G.R. No. 174570 - Tan vs. Sy Tiong Gue

On January 11, 2006, an Information for Robbery was filed against respondents Sy Tiong Gue et al., Police Officer 1 Mamerto J. Madronio, and PO1 Marvin Sumang for the alleged robbery of:

P6,500,000.00 cash
286 postdated checks with a face value of P4,325,642.00
Five boxes of Hennessy XO Cognac valued at approximately P240,000.00
A television set valued at approximately P20,000.00
A computer set valued at approximately P50,000.00
Other documents, all belonging to SY SIY HO AND SONS, INC. (Guan Yiak Hardware) represented by Romer S. Tan

The alleged crime was committed on or about April 15, 2003, when respondents forcibly entered the Guan Yiak Hardware office located at 453-455 Tomas Pinpin Street, Binondo, Manila, while armed with guns, and took the said properties.

On April 22, 2003, Police Inspector Edgar A. Reyes filed two separate applications for search warrants before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila (docketed as Search Warrant Cases No. 03-3611 and 03-3612).
P/Insp. Reyes claimed personal knowledge that respondent Felicidad Chan Sy possessed five boxes of Hennessy XO and 286 company checks taken from Guan Yiak Hardware.
Supporting the applications were sworn statements of petitioner Romer Sy Tan and witnesses Maricho Sabelita and Anicita Almedilla.
On the same day, RTC Branch 7, Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas personally examined the applicant and witnesses through searching questions.
Subsequently, the judge issued Search Warrant Nos. 03-3611 (search of 8th floor, 524 T. Pinpin, Binondo, Manila for Hennessy XO boxes) and 03-3612 (search of 7th floor, same address, for checks), directing peace officers to seize and bring the items to court.
When served that afternoon, Search Warrant No. 03-3611 yielded the seizure of twelve Hennessy XO bottles in three boxes and seven other bottles in another box; Search Warrant No. 03-3612 yielded negative results.

On May 21, 2003, respondents filed a Motion to Quash the search warrants, which petitioner opposed.
The RTC denied the motion on September 1, 2003, and also denied the respondents' motion for reconsideration on October 28, 2003.
Aggrieved respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging:

The RTC judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by refusing to quash the search warrants due to absence of probable cause.
Lack of plain, speedy, and adequate remedy other than certiorari.

On December 29, 2005, the CA granted the petition, reversed and set aside the RTC's orders denying the motion to quash, and ruled that there was no probable cause for issuance of the search warrants.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied on August 18, 2006.

The RTC judge properly found probable cause based on the sworn statements and testimonies under oath;
The issuance of search warrants complied with due process and legal requisites.

Respondents upheld the CA's ruling, arguing the absence of probable cause supported by statements negating the crime.
The sole issue: Whether probable cause justified the issuance of the search warrants by the RTC judge.

Whether there was probable cause for the issuance of Search Warrant Nos. 03-3611 and 03-3612 by the RTC judge.
Whether the CA erred in reversing the RTC's denial of respondents’ motion to quash the search warrants.
Whether the issuance of the search warrants complied with the procedural and substantive requisites under Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.
Whether there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC judge in issuing the search warrants.