the present case, the quantity of marijuana involved has perpetua. The fine of ONE MILLION (P1,000,000.00)
been shown by the prosecution to be far in excess of 750 PESOS imposed on him is sustained. Appellant is likewise
grams, as stressed by the trial court: directed to pay the costs of suit.
The volume is rather staggering. It is almost one whole SO ORDERED.
house or one whole room. In fact, when they were first
brought to the court, it took hours to load them on the truck
and hours also to unload them prompting the court to direct
that the boxes and sack of marijuana be instead kept at the
NBI office in Baguio. And the identification of said marijuana
during the trial was made in the NBI premises itself by the
witnesses since it was physically cumbersome and
inconvenient to keep bringing them to the court during every
trial.101

In sentencing appellant to death, the trial court noted not

only the huge quantity of marijuana bales involved, but also
"the acts of accused of hiding them in different places…and
transferring them from place to place and making them
appear as boxes of cigarettes to avoid and evade
apprehension and detection." They showed his being a big
supplier, said the trial court, [whose] criminal perversity and
craft that "deserve the supreme penalty of death."102

We are unable to agree, however, with the penalty imposed

by the trial court. The legislature never intended that where
[G.R. NO. 165122 : November 23, 2007] which were scraped off and replaced with a Sun Gas, Inc.
marking, and other materials used in tampering Pryce gas
ROWLAND KIM SANTOS, Petitioner, v. PRYCE GASES, tanks.4 It also averred that petitioner was illegally distributing
INC., VELASCO, JR., Respondent. Pryce LPG products without the consent of respondent, in
DECISION violation of Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 623, 5 as
amended by R.A. No. 5700.6
TINGA, J.:
After conducting searching questions on witnesses PO1
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of Aldrin Ligan, a CIDG operative, and Richard Oliveros, an
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure assailing the Decision employee of Pryce Gases, Inc., Hon. Rene B. Honrado, the
dated 16 January 20041 and Resolution dated 26 July 2004 presiding judge of Branch 29, issued the corresponding
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 74563. The search warrant. The search warrant authorized the seizure
decision reversed the twin orders of the Regional Trial Court of the following items:
(RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 29, quashing the search warrant
it issued and ordering the return of liquefied petroleum gas 1. Assorted sizes of PRYCE LPG GAS TANKS CYLINDERS
(LPG) cylinders seized from petitioner, whereas the in different kilograms.
resolution denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration of 2. Suspected LPG gas tanks cylinders with printed/mark
the said decision. SUN GAS INC., trademark and embossed Pryce Gas
As culled from the records, the following antecedents Trademark scrapped off.
appear: 3. Other materials used in tampering the PRYCE LPG GAS
Respondent Pryce Gases, Inc. is a domestic corporation TANKS cylinders.7
engaged in the manufacture of oxygen, acetylene and other On the same day, CIDG agents served the search warrant
industrial gases as well as in the distribution of LPG products on petitioner and were able to recover the following items:
in the Visayas and Mindanao regions. Its branch in Iloilo City
has been selling LPG products directly or through various - Five Hundred Forty Four (544) empty 11 Kgs[.] PRYCE
dealers to hospitals, restaurants and other business LPG tank cylinders;
establishments. The LPG products are contained in 11-kg,
22-kg or 50-kg steel cylinders that are exclusively - Two (2) filled 11 Kgs. PRYCE LPG tank cylinders with seal;
manufactured for respondent's use. The LPG cylinders are - Seven (7) filled 11 Kgs. Pryce LPG tank cylinders without
also embossed with the Pryce marking and logo.2 seal;
In the beginning of the year 2002, respondent noticed the - Forty Four (44) empty 22 Kgs. PRYCE LPG tank cylinders;
decline in the return of its LPG cylinders for refilling.
Respondent's employees suspected that the LPG cylinders - Ten (10) empty 50 Kgs. Pryce LPG tank cylinders; and
had been removed from market circulation and refilled by
- One (1) filled 6 Kgs. PRYCE LPG tank cylinder without
respondent's competitors, one of whom was Sun Gas, Inc.
seal.8
Petitioner Rowland Kim Santos is the manager of Sun Gas,
Inc.3 On 7 June 2002, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash 9 the
search warrant on the grounds of lack of probable cause as
Arnold T. Figueroa, respondent's sales manager for Panay,
well as deception and fraud employed in obtaining evidence
sought the assistance of the Criminal Investigation and
in support of the application therefor, in violation of Article
Detection Group (CIDG) to recover the LPG cylinders
III, Section 2 of the Constitution and Rule 126, Sections 4
allegedly in the possession of Sun Gas, Inc. Acting on
Figueroa's complaint, CIDG operatives conducted and 5 of the Rules of Court. Respondent opposed
petitioner's Motion to Quash.
surveillance on the warehouse of Sun Gas, Inc. located at
130 Timawa Avenue, Molo, Iloilo. The CIDG operatives On the same day, the CIDG filed a criminal complaint before
requested the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) to conduct a the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iloilo against petitioner,
routine fire inspection at Sun Gas, Inc.'s warehouse with charging the latter with violation of R.A. No. 623, as
some of the CIDG operatives led by PO2 Vicente D. amended.
Demandara, Jr. posing as BFP inspectors. The CIDG
