SECTION 4 AND SECTION 5 – RULE 126

The determination of the existence of probable cause requires the following:

(1) the judge must examine the complainant and his witnesses personally;
(2) the examination must be under oath and
(3) the examination must be reduced in writing in the form of searching questions and answer
Chu vs judge Tamin Forest Products --- wala  Cenro dela cruz.... applied SW…. same day – SW by respondent Judge. ------- no transcript for
exam…
transcript for examination sa
complainant ug sa witness
Sony Music vs Espanol SLC – wrongly alleged --- naa diay valid  Sony - -- applied for complaint sa NBI --- applied SW sa respondent for 2 info RE copyright
infringement… 2 SW (219-00 and 220-00)…. SLC filed quashal of SW as the license is valid..
license to operate ….
granted by respondent judge.
Manly Sportware vs Sporting good in question is common and  NBI---- SW DT possession of goods belong to sportswear.. ----- Dadodette – quashal – granted
ordinary as Manly do not have original creation.
Dadodette  There is sufficient proof that the copyrighted product are not original creation. Validity and
Certificate of registration – serve as notice originality will not be presumed and trial court may properly quash the issued warrant for
but not a conclusive proof of ownership. lack of probable cause.
People vs Christopher FAKE Malboro red cigarrete  Operative of DOF --- applied SW vs Choi RE Intellectual property --- RE fake Malboro…. Issue
SW.. Choi question ---- probable cause was not sufficiently established --- filed motion to quash
Choi  WON RTC erred in issuing SW because she
– denied --- filed rule 45 to CA ---- ruled: granted by CA
failed to determine probable cause in RT
 No… Judge RTC did not erred in issuing SW. --- the testimonies and other evidence on record
Sec.4 and Sec.5, Rule 126
constituted adequate bases to establish probable cause. This is based on discretion of court --
The reviewing court can overturn such finding only upon proof that the judge disregard the
facts before him or ignored the clear dictate of reason.
Quelnan vs People Possession of Shabu  PARAC (Police Assistance and Rxn Against Crime) – implement SW to unit 615 City land Condo –
possible shabu possession ---- upon arrival – one opened the area is QUELNAN who is naked
Unit 615 for Bernard Lim --- ang naa didtu from waist up…. In presence of Quelnan and Security office --- found 3 plastic sachet at the top
QUELNAN --- tag-iya.. naked waist up. of bedroom – next day – arrest for possession…..
 1. Quelnan – argued that not indicating the name of the owner and only the premise
I: WON non indication of the name of the invalidates SW ----- RULING: nowhere in Section 4, Rule 126, said that it is required must SW
property to the property invalidate SW name the person who occupies described premise.
2nd I: WON apprehension cannot be  Quelnan argued that he was not in actual possession. 2nd ruling --- possession constitutes
considered in flagrante delicto because he actual or constructive. In sum, petitioner's unlawful possession, as exhibited by his control and
was not in possession of the forbidden dominion over the shabu found on top of the table, was duly established by the following
drug. evidence: his presence in Unit 615 at the time of his arrest; his representation to the police
that he was the owner of the unit; his half-naked state when he opened the door, strongly
implying that he had stayed in the house longer than he claimed to be; and finally, the fact
that the shabu was found on top of a table beside the bed which appears to be within sight of
petitioner as there was a mere divider between the sala and bedroom.

Coca-cola vs Gomez EMPTY BOTTLES OF COCA COLA  Coca cola – applied for SW against Pepsi for hoarding coke empty bottles ---- unfair
“HOARDING” competition…. MTC issued SW… Galicia (regional SM) and Gomez (Naga GM) – no way to
ascertain the return of empty coke bottles – filed to quash SW and that no probable cause
I: Is the hoarding of a competitor's product existed to justify the issuance of SW. -------- MTC denied motion. Filed rule 65 to RTC – voided
containers punishable as unfair SW for lack of probable cause.
competition under the Intellectual  RULING: Nullification of SW is correct - because it was issued on an invalid substantive basis -
Property Code (IP Code, Republic Act No. the hoarding do not violate Section 168.3 (c) of the IP Code. Issuance of SW requires probable
8293) that would entitle the aggrieved cause in connection with specific offense to be det. Personally by the judge after the
party to a search warrant against the examination of complainant and witness.
hoarder?
Here are there is no crime to speak of, the SW does not even begin to fulfil these stringent
requirement and therefore defective on its face. The nullity of warrant renders other issues
raise in petitioner’s motion to quash and reconsideration. Therefore, all property seized by
virtue thereof should be return to petitioners in accordance with established jurisprudence.
Tan vs SyTiongGue Na dismiss and orig case of Robbery ---  Romer Tan – filed robbery against TiongGue…. Tiong Gue moved for withdrawal ---- Granted by
tapos gusto mag file ug qualified theft RTC as it did not contain the essential elements of robbery. ---- case is dimissed.
using the same information filed in relation  Appealed at SC – using the info for qualified theft – would like to used seized item from prior
to robbery. SW for new info on qualified theft.

