G.R. No. 205010 - Petron Gasul LPG Dealers Association vs. Lao

Private complainants, represented by various LPG Dealers Associations (including Petron Gasul and Totalgaz Dealers Associations), alleged that certain establishments were engaged in the illegal trade and underfilling of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) cylinders in violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 33 (BP 33), as amended.
Atty. Genesis Adarlo, counsel for the complainants, sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation-Cordillera Administrative Region (NBI-CAR) to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute individuals and establishments suspected of such violations.
Darwin Lising, Supervising Agent of NBI-CAR, filed separate affidavits detailing his investigation, which included:

Verification that the establishments—Benguet Gas and Baguio Gas—were operating in contravention of BP 33 by refilling LPG cylinders without proper authorization.
Review of incorporation documents showing that Benguet Gas was controlled by Zenaida Co, Wilson Tan, Wilbert Tan, Norma Yao, Lino Sandil, and Hermogenes Pacheco, while Baguio Gas was controlled by Elena Lao, Imelda Lao, Pompidou Golangco, Jeremy Wilson Golangco, and Carmen Castillo.

NBI-CAR operatives, including Security Officer William A. Fortea, conducted extensive surveillance:

Initial surveillance commenced in early March 2005.
A test-buy operation was conducted on April 1, 2005 at both Benguet Gas and Baguio Gas.

The test-buy confirmed that illegal activities were taking place, as underfilled LPG cylinders with fake seals were observed and purchased for specific amounts (P3,300.00 at Benguet Gas and P3,650.00 at Baguio Gas).
Additional surveillance and investigation continued from the third week of April 2005 to the second week of May 2005, further substantiating the allegations of illegal trading and underfilling.

Based on the gathered evidence, on May 19, 2005, separate applications for search warrants were filed with the RTC-La Trinidad:

On May 20, 2005, the search warrants were served, and the executing officers performed searches that resulted in:

Seizure of machinery, equipment (including LPG filling scales, pumps, compressors, and weighing scales), and assorted LPG cylinders of varying capacities and brands from both premises.
Detailed Inventory Sheets listing items from each establishment, which included critical items like gas compressors, pump motors, filling heads, and a significant number of both filled and empty LPG cylinders.

Lising further moved for the temporary custody of the seized items, citing their flammable and hazardous nature; the RTC-La Trinidad granted this motion by ordering the items to be kept in a secure warehouse, pending proper judicial disposition.

Respondents (the owners and/or occupants of Baguio Gas Corporation) moved to quash the search warrants on several grounds:

Alleged absence of probable cause.
Inadequate particularity in describing the place to be searched and items to be seized.
The issue of territorial jurisdiction, arguing that Baguio Gas is located outside RTC-La Trinidad’s jurisdiction.

Granted the motions to quash the search warrants against respondents (SW Nos. 05-72 and 05-73).
Maintained the search warrants against Benguet Gas based on established probable cause.

The Court of Appeals (CA), in its April 16, 2012 decision, partially reversed the lower court's ruling:

It reinstated the SWs for Benguet Gas by reversing the earlier quashing.
It upheld the quashal of the SWs for respondents on the ground that there were insufficient compelling reasons for filing in RTC-La Trinidad rather than in the territorial court of Baguio City.

Affidavits of Lising and testimonies of Fortea detailing the timeline—from receipt of the complaint on March 1, 2005, the test-buy on April 1, 2005, to subsequent surveillance until May 19, 2005.
Records and Inventory Sheets listing the seized items, which formed the basis for the probable cause determination.

The rationale behind the timing of the SW applications.
How continuous investigative efforts justified the urgency despite the elapsed time between the test-buy and the filing of the applications.

Whether the issuance and enforcement of search warrants (SW Nos. 05-72 and 05-73) against respondents (Baguio Gas and its owners) are justified even though the business is located outside RTC-La Trinidad’s territorial jurisdiction.
Whether the compelling reasons alleged—namely, urgency of time, risk of evidence dissipation, and potential information leakage—sufficiently support the filing of the search warrant applications in RTC-La Trinidad instead of in Baguio City.
Whether the two-month gap between the test-buy on April 1, 2005, and the submission of the SW applications on May 19, 2005, undermines the claim of urgency and the integrity of the evidence collected.