G.R. No. 152950 August 3, 2006
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. LOURDES F. GATBALITE, and ATTY. BENNIE NICDAO, Petitioners, vs. CHRISTOPHER CHOI, Respondent.

FACTS

On April 27, 1999, Mario P. Nieto applied for a search warrant against respondent Christopher Choi for violation of the Intellectual Property Code concerning fake Marlboro cigarettes. After examining Nieto and his witnesses, Max Cavalera and David Lee Sealey, Judge Lourdes F. Gatbalite issued Search Warrant No. 99-17. The search was executed, and items were seized. Choi filed a motion to quash the warrant, arguing that probable cause was not established through probing examination and that the warrant lacked particularity in describing the place. The trial court denied the motion. Choi elevated the case via certiorari to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals granted Choi’s petition, declaring the search warrant null and void. It ruled that Judge Gatbalite committed grave abuse of discretion by failing to conduct a sufficiently searching examination of witness David Lee Sealey, the brand protection manager. The CA noted the examination merely had Sealey affirm his affidavit and conclusion that the cigarettes were counterfeit without requiring a physical comparison between the genuine and fake items, citing the standard in 20th Century Fox Film Corporation v. Court of Appeals. The CA also prohibited the use of the seized articles as evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing Search Warrant No. 99-17 due to an insufficient determination of probable cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the validity of Search Warrant No. 99-17. The Court clarified that the determination of probable cause for issuing a search warrant rests on the personal judgment of the judge after personally examining the applicant and witnesses under oath. The examination need not be perfect; it is sufficient if it is probing and not merely routine or perfunctory. The Court found that the judge’s examination of the witnesses, particularly Sealey, was adequate. Sealey, as the brand protection manager, testified based on his expertise, detailing his examination of the packaging, color, and printing, leading to his conclusion that the items were counterfeit. The Court emphasized that a judge may rely on the opinion of an expert witness without necessarily requiring a physical presentation and side-by-side comparison of the genuine and fake items in court, especially when the counterfeit nature can be ascertained from the witness’s specialized knowledge. The Court further held that the doctrine in 20th Century Fox had been modified by subsequent jurisprudence, such as Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, which allows for a more flexible approach. The description “No. 25-13 Columbia Street, Carmenville Subd., Angeles City” was also deemed sufficient to particularly identify the place to be searched. Consequently, no grave abuse of discretion attended the issuance of the warrant.