I: WON item seized in previously conducted RULING --- the seized item cannot be included in the item as in relation to section 4, 126 – SW
SW issued by court for robbery be used for may be issued only if there is probable cause in connection with only 1 specific offense alleged
filing for info of qualified theft in application on basis of application’s personal knowledge and his witness.

Also, there was no probable cause as to indict the respondent of crime of robbery since the
elements essential is lacking therefore, this cannot also be used in qualified theft.
Worldwide Web vs  PNP – SW to RTC QUEZON to search premise of WWC and Planet Internet Corp – for alleged
GENERAL WARRANT illegal toll bypass operations amounting to theft and use of tampered water or electrical meters
People prejudice to PLDT. Rivera and Gali 0f alternative calling pattern detection division of PLDT
DAW!!!! testified as witness.
 RTC granted 3 SW against office premises of petitioners…. Seized items.
I: WON order of quashing SW issued  Petitioner – motion to quash
independently prior to filing of criminal  RTC – granted motion to quash --- general warrant
action is deemed final order that can be  PLDT --- had filed an appeal before CA
subject of an appeal.  CA – reversed and set aside RTC resolution and declare SW valid.

I: WON the assailed SW were general 1st Ruling: Yes, An application for SW is judicial process conducted either as an incident in a
warrants. main criminal case already filed in court ---- or an anticipation of one yet to be filed.

Where criminal case has already been filed before RTC ---- significant for the purpose of
determining the proper remedy from a grant or denial of a motion to quash SW. where the SW
is issued as an incident in a pending criminal case, the quashal of SW is merely interlocutory.
 In contrast ----- where SW is applied for and issued in anticipation of criminal case yet to be
filed -------- the order quashing the warrant ends the judicial process.

Thus, the quashal of SW were final order and an appeal may be properly taken therefrom.

2nd Ruling: NO, the assailed SW are not general warrants… The requirement of particularity in
description of things to be seized --- is fulfilled when the items described in SW bear a direct
relation to the offense for which the warrant is sought… however --- technical precision of
description is not [Link] is only necessary that there be reasonable particularity and
certainty as to the identity of the property to be searched for and seized, so that the warrant
shall not a mere roving commission.

GEN. WARRANT ---- search or arrest warrant that is not particular as to the person to be
arrested or the property to be seized.

Comerciante vs People  Comerciante was spotted by PO3 Calag while in a motorcycle, at distance of 10 meters with
Nakitan sa pulis riding a motorcycle --- si Erick Dasilla, standing and showing improper and unpleasant movement – holding plastic
comerciante handing something kay sachet. ---- thinking sachet contain shabu – immediately stopped and approached petitioner
dasilla. and dasilla ----- confiscated 2 plastic sachet containing shabu.
 After prosecution rested its case ---- dasilla filed demurrer --- granteed by RTC –acquitted.
I:  Comerciante – failed to filed demurrer - this has been considered as waived his right and
ordered to present evidence..
 Comerciante contend – valid warrantless arrest….. SG on behalf of people ---- valid in RT stop
and frisk rule.

RULING: IN RT to SEC 5, RULE 113 – officer’s personal knowledge of the fact of the commission
of an offense is absolutely required. Under Sec 5(a) – officer himself witness the crime, Section
5(b) – he knows for a fact that a crime has been committed.

