Case Summary (G.R. No. L-51257)
Key Dates
• March 26–27, 2001: Search warrant applied for, issued, and executed
• May 10, 2002: RTC Omnibus Order quashing and nullifying the search warrant
• September 22, 2010: CA Decision affirming the RTC
• March 11, 2011: CA Resolution denying reconsideration
• February 21, 2018: SC Decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 2 (search and seizure)
• 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 126, Secs. 4–5 (requisites of search warrants)
• Revised Penal Code, Art. 315 (estafa)
• Republic Act No. 8799 (Securities Regulation Code or SRC), notably Sec. 28.1 (broker/dealer registration requirement)
Factual Background
NBI SI Gaerlan received information that respondents orchestrated a cross-border investment fraud, convincing foreign clients to remit funds for nonexistent stock purchases. Collected sums were apportioned among respondents, sales personnel, and other internal expenses, without any actual share acquisition. SI Gaerlan alleged violations of estafa under RPC Art. 315 and various provisions of the SRC. He attached witness affidavits, corporate documents, and a premises sketch to his sworn application for a search warrant.
Issuance and Execution of the Search Warrant
On March 26, 2001, the RTC, Branch 63 (Makati City) issued Search Warrant No. 01-118, authorizing seizure of broad categories of corporate records and correspondence “for violation of RA 8799 and estafa.” Agents of the NBI and SEC executed the warrant on March 27, 2001, seizing 89 boxes of documents, broker files, offshore papers, and related materials.
Trial Court Proceedings
Respondent Abad moved to quash the warrant, arguing it contravened the “one specific offense” rule and lacked particularity in describing items to be seized. After the issuing judge inhibited himself, the case was re-raffled to RTC, Branch 58. On May 10, 2002, the RTC granted the motion, ruling the warrant invalid for covering multiple offenses and for imprecise descriptions. It ordered return of seized items and declared them inadmissible.
Court of Appeals Ruling
In CA-G.R. CV No. 77703, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC. It held that the warrant violated Rule 126, Sec. 4 by alleging both “violation of the SRC” without identifying a specific provision and “estafa” in its varied modes. It further found the description of articles to be seized so broad as to grant executing officers unlimited discretion. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on March 11, 2011.
Issues on Petition for Review
- Whether the warrant was properly issued in connection with a single specific offense (violation of SRC Sec. 28.1).
- Whether the warrant described with sufficient particularity the items to be seized.
Constitutional and Procedural Framework
Article III, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees security against unreasonable searches and seizures and mandates that warrants issue only upon personal judicial determination of probable cause, with particular description of place and things. Rule 126, Secs. 4–5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure reinforce this by requiring warrants to be grounded on probable cause connected to one specific offense and to specify with reasonable particularity the objects of the search.
Analysis on the “One Specific Offense” Requirement
• A valid warrant must allege probable cause in connection with one clearly defined crime.
• “Violation of the SRC” is not a single offense but a compendium of distinct infractions (e.g., unregistered broker, insider trading, market manipulation).
• “Estafa” likewise encompasses multiple modes and ingredients under RPC Art. 315.
• Absent precise reference to SRC Sec. 28.1 in the warrant’s text, it cannot be deemed issued for that offense.
• The applicant presented no evidence at the hearing to prove respondents lacked SEC registration, a prerequisite for SRC Sec. 28.1 liability, in violation of People v. Hon. Estrada’s best-evidence rule.
• Since the two allege
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-51257)
Procedural History
- Petition for review on certiorari filed by the People of the Philippines challenging the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the RTC’s Omnibus Order nullifying Search Warrant No. 01-118.
- RTC, Makati City, Branch 58 issued the Omnibus Order on 10 May 2002 quashing the warrant and ordering the return of seized items.
- Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 77703 affirmed the RTC Decision by its 22 September 2010 Decision and denied reconsideration on 11 March 2011.
- Petition elevated to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Factual Background
- In March 2001, NBI Special Investigator Albert Froilan Gaerlan received confidential information that respondents Pastrana and Abad operated a foreign‐investment fraud scheme from their office at Room 1908, 88 Corporate Center, Makati City.
- Alleged modus operandi: employees cold‐call foreign investors, solicit payment for shares never purchased, then disburse collected funds among Pastrana, the sales office, “redeeming clients,” cost of sales, and marketing.
- Scheme purportedly violated estafa under Article 315, RPC, and various provisions of RA 8799 (Securities Regulation Code).
Application and Issuance of Search Warrant
- 26 March 2001: SI Gaerlan filed a sworn application for Search Warrant No. 01-118 before RTC Branch 63, alleging probable cause to seize documents and items connected to estafa and SRC violations.
- Attachments to application included: affidavits of a foreign complainant and former employees; articles of incorporation; and a sketch of the premises.
- Judge Salvador, Jr. issued Search Warrant No. 01-118 authorizing seizure of broad categories of documents and items “showing that these companies acted in violation of their actual registration with the SEC.”
Execution and Return of the Warrant
- 27 March 2001: NBI agents with SEC representatives executed the warrant at Room 1908, witnessed by building officials.
- 2 April 2001 Return and Inventory listed seized items:
- 89 boxes of telephone bills, broker files, sales agreements, receipts, bank advices, faxes, message slips, brochures, letterheads, envelopes.
- 40 magazine stands containing broker records.
- Offshore incorporation papers, lease contrac