Case Digest (G.R. No. 187104) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
On 26 March 2001, NBI Special Investigator Albert Froilan Gaerlan filed a sworn application for Search Warrant No. 01-118 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 63, Makati City, seeking authority to search the office premises of respondents Amador Pastrana and Rufina Abad at Room 1908, 88 Corporate Center, Valero Street, Makati City. He alleged that respondents and their employees defrauded foreign investors by convincing them to purchase non-existent shares of stock, directing payments via telegraphic transfer, and diverting the proceeds for personal and corporate use. The application was supported by affidavits of a complainant in Saudi Arabia, former employees who made the solicitation calls, corporate incorporation papers, and a sketch of the premises. On the same day, Judge Tranquil Salvador, Jr. issued Search Warrant No. 01-118 for “Violation of R.A. 8799 (The Securities Regulation Code) and Estafa (Art. 315, RPC),” commanding the seizure of a broad array of documen Case Digest (G.R. No. 187104) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Application and Issuance of Search Warrant No. 01-118
- On 26 March 2001, NBI Special Investigator Albert Froilan Gaerlan filed a sworn application before the RTC, Makati City (Branch 63), to search respondents Amador Pastrana’s and Rufina Abad’s office at Room 1908, 88 Corporate Center, alleging a scheme to defraud foreign investors by selling non-existent shares. He invoked estafa (Art. 315, RPC) and violation of the Securities Regulation Code (RA 8799).
- The application attached:
- Affidavits of a foreign complainant and former employees;
- Articles of incorporation of the corporations used in the scheme;
- A sketch of the office premises.
- Judge Tranquil Salvador, Jr. found probable cause and, on the same day, issued Search Warrant No. 01-118 captioned “For: Violation of R.A. 8799 (The Securities Regulation Code) and Estafa (Art. 315, RPC)”.
- Execution of Search and Subsequent Proceedings
- On 27 March 2001, NBI agents and SEC representatives executed the warrant, seizing per return dated 2 April 2001:
- Eighty-nine boxes of company documents (telephone bills, broker files, sales agreements, receipts, bank advices, messages, brochures, letterheads, envelopes);
- Forty magazine stands of brokers’ records;
- Offshore incorporation papers; lease contracts; vouchers and ledgers.
- On 11 June 2001, respondent Abad moved to quash the warrant for:
- Being issued for two separate offenses (violating RA 8799 and estafa), breaching the one-offense rule;
- Failing to describe with particularity the items to be seized.
- Judge Salvador inhibited on 15 November 2001; the case was re-raffled to RTC Makati, Branch 58.
- Lower Court Rulings
- In an Omnibus Order dated 10 May 2002, RTC Branch 58 quashed and nullified Search Warrant No. 01-118, holding it void for violating the one-specific-offense rule and for lack of particularity; ordered return of seized items and declared them inadmissible in evidence.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in its Decision dated 22 September 2010 and Resolution dated 11 March 2011 affirmed the RTC, reiterating that the warrant improperly covered multiple offenses and used overly broad descriptions.
Issues:
- Whether Search Warrant No. 01-118 violated the one-specific-offense rule by being issued for both violation of the Securities Regulation Code and estafa.
- Whether the warrant failed the constitutional and procedural requirement of particularity in describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)