G.R. No. 203355 - Rosales vs. New A.N.J.H. Enterprises

A search warrant was issued by the respondent Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 10, Davao City, following an application by NBI-SARDO’s Special Investigator, U. R. Bahinting.
The application was predicated on probable cause that the petitioner violated provisions of Batas Pambansa Blg. 33—as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1865—by hoarding large quantities of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in steel cylinders owned by Pryce Gases, Inc.
The complaint that initiated the process was submitted by Pryce Gases, Inc., alleging that the petitioner collected embossed or name-plated LPG cylinders in violation of intellectual property provisions under Republic Act No. 8293.

On October 14, 2003, the petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash the search warrant and/or Suppress Evidence, arguing:

The search warrant was issued for a specific offense.
Probable cause existed.
The seizure—though initiated during nighttime—occurred effectively during daytime.
The seizure of blue-marked cylinders was justified under the plain view doctrine.

A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed on January 5, 2004, was likewise denied.

The petitioner assailed the RTC’s ruling by filing a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA, on March 25, 2004, dismissed the petition for certiorari based on:

The failure to implead the People of the Philippines as respondents.
The lack of proof of service of the petition on the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

The petitioner argued that since no criminal case had been filed (the proceeding was solely for the issuance of the search warrant), impleading the People was premature and not indispensable.
A motion for reconsideration was subsequently filed, accompanied by an affidavit claiming service on the OSG; however, on July 21, 2004, the CA denied the motion for failure to remedy the omission by amending the petition.

The petitioner filed his petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse the CA’s dismissal.

The petitioner maintained that the absence of the People of the Philippines as respondents was not a fatal defect.
He contended that a search warrant proceeding does not constitute a criminal action and, therefore, the People were not an indispensable party.

Issues relating to technical deficiencies, including late filing and insufficient fee payments, further complicated the matter.
Ultimately, after procedural considerations and motions for reconsideration, the Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari.

The issuance of the search warrant requires that it be in the name of the People of the Philippines, as mandated by Section 1, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.
Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court mandates that all indispensable parties—including the People—must be named in the petition.
The failure to include the People in the petition was deemed a fatal defect, one that the petitioner could not later cure by amendment.

Whether the petitioner’s failure to implead the People of the Philippines as respondents in the petition for certiorari constitutes a fatal defect warranting dismissal.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error amounting to grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for technical non-compliance regarding:

The omission of an indispensable party (the People of the Philippines).
Failure to show proper service of the petition on the Office of the Solicitor General.

Whether the argument that a search warrant proceeding is not a criminal action (and thus does not require the People as a respondent) is tenable under the Rules of Court.