Facts:

The case involves petitioners Kenneth Roy Savage and K Angelin Export Trading, owned and managed by Gemma Demoral-Savage, who sought to nullify a search warrant issued by Judge Aproniano B. Taypin of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Cebu City. The search warrant, issued on October 16, 1997, authorized the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to search the premises of K Angelin Export International located in Biasong, Talisay, Cebu, based on a complaint from Eric Ng Mendoza, president of Mendco Development Corporation (MENDCO). The complaint alleged unfair competition involving design patents, a violation punishable under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code. The warrant was executed on October 17, 1997, resulting in the seizure of several pieces of wrought iron furniture, which were claimed to be the subject of the unfair competition.

Following the seizure, the petitioners filed a motion to quash the search warrant on October 30, 1997, arguing that the alleged...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petitioners Kenneth Roy Savage and K Angelin Export Trading, owned and managed by Gemma Demoral-Savage, sought to nullify a search warrant issued by Judge Aproniano B. Taypin of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12, Cebu City. The warrant led to the seizure of wrought iron furniture from their factory in Biasong, Talisay, Cebu.

Application for the Search Warrant

• The search warrant was issued based on a complaint by Eric Ng Mendoza, president of Mendco Development Corporation (MENDCO), alleging unfair competition involving design patents under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code.
• The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed the application for the search warrant, which was granted on October 16, 1997, and executed the following day.

Petitioners' Motion to Quash

• On October 30, 1997, petitioners filed a motion to quash the search warrant, arguing:
  1. The alleged crime did not exist.
  2. The warrant lacked probable cause.
  3. The judge failed to ask searching questions.
  4. The warrant did not particularly describe the items to be seized.
• A supplemental motion was filed on November 10, 1997, adding that the application lacked a certification against forum shopping.

Denial of Motions

• The trial court denied both the motion to quash and the supplemental motion on January 30, 1998. A motion for reconsideration was also denied on April 8, 1998, prompting the petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Jurisdiction:

   • The power to issue search warrants is ancillary and not limited to Special Courts for IPR. Jurisdiction is conferred by substantive law (BP Blg. 129), not by administrative orders.

2. Certification Against Forum Shopping:

   • The requirement for a certification against forum shopping applies only to initiatory pleadings, not to applications for search warrants.

3. Existence of the Crime:

   • The repeal of Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code by the IPR Code rendered the alleged crime of unfair competition involving design patents non-existent. Penal laws must be strictly construed against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.

4. Nullity of the Search Warrant:

   • Since the search warrant was based on a non-existent crime, it was void from the beginning. All property seized under the warrant must be returned to the petitioners.

Disposition

• The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the RTC denying the motion to quash the search warrant. Search Warrant No. 637-10-1697-12 was annulled, and respondents were ordered to return the seized property to the petitioners.