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 adulterated San Miguel Gin with fake auxiliary stamps and unauthorized crown caps, violating 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 items from the grocery, including adulterated gin, a crown cap sealer, and fake stamps. 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, upholding the warrant’s validity. However, upon reconsideration, CFI Judge Pio Marcos declared the warrant null and void.
ISSUE
The sole legal issue is the validity of Search Warrant No. 459, which the respondent judge nullified on two grounds: (1) it was issued for more than one specific offense, violating Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, and (2) it was issued to fish for evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the CFI order and upheld the validity of the search warrant. On the first ground, the Court clarified that while the search warrant itself did not specify an offense, the NBI application cited violations of Articles 188 and 189 of the Revised Penal Code. These articles concerning trademark alteration and unfair competition are so closely allied that the acts described in one can be considered included in the other; thus, the warrant did not violate the rule against multiple offenses. On the second ground, the Court found no merit in the claim that the warrant was a fishing expedition. The application and the warrant particularly described the items to be seized—adulterated gin, fake stamps, and unauthorized caps—which were precisely the items found and confiscated during the search. The purpose of securing evidence does not invalidate a warrant supported by probable cause. Consequently, the seized articles, being illegal per se, should not be returned. The Supreme Court set aside the CFI order and directed the return of the seized items if they had been delivered to the private respondent.