Case Digest (G.R. No. 208090)
Facts:
Ferdinand V. Tomas v. Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) - Anti-Organized Crime Division (CIDG-AOCD) and Myrna Uy Tomas, G.R. No. 208090, November 09, 2016, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Private respondent Myrna Uy Tomas filed four preliminary investigation complaints for violation of Sections 155 and 168 in relation to Section 170 of R.A. No. 8293 (the Intellectual Property Code) against petitioner Ferdinand V. Tomas and others. The PNP CIDG-AOCD, through applications signed by P/Chief Inspector Helsin B. Walin and approved by Police Director Edgardo M. Doromal, sought and obtained four search warrants (A07-12100 to A07-12103) from Judge Reynaldo G. Ros of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, Branch 33. Executions of the warrants at FMT Merchandising and a residence in Urdaneta City, Pangasinan resulted in seizure of Pedrollo-branded items and related packaging.
Petitioner moved in the RTC to quash the warrants and suppress evidence, arguing the applications violated A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, Sec. 12, Chapter V because they were not personally endorsed by the Chief of the PNP. The RTC initially partly granted the motion (quashing some warrants) but later reconsidered and set aside that partial quashal. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 104029. The CA Sixth Division (Aug. 16, 2011) granted that petition, reversed the RTC orders, and quashed Search Warrant Nos. A07-12100 to A07-12103; that judgment became final and executory after this Court denied a subsequent petition for certiorari.
Separately, the Secretary of Justice, through the Chief State Prosecutor, issued a Joint Resolution dated July 24, 2009 finding probable cause to file informations against petitioner for trademark infringement and unfair competition; petitioner sought review of that Joint Resolution in the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 114479). The CA Fourth Division (Mar. 25, 2013) denied relief and affirmed the DOJ Joint Resolution; it also concluded petitioner engaged in forum shopping and upheld the validity of the search warrants and seized items. Petitioner moved for reconsideration which the CA denied (Ju...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the CA Fourth Division violate the rule on immutability of final judgment by effectively declaring Search Warrant Nos. A07-12100 to A07-12103 valid despite the CA Sixth Division’s final decision quashing them?
- Could the CA Fourth Division lawfully dismiss or alter the effect of the CA Sixth Division’s prior judgment (CA-G.R. SP No. 104029) after that judgment became final and executory?
- Was the CA correct in finding petitioner guilty of forum shopping and thus upholding the Secretary of Justice’s Joint Resolution despi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)