Here PO3 Calag ---- admitted that he was aboard a motorcycle cruising at a speed of 30 KPH
when he saw comerciante and dasilla standing around. Further, no overt act made by
Comerciante as to rouse suspicion in the mind of PO3. The acts of standing around with
companion and handing over something to the latter cannot in any way be considered criminal
acts. Thus, stop and frisk is untable.
Lagman vs Medialdea MARTIAL LAW  Petitioner declared state of martial law and suspending privilege of wrist of habeas corpus in
I: Won declaration violates the right of the whole Mindanao.
citizen.  Lagman group, [Link] ---- question the factual basis of the President Duterte’s Proclamation of
Martial Law.
RULING: No. It guarantees under Bill of right remain in place during its pendency. The suspension
of writ of habeas corpus applies only to those judicially charged with rebellion of offense.
SECTION 7 – RULE 126
People vs Amadeo Tira Search warrant in area  SPO3 Manibog – formed a team to conduct surveillance at the residence of Tira due to
reported rampant drug activities.
without the present of the  Group observe 20 or more people coming in and out TIRA residence – confronted of them and
told that Amadeo sold shabu and is a regular costumer.
owner  SW has been issued by Judge Gayapa
I: Won the search was sillegal
 Team – implemented SW – proceed to TIRA residence – found Ernesto (father of Amadeo) –
which led the group inside… they found newly awakened Amadeo inside the 1 st room of the
house. With Brgy Kagawad and Amadeo Tira --- they search the 1st room (inner room) – where
Chris and Gemma Lim was occupying and found under the bed where Amadeo slept shabu and
para.
 Criminal complaint against amadeo and connie tira was filed.
 Warrant of Arrest was issued to Connie Tira.
 Connie filed motion to quash – alleging police officer who applied for the said warrant did ot
have any personal knowledge of reported illegal activities and contented that the SW is in
violation of Section 4, Rule 126 – judge issued SW without conducting searching question and
answers without attaching the records of proceedings.
 RTC – guilty
 Appellants --- content that the search conducted by policeman in the room occupied by Chris
and Gemma Lim - where the articles were found in the absence ---- this violating Section 7,
Rule 126.

RULING: No it does not violation SEction 7, as the alleged occupancy of Chris and his partner
cannot be proven. Also, here, RTC had conducted an ocular inspection of the house thus, had
first-hand knowledge of the layout of the house. Further, the testimony of Amadeo and Connie
is contradicting noting that the room belongs to his nephew while connie stress that it belongs
to 2 male and 1 female border. We agree with the finding of the trial court that the only
occupants of the house when the policemen conducted their search were the appellants and
their young children, and that the appellants had no boarders therein

SECTION 8 – RULE 126

Sony vs Bright Future  SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT – filed complaint to PNP – applied for 8 SW for copy right
and trademark infringement --- RTC issued SW
BOND  Raid conduction on premise of Bright Future Technologies ---- seized items….
 BFTI – filed to RTC motion to quash and suppressed evidence alleging:
 Searching team – entered the premises and conducted search without any witness
I: WON the use of bolt cutter and entering  Raiding team planted evidence of 600 compact disc in the scene while no witness present
the premises without other witness is a  No probable cause exist
violation  Place to be search was not described with practicability.
 No bond posted by applicant.
  Judge Eugenio – voluntary inhibits from the case --- raffled to RTC – Judge Amor Reyes
I: WON the place of bond on the seized  RTC – denied motion to quash and bond is not required … BFTI – motion for consideration.
item is valid.  However – RTC – found that the 2 witness rule has been violated and the searching team’s use
of bolt cutter to open the search premises was unnecessary hence, the motion for
reconsideration has been granted.
 BFTI – filed for return of seized item --- granted subject to the filing of a bond.
 SCEI --- petitioner for certiorari rule 45 – RTC erred in releasing seized property by virtue of
filing bond.

RULING: Yes, The police were already searching the area of respondent BFTI in clear violation of
the two-witness rule provided for by Section 8 of Rule 126. These statements of the two
Barangay Police ostensibly arriving late while a search was going on was corroborated by Insp.
Macatlang’s testimony that the Barangay officials arrived at about 11:30 PM to 12 AM.

