Case Summary (G.R. No. 89103)
Factual Background
On August 31, 1988, Police Sergeant Flumar Natuel applied for a search warrant before the Municipal Trial Circuit Court (MTCC) of Bacolod City, alleging that petitioner possessed firearms, explosives and subversive documents at his residence. The MTCC issued Search Warrant No. 365 the same day. On September 9, 1988, a police team executed the warrant at petitioner’s house and seized, among other items, two envelopes containing cash totaling P14,000, various radio transceivers and batteries, and assorted papers.
MTCC Proceedings and Motion to Return
Petitioner moved urgently before the MTCC for the return of the seized articles. The MTCC ordered Sgt. Natuel to make a return of the search warrant on September 19, 1988; Sgt. Natuel filed a report the following day, which petitioner challenged as inadequate and not a proper return. Petitioner then moved on October 7, 1988 to declare the search and seizure illegal and to order the return of his property. In his answer, Lt. Col. Nicolas Torres stated that the P14,000 had been earmarked to pay allowances of Armed City Partisan members and other alleged NPA personalities. On December 23, 1988, the MTCC ordered the return of the seized money to petitioner, holding that the cash was not among the items specified in the search warrant and was not properly characterizable as subversive documents, stolen goods, or gambling proceeds.
RTC Petition for Certiorari and RTC Order
The Solicitor General filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Bacolod City (Civil Case No. 5331), seeking annulment of the MTCC’s December 23, 1988 order. The petition asserted that even if the seizure of the money had been invalid, the items should remain in custodia legis pending determination of admissibility, citing Alih v. Castro and Roan v. Gonzales. The petition also noted that a criminal complaint for offenses against public order had been filed with the City Fiscal and argued that the money could be subject to confiscation under Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code if proven to have been earmarked for subversive activities. On July 20, 1989, RTC, Branch 44 granted the petition for certiorari, held that the MTCC had exceeded its limited jurisdiction in ordering the return, and directed that the money be returned to the RTC clerk of court to be held pending resolution of the preliminary investigation by the city prosecutor.
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition to the Supreme Court
Petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition in the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the RTC’s July 20, 1989 order, to enjoin the city prosecutor from pursuing the preliminary investigation in BC I.S. No. 88-1239, and to declare Search Warrant No. 365 and the seizure of his effects illegal. Petitioner maintained that the warrant covered multiple offenses in violation of Section 3, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Court, rendering it void, and that the police seized items not described in the warrant, amounting to an illegal search and seizure. Petitioner also contended that the subsequent filing of a complaint after the search indicated a fishing expedition.
Subsequent Criminal Proceedings and Related Events
While the Rule 65 petition was pending, petitioner was arrested on March 1, 1990, on intelligence operatives’ allegations and detained. The police filed a complaint for subversion and the City Prosecutor lodged an information for violation of the Anti-Subversion Law with RTC, Branch 42 (Criminal Case No. 8517). Petitioner moved to quash the information; on March 15, 1990, RTC, Branch 42 granted the motion to quash, recalled the arrest warrant, and directed the City Prosecutor to resolve BC I.S. No. 88-1239. The City Prosecutor later manifested that petitioner had been “dropped” from BC I.S. No. 88-1239, and the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration of the quashal was denied.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
The Court distilled the controlling question as whether RTC, Branch 44 gravely abused its discretion in directing that the P14,000 seized from petitioner’s house be retained in custodia legis rather than returned to petitioner, in light of the validity of the search warrant, the law governing particularity of seizure, the status of related criminal proceedings, and the repeal of the Anti-Subversion Law.
Validity of Search Warrant and Particularity Requirement
The Court found that Search Warrant No. 365, on its face, violated Section 3, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Court, because it purported to cover multiple offenses and referenced both P.D. No. 1866 and R.A. No. 1700, thereby constituting a “scatter-shot warrant” and rendering the warrant void under controlling precedent, including People v. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 101 (1992). The Court reaffirmed that Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution requires particular description of the things to be seized to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures and to confine law enforcement discretion, citing Corro v. Lising, Bache & Co. [Phil.], Inc. v. Ruiz, and Uy Kheytin v. Villareal.
Illegality of the Seizure of the Money
Because the P14,000 was not indicated in the warrant, the Court concluded that its seizure was illegal. The Court rejected the argument that the officers’ zeal in pursuing subversives excused the illegal seizure, emphasizing that the presumption of regularity in official acts cannot override constitutionally protected rights, and citing People v. Cruz, People v. Veloso, and People v. Damaso. The Court observed that approval of the issuing court is required for the retention of seized money and that only the court which issued the search warrant may order release of seized property, citing People v. Gesmundo, Templo v. Dela Cruz, and Pagkalinawan v. Gomez.
Custodia Legis and the Absence of Prosecution Justification
The Court addressed the authorities relied upon by the RTC below, noting the rule that items may be retained in custodia legis pending determination of legality of seizure. However, the Court found that at the relevant time there was no ongoing criminal prosecution that would justify retention: the information in Criminal Case No. 8517 had been quashed and petitioner had been dropp
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 89103)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- LEON TAMBASEN was the petitioner who sought the return of P14,000 seized from his house following the execution of a search warrant.
- PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, through the Solicitor General, intervened to annul an MTCC order directing the return of the seized money.
- 2ND ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR GLORIA LASTIMOSA MARCOS conducted the preliminary investigation in BC I.S. No. 88-1239 from which petitioner was later dropped.
- HON. CICERO U. QUERUBIN was named in his capacity as presiding judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Bacolod City, which granted the petition for certiorari filed by the Solicitor General.
- The petition to the Supreme Court challenged the RTC, Branch 44 order dated July 20, 1989 that directed retention of the seized money in custodia legis pending preliminary investigation.
Key Facts
- On August 31, 1988, P/Sgt. Flumar Natuel applied for and obtained Search Warrant No. 365 from the MTCC allegedly to seize firearms, explosives, and subversive documents.
- On September 9, 1988, police executed the warrant at petitioner’s house and seized, among other things, two envelopes containing P14,000.00.
- Sgt. Natuel later reported he was the applicant for the warrant but was not present when it was served, and he did not submit a complete verified inventory initially.
- On December 23, 1988, the MTCC ordered the return of the seized money to petitioner on grounds that the money was not described in the warrant and was not covered by enumerated exceptions.
- The Solicitor General filed a certiorari petition before RTC, Branch 44 (Civil Case No. 5331) seeking annulment of the MTCC order and urging retention of the money in custodia legis.
- On July 20, 1989, RTC, Branch 44 granted the petition for certiorari and ordered the clerk of court to return the money to the MTCC pending resolution of the prosecutor’s investigation.
- Subsequent events included petitioner’s arrest and filing of an information for subversion in Criminal Case No. 8517, which the trial court quashed and from which petitioner was dropped in BC I.S. No. 88-1239.
Search Warrant Defects
- The caption of Search Warrant No. 365 invoked both P.D. No. 1866 and R.A. No. 1700, thereby describing multiple offenses in one warrant.
- The warrant therefore contravened Section 3, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, which prohibits issuance of a search warrant for more than one specific offense.
- The warrant was characterized as a scatter-shot warrant and was thus held totally null and void under the doctrine announced in People v. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 101 (1992).
- The warrant failed to particular