People vs Court of Appeals
Facts:
The
properties consisted of 27 units of distribution transformers of various sizes
sold to the University of the Philippines-Iloilo (UP, for short) and delivered
on June 15, 1987. The agreed price, including installation cost, was $39,516.00
and was fully paid by UP to the seller, Varona Trading, through its general
manager, Danilo Varona. On June 27, 1987, these same properties were pulled out
by Varona on the excuse that they had certain factory defects that had to be
repaired. When Varona failed to comply with UP's demand for their return
pending their replacement, UP referred the matter to the National Bureau of
Investigation, which found that the properties were in the warehouse of Ruben
Siao, herein private respondent. NBI applied for and secured the questioned
search warrant, 1 which was issued by Judge Abelardo M.
Dayrit of the Regional Trial Court of Manila on September 25, 1987. On the
strength of this warrant, NBI seized the said transformers, which were later
ascertained to be the same transformers sold to UP, not only by their serial
numbers but also because the crates where they were contained were marked
"UP-Iloilo."
On
September 28, Siao filed an urgent motion to quash the search warrant on the
ground that Nissen-Denki Philippine Corporation, of which he was the manager,
had bought the said transformers from Varona for the sum of P702,483.00. The
motion was denied on December 10, 1987, after a lengthy exchange of pleadings
between the parties. However, on July 7, 1988, again after a spirited debate
between the petitioner and the private respondent, Judge Dayrit granted Siao's
motion for reconsideration and dissolved the search warrant. He also ordered
the NBI to return the seized transformers to Siao.
UP
had filed a complaint for estafa against Varona and Siao and the City Prosecutor
of Iloilo City had lodged the corresponding information before the Regional
Trial Court of Iloilo. Upon re-investigation of the complaint, however, it was
found that there was no cause to hold Siao for trial and accordingly, on motion
of the prosecution, the case against him was dismissed by the trial court on
October 13, 1989.
Issue: WON the search warrant was valid.
Ruling:
The search warrant issued by the
trial court left the space in the caption intended for the nature of the
offense in blank, indicating the uncertainty of petitioner and the court as to
the crime committed and for which the search warrant was issued. On the other
hand, all that the body of the search warrant stated was that the transformers
were "Stolen or Embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense, used or
intended to be used as the means of committing the offense." But, since
the particular offense was not mentioned, the reason for the issuance of the
search warrant could be anything under the sun.
There
is no question that the search warrant did not relate to a specific offense, in
violation of the doctrine announced in Stonehill v. Diokno 2 and
of Section 3 of Rule 126 providing as follows:
Sec.
3. Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A search warrant
shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific
offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to searched and the things to be seized.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Significantly,
the petitioner has not denied this defect in the search warrant and has merely
said that there was probable cause, omitting to continue that it was in
connection with one specific offense. He could not, of course, for the warrant
was a scatter-shot warrant that could refer, in Judge Dayrit's own words
"to robbery, theft, qualified theft or estafa." On this score alone,
the search warrant was totally null and void and was correctly declared to be
so by the very judge who had issued it.
Probable
cause is defined as referring to "such facts and circumstances antecedent
to the issuance of the warrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce a
cautious person to rely on them, and to act in pursuance thereof."
3 At the time he issued the search
warrant, there was in Judge Dayrit's view probable cause that a crime had been
committed by Siao, who had possession of the subject properties. However, such
probable cause no longer exists now because the information for estafa against
Siao has already been dismissed by the Regional Trial Court of Manila on motion
of the prosecution itself. Siao's guilt is no longer open for conjecture.