operatives entered the warehouse and were able to take After hearing, the trial court issued an Order10 dated 16 July
photographs of the LPG cylinders. 2002, granting petitioner's Motion to Quash. The trial court
upheld the validity of the surveillance conducted on
On 4 June 2002, PO2 Vicente D. Demandara, Jr. applied petitioner's warehouse in order to obtain evidence to support
before the RTC of Iloilo City for a warrant to search the the application for a search warrant and declared that based
premises described as No. 130, Timawa Avenue, Molo, on the evidence gathered in support of the application for
Iloilo. The application alleged that petitioner was in search warrant, the CIDG was able to establish probable
possession of Pryce LPG tanks, the Pryce logos of some of cause that petitioner was tampering with Pryce LPG
cylinders and making them appear to be those of Sun Gas, III.
Inc. This conclusion, notwithstanding, the trial court made a
turnaround, stating that the probable cause as found by it at WHETHER THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED BY
the time of the application for search warrant fell short of the RESPONDENT PRYCE WITH THE COURT OF APPEALS
requisite probable cause necessary to sustain the validity of SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR NOT BEING THE PROPER
the search warrant. REMEDY TO ASSAIL THE ORDERS OF THE TRIAL
COURT.17
The dispositive portion of the Order reads:
Briefly, the petition raises the following issues: (1) whether
WHEREFORE, the Motion To Quash is hereby GRANTED. or not petitioner has authority to seek the quashal of the
PO2 Vicente Dernadara, Jr. and the Criminal Investigation search warrant; (2) who has proper custody of the seized
and Detection Group, Region VI are hereby directed to items; and (3) whether or not respondent correctly availed of
return the "Pryce" LPG cylinders enumerated in Return of the special civil action for certiorari to assail the quashal of
Search Warrant Seized by virtue of the invalid Search the search warrant.
Warrant No. 02-16 to the Rowland Kim Santos immediately
upon receipt of this Order. As to the first issue, the Court of Appeals ruled against
petitioner and reversed the trial court's quashal of the search
SO ORDERED.11 warrant solely on the ground that petitioner, being a mere
manager of Sun Gas, Inc., failed to show his authority to act
Respondent filed a manifestation and motion to hold in on behalf of the corporation and, therefore, had no legal
abeyance the release of the seized items. It also filed a personality to question the validity of the search warrant.
motion for reconsideration12 of the 16 July 2002 Order but Thus, it concluded that the trial court committed grave abuse
was denied in an Order13 dated 9 August 2002. of discretion in entertaining and subsequently granting
Respondent elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via petitioner's motion to quash.
a special civil action for certiorari, 14 arguing that the trial Petitioner takes exception to the Court of Appeals'
court committed grave abuse of discretion in quashing the conclusion, contending that petitioner may assail the
search warrant. The petition essentially questioned the questioned search warrant because he was named as
quashal of the search warrant despite a prior finding of respondent in the application for search warrant and in the
probable cause and the failure of petitioner to prove that he criminal complaint subsequently filed before the Office of the
bought the seized items from respondent. It also challenged City Prosecutor of Iloilo.
petitioner's personality to file the motion to quash.
Well-settled is the rule that the legality of a seizure can be
On 16 January 2004, the Court of Appeals rendered the contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired
assailed Decision,15 which set aside the two orders of the thereby, and the objection to an unlawful search and seizure
trial court dated 16 January 2002 and 9 August 2002. The is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties.18
appellate court also ordered the return of the seized items to
respondent. Petitioner sought reconsideration but was Petitioner is the real party-in-interest to seek the quashal of
denied in an order dated 16 July 2004.16 the search warrant for the obvious reason that the search
warrant, in which petitioner was solely named as
Hence, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, raising respondent, was directed against the premises and articles
the following issues: over which petitioner had control and supervision. Petitioner
I. was directly prejudiced or injured by the seizure of the gas
tanks because petitioner was directly accountable as
WHETHER PETITIONER ROWLAND KIM SANTOS HAS manager to the purported owner of the seized items. It is
THE LEGAL PERSONALITY TO ASSAIL THE SEARCH noteworthy that at the time of the application for search
WARRANT FOR HE WAS NAMED RESPONDENT warrant, respondent recognized the authority of petitioner as
THEREIN AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CHARGED FOR manager of Sun Gas, Inc. when the application averred that
VIOLATION OF R.A. [No.] 623, AS AMENDED BY R.A. petitioner had in his possession and control the items
5700, BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE CITY subject of the alleged criminal offense. Respondent should
PROSECUTOR OF ILOILO IN I.S. NO. 2015-2000 not be allowed thereafter to question petitioner's authority to
ENTITLED "PNP-CIDG V. ROWLAND KIM SANTOS." assail the search warrant. Moreover, the search warrant was
directed against petitioner for allegedly using Pryce LPG
II.
cylinders without the authority of respondent.
WHETHER THE PETITIONER SHOULD RETURN THE
The Court of Appeals misapplied the ruling in Stonehill, et
