GR 96356; (June, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 96356 ; June 27, 1991
NONILLON A. BAGALIHOG, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE GIL P. FERNANDEZ, Presiding Judge of Br. 45, RTC of Masbate; and MAJOR JULITO ROXAS, respondents.
FACTS
On March 17, 1989, Rep. Moises Espinosa was assassinated at Masbate Airport. Witnesses reported a gunman fleeing on a motorcycle. Two days later, on March 19, Capt. Julito Roxas and his men seized petitioner Nonillon Bagalihog’s motorcycle without a search warrant, suspecting its use in the crime. Bagalihog and others were subsequently charged with murder. On June 21, 1989, Bagalihog filed a complaint for recovery of the motorcycle with an application for a writ of replevin (Civil Case No. 3878) in the RTC of Masbate. The motorcycle was later deposited with the clerk of court upon Bagalihog’s motion. The criminal cases were transferred to the RTC of Makati. Judge Gil Fernandez of RTC Masbate, Branch 45, dismissed the replevin case, ruling the motorcycle, as potential evidence in the pending criminal cases, was in custodia legis and thus not subject to replevin.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge correctly dismissed the replevin suit on the ground that the warrantlessly seized motorcycle, being held as potential evidence in a criminal case, is in custodia legis and thus not recoverable through a separate civil action.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and reinstated the civil case. The Court held that the warrantless seizure of the motorcycle was unconstitutional. The authorities had two days between the crime and the seizure to obtain a warrant but failed to do so, and the heinous nature of the crime or superior orders cannot justify the violation. Consequently, the motorcycle, as “fruit of the poisonous tree,” is inadmissible as evidence. The doctrine that property in custodia legis cannot be replevied applies only to property lawfully seized. Since the seizure was unlawful, the motorcycle was never lawfully in the custody of the law. Therefore, the RTC of Masbate retains jurisdiction over the replevin action, and its adjudication would not interfere with the criminal proceedings in Makati. The Court emphasized that zeal in prosecution must not override constitutional guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures.