G.R. No. 89103 July 14, 1995
LEON TAMBASEN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Police obtained Search Warrant No. 365 from the Municipal Trial Circuit Court (MTCC) to search petitioner Leon Tambasen’s house for specified firearms, explosives, and subversive documents. During the search on September 9, 1988, the police team seized several items, including P14,000.00 in cash, which was not listed in the warrant. The police claimed the money was earmarked for subversive activities.
Tambasen filed a motion before the issuing MTCC to declare the search and seizure illegal and for the return of the seized items, particularly the money. The MTCC granted the motion, ordering the return of the P14,000.00, ruling the seizure was illegal as the cash was not among the items specified in the warrant. The prosecution then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which nullified the MTCC’s order. The RTC held that the MTCC exceeded its jurisdiction, as questions on the legality of the seizure and admissibility of evidence were matters for the trial court in any eventual criminal case.

ISSUE

Whether the MTCC acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the return of the illegally seized money.

RULING

No, the MTCC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted Tambasen’s petition, reversing the RTC and reinstating the MTCC’s order for the return of the money. The legal logic is anchored on constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. A search warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized. The seizure of the P14,000.00, an item not specified in the warrant, was per se illegal. The constitutional remedy for such an illegal seizure is the return of the property.
The Court rejected the RTC’s reasoning that the MTCC encroached on the jurisdiction of a potential trial court. The issuing court retains the authority to determine if the warrant was implemented properly and to order the return of items not included in the warrant. The prosecution’s arguments for retaining the money in custodia legis for a potential criminal case were unavailing. The criminal complaint for subversion against Tambasen had been dismissed, and more fundamentally, Republic Act No. 1700 (the Anti-Subversion Law) had been repealed. Consequently, there was no pending prosecution to justify the retention of the illegally seized cash. The constitutional exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an unreasonable search is inadmissible for any purpose, reinforcing the duty to return such property to its owner.