Case Digest (G.R. No. 152950)
Facts:
This is People of the Philippines, Hon. Lourdes F. Gatbalite, Presiding Judge, Branch 56, Regional Trial Court, Angeles City and Atty. Bennie Nicdao, Special Prosecutor, Special Operative Group, Economic Intelligence & Investigation Bureau v. Christopher Choi, G.R. No. 152950, promulgated August 03, 2006, the Supreme Court Second Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court.On April 27, 1999, Mario P. Nieto, an intelligence operative of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB), applied for Search Warrant No. 99-17 from the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Angeles City, Branch 56 (presided by Judge Lourdes F. Gatbalite) against Christopher Choi for alleged violations of Sections 168(2) and 168(3)(a) and (c), in relation to Section 169 of R.A. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code). Nieto testified he and his witnesses, Max Cavalera and David Lee Sealey (Manager of Product Development, Philip Morris Asia Limited), conducted test-buys and submitted samples that Sealey examined and opined to be counterfeit. Judge Gatbalite issued the warrant the same day and the premises were searched that night.
Choi moved to quash the warrant on May 12, 1999, and filed a supplemental motion on June 22, 1999; both were denied by Judge Gatbalite on November 29, 1999, and reconsideration was likewise denied. On June 19, 2000, Choi petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari and prohibition (CA-G.R. SP No. 59587), arguing the RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion by failing to conduct a sufficiently probing personal examination of the witnesses and by not particularly describing the place; he also contended the judge should have required the presentation of alleged counterfeit items for in-court comparison.
The CA, in a decision dated April 10, 2002, granted Choi’s petition, holding that Judge Gatbalite failed to ask searching and probing questions of Sealey and improperly relied on Sealey’s conclusion without requiring presentation of the allegedly counterfeit cigarettes for comparison (invoking the requirement articulated in 20th Century Fox Film Corporation v. Court of Appeals). The CA declared Search Warrant No. 99-17 null and void and prohibited Atty. Bennie Nicdao from using the seized articles in evidence.
The People (Judge Gatbalite, the RTC, and Atty. Nicdao) filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal of the CA decis...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC judge commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing Search Warrant No. 99-17 by failing to personally examine the complainant and witnesses with searching questions and answers as required by Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court?
- Is the supposed requirement, articulated in 20th Century Fox Film Corporation v. Court of Appeals, that the judge must require presentation of master tapes/object evidence for determination of probable cause applicable here, or has it been qualified/superseded by Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals? ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)