G.R. No. 96356 - Bagalihog vs. Ferdez

On March 17, 1989, Rep. Moises Espinosa was fatally shot shortly after disembarking at Masbate Airport.

Witnesses reported that one of the gunmen involved in the crime fled on a motorcycle.

On the same day as the killing, the petitioner’s house—located near the airport—was searched with his consent to ascertain whether the killers had taken refuge there.

The search yielded no evidence implicating the petitioner, and nothing of probative value was found.

On March 19, 1989, Captain Julito Roxas and his men from the Philippine Constabulary, without a search warrant, seized the petitioner’s motorcycle on the suspicion that it might have been used by the assailants.

The motorcycle was subsequently impounded and taken to the PC headquarters in Masbate.

Following the seizure, the petitioner, alongside others, was charged with multiple murder, frustrated murder, and related offenses concerning the killing of Espinosa and his bodyguards, as well as the wounding of another individual.

On June 21, 1989, the petitioner filed a complaint for the recovery of the motorcycle through a writ of replevin, seeking damages amounting to P55,000.00 (Civil Case No. 3878) in Masbate’s Regional Trial Court.

On November 7, 1989, an urgent manifestation was filed by the petitioner to have the motorcycle deposited with the clerk of court, to prevent its unauthorized use by law enforcement.

Judge Ricardo Butalid initially granted the motion but later inhibited himself, causing the case to be transferred to Branch 45 of the RTC presided over by Judge Gil Fernandez.

While separating the criminal cases (transferred to Branch 56 of the RTC in Makati), the petitioner continued with the civil complaint regarding the motorcycle.

On October 12, 1990, Judge Fernandez rendered an order dismissing Civil Case No. 3878 on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over the impounded motorcycle, stating it was in "custodia legis" as it was held as evidence in the criminal case.

The petitioner asserted that the seizure of the motorcycle was conducted without the requisite search warrant and in violation of constitutional guarantees under the Bill of Rights, thereby warranting its return.

The petitioner argued that his mere consent to a neighborhood search did not extend to a waiver of his rights regarding the seizure of his property.

The defense underscored the gravity of the crime, the mobile nature of motorcycles, and the necessity of preserving the evidence, yet conceded that no search warrant was procured.

Respondents relied on the argument that property seized in enforcing criminal laws falls under the custody of the law (“custodia legis”) and can only be returned by the court handling the criminal proceedings.

Whether the warrantless seizure of the petitioner’s motorcycle violated the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures as mandated by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
Whether the absence of a search warrant, despite the alleged urgency of preserving evidence, can be justified under any of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement.
Whether property seized in connection with criminal cases is automatically considered in “custodia legis,” thus precluding its recovery by a writ of replevin in a separate civil action.
Whether the petitioner’s cooperation during the initial investigation amounted to a waiver of his constitutional right to require a search warrant for the seizure of his property.