SUBJECT PRYCE LPG CYLINDER TO RESPONDENT
al. v. Diokno, et al.19 that only a corporation has the
DESPITE UNCONTROVERTED EVIDENCE THAT THE
exclusive right to question the seizure of items belonging to
SAME WERE SOLD BY THE LATTER TO ITS the corporation on the ground that the latter has a
CUSTOMERS.
personality distinct from the officers and shareholders of the
corporation. Assuming arguendo that Sun Gas, Inc. was the charge petitioner with a criminal offense, thus, negating its
owner of the seized items, petitioner, as the manager of Sun previous determination of probable cause.
Gas, Inc., had the authority to question the seizure of the
items belonging to Sun Gas, Inc. Unlike natural persons, We disagree. In quashing the search warrant, it would
corporations may perform physical actions only through appear that the trial court had raised the standard of
properly delegated individuals; namely, their officers and/or probable cause to whether there was sufficient cause to hold
agents.20 As stated above, respondent cannot belatedly petitioner for trial. In so doing, the trial court committed grave
question petitioner's authority to act on behalf of Sun Gas, abuse of discretion.
Inc. when it had already acknowledged petitioner's authority Probable cause for a search warrant is defined as such facts
at the time of the application of the search warrant. and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discrete
The resolution of the second issue as to who has legal and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
custody of the seized items depends upon the determination committed and that the objects
of the existence of probable cause in the issuance of the sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought
search warrant. In the questioned Order dated 16 July 2002, to be searched.23 A finding of probable cause needs only to
the trial court reversed its earlier finding of probable cause rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime
on the ground that the failure of the CIDG agents to seize has been committed and that it was committed by the
other materials and tools used by petitioner to tamper with accused. Probable cause demands more than bare
the LPG cylinders invalidated the search warrant because suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would justify
"there would be nothing to show or prove that accused had conviction.24 The existence depends to a large degree upon
committed the offense."21 The trial court elaborated that the the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the
mere possession of Pryce LPG cylinders seized from examination. However, the findings of the judge should not
petitioner was not illegal per se, absent any showing that disregard the facts before him nor run counter to the clear
petitioner illegally used the same without the consent of dictates of reason.25
respondent. Moreover, the trial court concluded that
respondent had already parted ownership of its gas The application for a search warrant was based on the
cylinders upon their sale to customers who paid not only for alleged violation by petitioner of certain provisions of R.A.
the contents but also for the value of the gas cylinders. No. 623, as amended by R.A. No. 5700. Respondent
claimed that petitioner was illegally using or distributing its
Although respondent advanced several arguments rebutting LPG cylinders without its authority. The amended provisions
the aforementioned conclusions in its petition for certiorari, of R.A. No. 623 state:
the Court of Appeals sidestepped those arguments and
reversed the trial court's quashal of the search warrant only Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person, without the written
on the ground of the lack of legal personality on the part of consent of the manufacturer, bottler, or seller, who has
petitioner to assail the search warrant. successfully registered the marks of ownership in
accordance with the provisions of the next preceding
Supporting jurisprudence thus outlined the following section, to fill such bottles, boxes, kegs, barrels, steel
requisites for a search warrant's validity, the absence of cylinders, tanks, flasks, accumulators, or other similar
even one will cause its downright nullification: (1) it must be containers so marked or stamped, for the purpose of sale,
issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must or to sell, dispose of, buy or traffic in, or wantonly destroy
be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant the same, whether filled or not to use the same for drinking
or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable vessels or glasses or drain pipes, foundation pipes, for any
cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, other purpose than that registered by the manufacturer,
the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may bottler or seller. Any violation of this section shall be
produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly punished by a fine of not more than one thousand pesos or
describe the place to be searched and persons or things to imprisonment of not more than one year or both.
be seized.22
Sec. 3. The use by any person other than the registered
The instant controversy pertains only to the existence of manufacturer, bottler or seller, without written permission of
probable cause, which the trial court found wanting after the latter of any such bottler, cask, barrel, keg, box, steel
evaluating the items seized from petitioner. Petitioner does cylinders, tanks, flasks, accumulators, or other similar
not dispute that the items seized from him, consisting of containers, or the possession thereof without written
Pryce LPG tanks of assorted weights, were particularly permission of the manufacturer, by any junk dealer or dealer
