Title
Petron LPG Dealers Association vs. Ang
Case
G.R. No. 199371
Decision Date
Feb 3, 2016
Petron & Total LPG dealers accused Nation Gas of illegal LPG trading & underfilling; search warrants issued, quashed, but upheld by SC on probable cause.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199371)

Factual Background

The petitioners, comprising LPG dealers, filed complaints with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) against the respondents for alleged illegal activities, including the unauthorized refilling of LPG cylinders belonging to major oil companies. This allegation included acts of underfilling, trading without authorization, and operating without necessary licenses. The NBI conducted surveillance, which included a test-buy operation that gathered evidence of these alleged violations.

Surveillance and Test-Buy Operations

On November 24, 2005, agents from the NBI, specifically Agent Marvin de Jemil and an undercover asset, conducted an operation in Vigan City, wherein they tracked a delivery truck that transported Starflame LPG cylinders from a site believed to be operated by Nation Gas. Following the unloading of these cylinders, during the test-buy phase, an empty cylinder was exchanged for a filled one, which was subsequently examined and documented, forming part of the basis for a search warrant application.

Application for Search Warrant

On December 7, 2005, based on their findings, the NBI submitted applications for search warrants to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bauang, La Union. The court examined the applications and supporting documentation, which included certifications and evidence pertaining to the alleged unauthorized activities of Nation Gas.

Quashing of Search Warrants

On August 4, 2006, the RTC quashed the search warrants, concluding that the NBI agents lacked personal knowledge regarding the illegal refilling and underfilling activities of Nation Gas. The court stated that evidence presented was mostly hearsay, as certifications by LPG companies were not supported by witness testimonies in court. It held that probable cause was not adequately established, resulting in the invalidation of the search warrants and the return of the seized items to the respondents.

Appellate Court's Findings

The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC's decision, noting that the application for search warrants did not sufficiently demonstrate probable cause. The appellate court emphasized that the personal knowledge of applicants and their witnesses is crucial for justifying a search warrant, and since De Jemil and his associate did not directly witness illegal activity, the warrants were quashed.

Petitioners' Arguments

The petitioners contended that the appellate court's ruling was erroneous, arguing that the standard for establishing probable cause was lower than that required for a conviction. They maintained that De Jemil and his associate had acquired personal knowledge through their surveillance and interactions during the test-buy, thereby justifying the issuance of the search warrants. They asserted that the evidence presented, including certifications from the oil companies and details from the test-buy, collectively established probable cause.

Respondents' Arguments

The respondents countered that the petitioners' motion raised factual issues and that the appellate court properly reaffirmed the RTC's findings of insufficient evidentiary support. They emphasized that personal knowledge should come from direct observation rather than secon

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.