Case Summary (G.R. No. 173861)
Factual Background
On the evening of June 22, 2001, police operatives conducted an alleged buy-bust operation at the corner of Gueco Street and MacArthur Highway, Balibago, Angeles City. The operatives arrested the petitioners for allegedly delivering, with intent to sell, five cases of counterfeit Fundador Brandy. The police filed a Joint Affidavit describing the operation and seizure. The prosecution later filed an Information dated July 6, 2004, charging the petitioners with violating Section 155 in relation to Section 170 of Republic Act No. 8293, alleging use in commerce of a reproduction or counterfeit of the FUNDADOR trademark in connection with the sale or offering for sale of counterfeit Fundador products.
Trial Court Proceedings
The petitioners were arraigned and pleaded not guilty on May 31, 2005. They filed a Motion to Suppress/Exclude Evidence on June 17, 2005, asserting that the evidence the prosecution intended to present was obtained in violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The petitioners contended that they were not committing nor attempting to commit a crime in the presence of the arresting officers at the time of the seizure and arrest, and that the arrest was unlawful. The prosecution opposed the motion. The RTC considered the parties' pleadings and the Joint Affidavit of the arresting officers.
Motion to Suppress and RTC Orders
On October 12, 2005, the RTC issued an Order denying the petitioners' Motion to Suppress/Exclude Evidence. The RTC observed that objections to an arrest must be made before an accused enters a plea on arraignment and relied on jurisprudence requiring that a motion to quash be raised pre-arraignment. The RTC nonetheless examined the Joint Affidavit and concluded that the search and seizure were incidental to a valid warrantless arrest of persons caught in flagrante delicto, rendering the seized evidence admissible. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, which the RTC denied by Order dated July 14, 2006.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The petitioners sought relief by way of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court, challenging only the denial of their Motion to Suppress/Exclude Evidence and the denial of reconsideration. The sole asserted ground was that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying their motion and in refusing to set the case for a suppression hearing.
Supreme Court's Analysis on Adequacy of Ordinary Remedy and Jurisdictional Error
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for failure to allege and establish that no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law existed. The Court reiterated that an applicant for a writ of certiorari must allege with certainty the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal, citing Visca v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. The Court held that the alleged error in the RTC's denial of the motion to suppress, if erroneous, constituted an error in judgment rather than an error of jurisdiction. The Court invoked its decision in Triplex Enterprises, Inc. v. PNB-Republic Bank to restate that the writ of certiorari corrects jurisdictional defects and not mere errors in the application of law or appreciation of evidence. Rulings of the trial court on procedural questions and on the admissibility of evidence are interlocutory and are normally reviewable on appeal from the final judgment on the merits.
Supreme Court's Analysis on Grave Abuse of Discretion and Petitioners' Burden
The Court further held that, even assuming that resort to certiorari was proper, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the RTC acted in grave abuse of discretion tantamount to a lack of jurisdiction. The Court defined grave abuse of discretion as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to excess or lack of jurisdiction and requiring a patent and gross deviation amounting to evasion of a positive duty or arbitrary action. The Supreme Court found no such patent or gross abuse in the RTC's disposition. The RTC had considered the parties' submissions, including the Motion to Suppress/Exclude Evidence, the Opposition, Reply, Rejoinder, Sur-rejoinder, and the Joint Affidavit, before denying the motion.
Principle of Judicial Hierarchy and Venue for Extraordinary Writs
The Supreme Court criticized the petitioners' direct recourse to the
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 173861)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Jay Candelaria and Eric Basit filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with an application for preliminary injunction.
- The petition sought nullification of the RTC Order dated October 12, 2005 denying their Motion to Suppress/Exclude Evidence and the RTC Order dated July 14, 2006 denying their Motion for Reconsideration.
- Regional Trial Court, Branch 42, City of San Fernando (Pampanga) was impleaded and represented by its Presiding Judge Hon. Maria Amifaith S. Fider-Reyes.
- Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, City of San Fernando, Pampanga and Allied Domecq Philippines, Inc. were respondents in the underlying criminal prosecution.
Key Factual Allegations
- Petitioners were arrested during an alleged buy-bust operation in the evening of June 22, 2001 at the corner of Gueco Street and MacArthur Highway, Balibago, Angeles City.
- The arrest was for delivering with intent to sell five cases of counterfeit Fundador Brandy as alleged in the Joint Affidavit of police operatives.
- An Information dated July 6, 2004 charged the accused with violation of Section 155 in relation to Section 170 of Republic Act No. 8293.
- The Information alleged five cases, each containing twelve bottles, of counterfeit Fundador Brandy valued at P2,160.00 per case.
- Petitioners were arraigned and pleaded not guilty on May 31, 2005 and filed their Motion to Suppress/Exclude Evidence on June 17, 2005.
Motion to Suppress
- Petitioners moved to suppress evidence on the ground that the seizure violated their constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
- Petitioners asserted they were neither committing nor attempting to commit a crime in the presence of arresting officers to justify a warrantless arrest and incidental search.
- The Motion to Suppress/Exclude Evidence was supported by factual and legal arguments contesting admissibility of the seized items.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
- The RTC issued an Order dated October 12, 2005 denying the Motion to Suppress/Exclude Evidence.
- The RTC relied on People v. Tampis for the proposition that objections to arrest must be raised before arraignment and that failure to move to quash estops the accused from questioning legality of arrest.
- The RTC also examined the Joint Affidavit and concluded that the search and seizure were incidental to a valid warrantless arrest of persons caught in flagrante delicto, rendering the evidence admissible.
- The RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration in an Order dated July 14, 2006.
Issue Presented
- The sole issue presented was whether the Regional Trial Court, Branch 42 committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioners' motion to set the case for a suppression hear