G.R. No. 152950 - People vs. Choi

Case Summary (G.R. No. 152950)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

April 27, 1999: Application for Search Warrant No. 99-17 filed and warrant issued; search executed the same day. May–June 1999: Respondent filed motions to quash the warrant; denied November 29, 1999, and reconsideration likewise denied. June 19, 2000: Petition for certiorari and prohibition filed with the Court of Appeals (CA). April 10, 2002: CA granted petition, declared Search Warrant No. 99-17 null and void, and prohibited use of seized articles in evidence. Supreme Court decision (G.R. No. 152950): petition for review on certiorari granted; CA decision reversed and Search Warrant No. 99-17 declared valid.

Issues Presented

Whether Judge Gatbalite committed grave abuse of discretion by issuing Search Warrant No. 99-17 without adequately determining probable cause through a probing, personal examination of the applicant and witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers; and whether the CA properly applied the Court’s prior directive (20th Century Fox) requiring presentation of master evidence (for comparison) to establish probable cause in infringement-related search-warrant applications.

Facts Relevant to Probable Cause

Nieto, acting as applicant, conducted a test-buy operation and purchased Marlboro-marked cigarettes alleged to be counterfeit from persons including Michael Chua and Christopher Choi. Nieto and Cavalera inspected premises at 25-13 Columbia Street and were shown a warehouse/storage area containing cardboard cases and master cases of Marlboro cigarettes. Nieto procured samples (one ream; P17.00 per pack) and submitted them to David Lee Sealey of Philip Morris for inspection. Sealey examined the samples and, based on packaging, box color, printing and the cigarettes themselves, concluded they were counterfeit or unauthorized products.

Content of Search Warrant and Execution

Search Warrant No. 99-17, issued April 27, 1999, described the premises and commanded a search and seizure of “reams and packs of fake Marlboro Red Cigarettes, as well as cardboard cases of fake Marlboro Red Cigarettes” found at respondent’s residence/warehouse at the stated address. The warrant ordered immediate search at any time of day or night and required a return within ten (10) days. The search was conducted on the date the warrant issued.

Proceedings in the RTC and Court of Appeals

Respondent moved to quash the warrant, arguing lack of probable cause and insufficient particularity in the description of the place to be searched; the trial judge denied the motions. The CA found that Judge Gatbalite failed to ask sufficiently probing questions of witness Sealey and that the judge improperly relied solely on Sealey’s conclusory testimony without requiring comparative presentation of the alleged counterfeit and genuine articles. The CA applied the Court’s earlier ruling in 20th Century Fox Film Corporation (which called for production of master tapes for comparison in copyright-related searches) and concluded the warrant was invalid, forbidding the use of seized items in evidence.

Governing Legal Standard for Issuance of Search Warrant

Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court require that a search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause, determined personally by the judge after examination under oath of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and that the judge must personally examine them “in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath” and attach the sworn statements and affidavits to the record. Probable cause is defined as facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe an offense has been committed and that the objects sought are in the place to be searched. The judge’s inquiry must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary, general, peripheral, perfunctory or pro-forma; however, there is no fixed formula as to the specific type of evidence required to establish probable cause and the standard is one of probability, not absolute certainty.

Application of the Standard to the Recorded Examination

The Supreme Court reviewed the entirety of the trial judge’s examination of Nieto, Cavalera and Sealey. Nieto provided first-hand details: identification of Choi as the supplier (introduced by Michael Chua), description of his visit to Choi’s house and the warehouse, the circumstances under which he obtained samples, testimony that volume stocks were found and that he was shown the storage/warehouse area, and reference to a sketch/layout attached to the application. Cavalera corroborated the surveillance, the test-buy operation, and that Choi showed them several cardboard cases of Marlboro cigarettes in the warehouse. Sealey testified that he examined the samples and concluded from packaging characteristics that they were counterfeit. The Court found these inquiries and answers sufficiently probing, consistent and credible; the trial judge did not merely rehash affidavits but conducted an inquiry adequate to establish probable cause within the Rule 126 framework. The Court emphasized the deference due to the judge who personally conducted the examination and who had the opportunity to assess credibility and demeanor; such findings merit great weight and are overturned only when the judge is shown to have ignored facts or reason.

On the 20th Century Fox Requirement and Its Applicability

The Supreme Court clarified that the admonition in 20th Century Fox Film Corporation regarding production of master tapes as a means of establishing the nexus between originals and pirated copies was not intended as an inflexible, universal rule. Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals superseded the rigid application of 20th Century Fox and held that the production of master tapes or other object evidence is an auxiliary procedure, not an indispensable prerequisite for finding probable cause. The presentation of object evidence is useful where doubt exists about the nexus between originals and alleged infringing articles, but testimonial and documentary evidence may suffice—particularly w

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 152950)

Title, Docket and Decision

Case reported at 529 Phil. 538, Second Division, G.R. No. 152950, decided August 03, 2006.
Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Decision authored by Justice Corona; Puno (Chairperson), Sandoval-Gutierrez, Azcuna and Garcia, JJ., concurred.
The petition sought reversal of the Court of Appeals decision dated April 10, 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 59587 which had granted respondent Christopher Choi’s petition for certiorari and prohibition and declared Search Warrant No. 99-17 null and void and prohibited Atty. Bennie Nicdao from using items seized under that warrant in Crim. Case No. I.S. No. 99-8116.

