G.R. No. 110604 - Tenorio vs. Court of Appeals

On August 12, 1991, P/Lt. Christopher L. Tambungan of the RPIU-CAPCOM, PNP, applied for a search warrant before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of San Juan, Metro Manila, Branch 57, in connection with the suspected possession of untaxed and smuggled goods by private respondent Antonio Coseng.
The application, docketed as People v. Antonio Coseng, Search Warrant No. 18-91, described specific articles to be seized, which included various electronic items (hand-held radios, TV sets, stereo cassettes, betamax TV, radio components, calculators, and radio boosters).
The court granted the application and issued the search warrant on the same day, directing enforcement agents to search the dwelling stated at No. 267 or 106, P. Guevarra St., San Juan, Metro Manila, in the presence of witnesses or barangay officials.

Around 3:30 p.m. on August 12, 1991, Tambungan and accompanying police officers executed the search warrant.
Although served on a person present at the premises (Johnny Corpuz), who declined to receive the warrant, the search proceeded in the presence of barangay officials and the private respondent’s counsel, Atty. Pedro Aguilar.
In the process of executing the warrant, the search team seized not only the items specified in the warrant but also additional electronic articles including various radios, TV components, microphones, monitors, and ancillary equipment.

Instead of delivering the seized articles to the court as mandated, Tambungan contacted Senior Inspector Alex Bautista of the Bureau of Customs (BOC) on August 14, 1991, reporting the seizure.
Without obtaining prior court authority, Tambungan turned the seized goods over first to P/Lt. Gilbert Cruz of the CAPCOM and later to Bautista, who then forwarded them to the BOC’s Legal and Investigation Staff Enforcement and Security Service.
The BOC stored these goods in its Warehouse No. 6, even as subsequent motions and orders from the trial court directed the delivery of the seized articles back to the court.

After the seizure, Tambungan filed a return on the writ along with an ex parte motion seeking post facto authority for BOC custody, to facilitate a pending criminal complaint for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code (smuggling).
On September 2, 1991, the court ordered Tambungan to turn over all seized items to the trial court within ten days, and the private respondent filed a motion for the release of articles not covered by the warrant.
Various hearings ensued wherein orders were issued for the appearance of BOC representatives (such as Acting District Collector Buenaventura Maniego and Senior Inspector Alex Bautista) to account for the seized items, including addressing discrepancies in the inventory.

The trial court, noting that the seized articles had been removed from its custody and that subsequent actions suggested an attempt to cover up the loss or disappearance of the items, initiated contempt proceedings.
During several hearings (spanning November 6, December 2, and January 30, 1992), orders were issued for the respondents (Tambungan, Cruz, Maniego, Bautista, and their legal counsels) to explain or account for the unauthorized turnover.
When the respondents repeatedly failed to comply with the court’s directives—either by not turning over certain items or by not appearing at hearings—the trial court declared them in indirect contempt, imposing penalties including imprisonment and fines for various respondents.

On January 22, 1992, a decision (purportedly by District Customs Collector Emma M. Rosqueta) was furnished by Tenorio, directing the forfeiture of all goods kept by Tambungan in favor of the government.
Subsequent orders required further explanation regarding the unauthorized turnover and retention of evidence by the BOC, with repeated orders to comply, account for missing items, and produce the seized inventory.
Eventually, on April 8, 1992, the trial court issued a resolution declaring the involved respondents in indirect contempt, with specific penalties ordered for each (including fines and imprisonment for Tambungan, Cruz, and certain attorneys and BOC officials).

The decisions of the trial court were modified and affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on July 21, 1992, noting that the deliberate refusal to turn over the goods constituted an abuse of court process and an interference with judicial custody (custodia legis) of the items.
Respondent Emma M. Rosqueta later filed a motion for reconsideration, and on January 22, 1993, the RTC granted her motion, acquitting her of the contempt charge by reversing the portion of the decision finding her guilty.
Finally, the petition for review by the public respondents was denied by the Court of Appeals on June 19, 1993, with modifications regarding penalties, affirming the principle of the court’s exclusive authority over goods seized pursuant to its search warrant.

Whether the officers who executed the search warrant were obligated to deliver the seized goods directly to the court under Section 11, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Whether the subsequent turnover of seized items to the Bureau of Customs (an agency with separate administrative jurisdiction) without prior court authority deprived the court of its custodial power over the evidence.

Whether the unauthorized turnover and retention of the seized goods by Tambungan, Cruz, and others, as well as their failure to comply with repeated court orders, constituted indirect contempt of court.
Whether the deliberate actions taken by the public respondents amounted to an abuse of judicial process and an interference with the court’s lawful custody (custodia legis) of the items.

Whether the Collector of Customs’ authority, under the Tariff and Customs Code to effect seizures and forfeiture, precluded the court from exercising its inherent supervisory control over seized items.
Whether the guaranteed exclusive jurisdiction of the court issuing the search warrant was compromised by the BOC’s subsequent actions in the handling and retention of the goods.