G.R. No. 168306 - Yao Sr. vs. People

Petitioners William C. Yao, Sr., Luisa C. Yao, Richard C. Yao, William C. Yao, Jr., and Roger C. Yao are incorporators and officers of Masagana Gas Corporation (MASAGANA), an LPG refilling and distribution enterprise.
Private respondents Petron Corporation (Petron) and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (Pilipinas Shell) hold registered trademarks “GASUL” and “SHELLANE” for their LPG products in the Philippines.

On 3 April 2003, NBI Agent Ritche N. Oblanca filed two applications for search warrants against MASAGANA’s refilling plant in Trece Martires, Cavite, alleging violations of Sections 155 and 170 of RA 8293 (Intellectual Property Code) through unauthorized refilling of GASUL and SHELLANE cylinders.
Affidavits of Oblanca and private investigator Bernabe C. Alajar recounted two test-buys (13 and 27 February 2003) where they personally purchased and observed the refilling of trademarked LPG cylinders, noted stockpiles of multi-brand cylinders, and monitored delivery trucks bearing those cylinders.
RTC Branch 17, Cavite City found probable cause and issued Search Warrants Nos. 2-2003 (for SHELLANE items) and 3-2003 (for GASUL items), leading to the seizure of:

Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash the warrants and MASAGANA moved for the return of seized equipment; both motions were denied by the RTC on 5 June 2003, and reconsideration was likewise denied on 21 July 2003.
Petitioners sought certiorari relief with the Court of Appeals (CA), which on 30 September 2004 affirmed the RTC orders; a motion for reconsideration was denied on 1 June 2005.
The Supreme Court received the present Petition for Review under Rule 45, raising five alleged errors by the CA.

Whether there was probable cause for issuance of the search warrants.
Whether NBI Agent Oblanca had authority to apply for the search warrants.
Whether the place to be searched was described with the required particularity.
Whether the items to be seized were described with sufficient particularity.
Whether MASAGANA, as a third party, had rights to the return of the seized motor compressor and LPG refilling machine.