enumerated in the search warrant. Petitioner is neither in casks, barrels, kegs, boxes, steel cylinders, tanks, flasks,
assailing the manner by which the trial court conducted the accumulators, or other similar containers, the same being
determination of probable cause. duly marked or stamped and registered as herein
The trial court retracted its earlier finding of probable cause provided, shall give rise to a prima facie presumption that
because the seized items were incomplete or insufficient to such use or possession is unlawful.
Section 3 of R.A. No. 623, as amended, clearly creates The Court of Appeals, however, erred in ordering the return
a prima faciepresumption of the unlawful use of gas of the seized items to
cylinders based on two separate acts, namely, the respondent.ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ
unauthorized use of the cylinder by a person other than the
registered manufacturer and the possession thereof by a Section 4, Rule 12629 of the Revised Criminal Procedure
dealer. The trial court's conclusion that the mere possession expressly mandates the delivery of the seized items to the
by petitioner of the seized gas cylinders was not punishable judge who issued the search warrant to be kept in custodia
under Section 2 of R.A. No. 623, as amended, is not correct. legis in anticipation of the criminal proceedings against
The trial court failed to consider that petitioner was not only petitioner. The delivery of the items seized to the court which
in possession of the gas cylinders but was also distributing issued the warrant together with a true and accurate
the same, as alleged by PO1 Aldrin Ligan in his answer to inventory thereof, duly verified under oath, is mandatory in
the searching questions asked by the trial court.26 order to preclude the substitution of said items by interested
parties. The judge who issued the search warrant is
As pointed out by respondent in its petition for certiorari, the mandated to ensure compliance with the requirements for
failure of the CIDG operatives to confiscate articles and (1) the issuance of a detailed receipt for the property
materials used in tampering with the Pryce marking and logo received, (2) delivery of the seized property to the court,
did not negate the existence of probable cause. The together with (3) a verified true inventory of the items seized.
confluence of these circumstances, namely: the fact of Any violation of the foregoing constitutes contempt of
possession and distribution of the gas cylinders and the court.30
claim by respondent that it did not authorize petitioner to
distribute the same was a sufficient indication that petitioner The CIDG operatives properly delivered the seized items to
is probably guilty of the illegal use of the gas cylinders the custody of the trial court which issued the search
punishable under Section 2 of R.A. No. 623, as amended. warrant. Thereafter, the trial court ordered their return to
petitioner after quashing the search warrant. When the
More importantly, at the hearing of the application for the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's quashal of the
search warrant, various testimonies and documentary search warrant, it erred in ordering the return of the seized
evidence based on the surveillance by the CIDG operatives items to respondent because it would seem that respondent
were presented. After hearing the testimonies and instituted the special civil action for certiorari in order to
examining the documentary evidence, the trial court was regain
convinced that there were good and sufficient reasons for
the issuance of the same. Thus, it issued the search warrant. possession of its LPG tanks. This cannot be countenanced.
The trial court's unwarranted turnabout was brought about The seized items should remain in the custody of the trial
by its notion that the seized items were not sufficient to indict court which issued the search warrant pending the institution
petitioner for the crime charged. of criminal action against petitioner.

In La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. v. Fernandez,27 it was held: Last, the special civil action for certiorari was the proper
recourse availed by respondent in assailing the quashal of
True, the lower court should be given the opportunity to the search warrant. As aforementioned, the trial court's
correct its errors, if there be any, but the rectification must, unwarranted reversal of its earlier finding of probable cause
as earlier stated be based on sound and valid grounds. In constituted grave abuse of discretion. In any case, the Court
this case, there was no compelling justification for the about had allowed even direct recourse to this Court31 or to the
face. Court of Appeals32 via a special civil action for certiorari from
a trial court's quashal of a search warrant.
xxx
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED and the
Moreover, an application for a search warrant is heard ex Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 74563
parte. It is neither a trial nor a part of the trial. Action on these is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the seized items
applications must be expedited for time is of the essence. should be kept in custodia legis. Costs against petitioner.
Great reliance has to be accorded by the judge to the
testimonies under oath of the complainant and the SO ORDERED.
witnesses.28

A word of caution, though. In affirming the sufficiency of

probable cause in the issuance of the search warrant, this
Court is not preempting the subsequent determination by
the investigating prosecutor if there is cause to hold the
respondent for trial. After all, the investigating prosecutor is
the person tasked to evaluate all the evidence submitted by
both parties.