Parties and Roles

Petitioners: People of the Philippines; Hon. Lourdes F. Gatbalite, Presiding Judge, Branch 56, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Angeles City; Atty. Bennie Nicdao, Special Prosecutor, Special Operative Group, Economic Intelligence & Investigation Bureau (EIIB), Department of Finance.
Respondent: Christopher Choi.
Judge who issued the search warrant: Judge Lourdes F. Gatbalite, RTC Branch 56, Angeles City.
Applicant for the search warrant: Mario P. Nieto, Intelligence Operative, Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau, Department of Finance.
Witnesses to the application: Max Cavalera and David Lee Sealey.
Atty. Bennie Nicdao identified as Special Prosecutor of the Special Operations Group of the EIIB; under Executive Order No. 191 dated January 7, 2000, the EIIB was deactivated and absorbed by the Central Management Information Office of the Department of Finance; Atty. Nicdao is no longer with that office (record reference, rollo, pp. 129-130).

Factual Antecedents — Investigation and Application for Search Warrant

On April 27, 1999, Mario P. Nieto applied for a search warrant with the RTC of Angeles City, Branch 56, against respondent Christopher Choi for violation of Section 168, paragraphs 2 and 3 (a) and (c), in relation to Section 169 of R.A. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code).
The case was docketed as Crim. Case No. I.S. No. 99-8116.
The affidavit/application alleged that Christopher Choi of No. 25-13 Columbia Street, Carmenville Subdivision, Angeles City had in his possession, control and custody reams and packs and cardboard cases of fake Marlboro Red cigarettes, being distributed, kept and sold in violation of the cited provisions of R.A. 8293.

Text and Commands of Search Warrant No. 99-17

Search Warrant No. 99-17 was issued by Judge Gatbalite dated April 27, 1999.
Wording of the warrant commanded any peace officer to make immediate search at any time of the day or night of the above-premises and forthwith seize and take possession of the described items found at the residence/warehouse of Christopher Choi at No. 25-13 Columbia Street, Carmenville Subd., Angeles City.
The warrant expressly directed that the seized articles be brought to the issuing judge to be dealt with in accordance with law and required a return within ten (10) days.

Execution of the Search and Subsequent Motions

The search was conducted on April 27, 1999, the same date the warrant was issued.
Respondent Christopher Choi filed a motion to quash the search warrant on May 12, 1999, followed by a supplemental motion to quash on June 22, 1999.
Judge Gatbalite denied both motions in an order dated November 29, 1999; reconsideration was likewise denied (record references given).

Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition to the Court of Appeals

On June 19, 2000, respondent filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals.
Respondent alleged grave abuse of discretion by Judge Gatbalite in refusing to quash the search warrant on the ground that probable cause was not sufficiently established: the examination conducted was not probing and exhaustive and the warrant did not particularly describe the place to be searched.
Respondent prayed that Atty. Bennie Nicdao be prohibited from using as evidence the articles seized by virtue of the search warrant.
The Court of Appeals granted respondent’s petition in a decision dated April 10, 2002, deeming Search Warrant No. 99-17 null and void and prohibiting Nicdao from using the seized articles in evidence.

Court of Appeals’ Reasoning and Application of 20th Century Fox

The Court of Appeals found that Judge Gatbalite failed to ask searching and probing questions of witness David Lee Sealey and thus did not sufficiently determine probable cause.
The CA focused on the examination of Sealey and held that the judge merely relied on Sealey’s conclusion that the cigarettes were fake and should have required Sealey to present the alleged fake Marlboro cigarettes and genuine ones for comparison rather than relying on his testimony alone.
The CA applied the Supreme Court precedent in 20th Century Fox Film Corporation v. Court of Appeals (G.R. Nos. L-76649-51, 19 August 1988, 164 SCRA 655) to require presentation of master tapes/object evidence for comparison in a finding of probable cause.

Testimony and Evidence Presented Before the RTC (as recorded)

Testimony of David Lee Sealey (Manager of Product Development of Philip Morris Asia Limited):
- Sealey testified he examined samples of cigarettes and packaging bearing the Marlboro trademarks which were suspected to be produced by La Suerte or with the permission of Philip Morris.
- Based on packaging color, printing on the front side of packs and the cigarettes themselves, he concluded they were counterfeit or unauthorized products.
- He affirmed and confirmed the contents of an affidavit bearing his signature.
- He stated he had no knowledge of Christopher Choi personally.
Testimony of Mario P. Nieto (applicant and intelligence operative):
- Nieto identified Christopher Choi as introduced to him by Michael Chua as the supplier for the goods that were the subject of the application.
- Nieto recounted conducting a test-buy operation: he went to Choi’s house at No. 25-13 Columbia St., Carmenville Subd., Angeles City; introduced himself as referred by Michael Chua; Choi accommodated him and showed samples which Nieto procured and submitted to David Lee Sealey for inspection.
- Nieto testified they bought one ream; price given as P17.00 per pack.
- Nieto testified that volume stocks were found inside Choi’s house almost everywhere and that there was a warehouse/storage room adjacent to the residential house as shown in the sketch attached to the application; he and his associates were shown the entire area by Choi who was trying to show his volume and capacity to supply.
Testimony of Max Cavalera (witness who accompanied Nieto during test-buy and surveillance):
- Cavalera testified he and Nieto conducted a surveillance on April 22, 1999 confirming that co
...continue reading