GR L 31757; (October, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-31757 October 29, 1982
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. PIO MARCOS, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Baguio City and Benguet Province and YU CUA SIO, owner and Manager, Suntory Grocery, respondents.
FACTS
On June 15, 1967, NBI Supervising Agent Jose Vicente applied for a search warrant with the City Court of Baguio, alleging that Yu Cua Sio, owner of Suntory Grocery, possessed stocks of San Miguel Gin that were adulterated, bore fake auxiliary stamps, and used unauthorized crown caps, in violation of Articles 188 and 189 of the Revised Penal Code. City Judge Patricio Perez issued Search Warrant No. 459, and on June 19, 1967, NBI agents seized various articles from the grocery, including adulterated gin, crown cap sealers, and fake stamps.
Private respondent Yu Cua Sio moved to quash the warrant. The City Court initially ordered the return of the seized items, but the Court of First Instance (CFI) reversed this and upheld the warrant. However, upon reconsideration, respondent Judge Pio Marcos declared the warrant null and void, ruling it was issued for more than one specific offense and was a fishing expedition for evidence. The People, through the Solicitor General, petitioned for review.
ISSUE
Whether Search Warrant No. 459 is valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled the search warrant is valid and set aside the CFI order. The Court clarified that while the search warrant itself did not specify the offense, the application cited violations of Articles 188 and 189 of the Revised Penal Code. These articles concerning trademark substitution and unfair competition are closely allied, and the acts described can be considered as included within one another, thus not constituting a violation of the rule against a warrant for more than one specific offense.
Furthermore, the warrant was not a general warrant for fishing evidence. It particularly described the items to be seized—adulterated gin, fake stamps, and unauthorized crown caps—which were precisely the items confiscated during the search. The fact that the application stated the purpose was to obtain evidence for an investigation did not invalidate the warrant, as the items described were themselves contraband or evidence of a crime. The seized fake stamps, being illegal per se, should not be returned to the respondent.