RULING: NO. A final word. The RTC order requiring BFTI to file a bond to ensure the return of
the seized items should the Department of Justice find probable cause has no basis in law.
Besides, the seized items being inadmissible in evidence, it would serve no purpose to ensure
their return.
Rosario Panuncio vs  LTO and PACC – with SW issue by RTC, confiscated LTO docu, 17 pieces private vehicle plates,
machine…
People  PANUNCIO and his employee, BRGY chairman Manalo and Nadua – signed Certification of
orderly search and receipt of property seized issued by PO3 Abuda
I: WON search was  Panuncio and Loper was arrested and panuncio was charged of falsigication of documents.
regularly conducted  Panuncio – filed motion for re-investigation --- granted by RTC
 Arraigned – Not guilty
 During Trial – alleged she was not at home when raid took place – that she was forced to sign
SW, inventory receipt and certificate of orderly search.
 RTC – guilty … CA – affirmed RTC ---------- filed motion for reconsideration.

RULING: Yes, even if the owner is absent during the search, it is valid provided that the 2
witness rule has been satisfied. Here, Brgy chairman and petitioner’s employer was present
during the search. Thus, Section 8, Rule 126 has been satisfied.

Further, petitioner failed to substantiate her allegation that she was just forced to signed the
SW, inventory receipt and certificate orderly search.
SECTION 13 – RULE 126
Epie vs Judge Ulat- Jeepney – lumber  In a check point – jeepney sped away after noticing the checkpoint.
 Jeepney – halted – found lumber – no permit to transport
Marredo I: WON police officer have probable cause
 Arrested – charged Section 68, forestry code
 Petitioner – motion to suppress evidence DT illegally seized ---- denied by respondent judge
to believe that the vehicle loaded illegal
cargo – can be stopped without warrant  Filed petitioner for certiorari – tantamount to lack of jurisdiction
RULING: Here, a probable cause can be based on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that
a crime has ben committed or is about to be committed.

Here, the jeepney speed away upon noticing the checkpoint, and after having flagged down by
police officer.

Revaldo vs People Seized 20 piece lumber  SPO3 talisic went to house of petitioner to verify report of sunit --- petitioner possessed lumber
without documents ---- not armed with warrant --- confiscated 20 pieces of lumbar of different
without SW varieties lying around the vicinity of the house of petitioner.
 Petitioner – illegal seizure..
I: WON arrest was illegal  Respondent --- even without warrant – personnel of PNP can seize forest product, cut,
gathered or taken by offender in pursuant to Section 80 of Forestry code.

RULING: NO - - arrest was not illegal- Section 80 of Forestry Code provides Personnel of PNP
arrest even without warrant who has committed or committing in his presence any offence
define in forestry code.

A warrantless arrest is allowed where an officer in search of evidence has prior justification for
an intrusion from which he can view an area (plain view doctrine)
People vs Mariacos Caught hold of OK bag –  Police station – checkpoint – intercept suspected transpo of marijuana
 When it did not yield any suspect – SPO2 Pallayoc went to a Brgy where a secret agent had told
suspected for Marijuana him that a baggage of marijuana has been loaded on passenger jeepney and with an “OK
marking”
 SPO2 boarding jeep – spotted back with ok marking.
I: WON the search was  When the holder got down, caught then and introduce himself and told them that they are
under arrest
valid  Appellant --- contented that her right to unreasonable search has been violated --- that without
sw and no permission from her – there was no probable cause for the arrest

RULING: yes, search and arrest were valid. The search conducted on a moving vehicle. Further,
in relation to Section 13, Rule 126 and Section 5(a) rule 126.

A search substantially happening at the same time with the arrest can precede the arrest if the
officer has probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of search, here the probable cause
is the information of possible transport of drug.
SECTION 14 – RULE 126
William Garaygay vs  Exec. Judge of Manila – issue SW to search for house of garaygay in Lapu2 city – outside
his territory – conducted raid
People  Case was filed at RTC lapu2
 I: what court should  Petitioner – filed motion to quash at RTC lapulapu
 Prosecution- dapat sa RTC manila kay siya ang nag issue ug SW
resolve the motion to RULING: the court to hear the motion should be the court where the criminal case was filed
which is the RTC lapu2.
quash search warrant
Where no motion to quash filed in or resolved by issuing court, the interested party may move
in the court where the criminal case is pending for suppression of evidence.
Manly Sportswear vs
Dadodette I: whether the quashal pre-
empt the findings of the
intellectual property court

Skechers vs Inter Pacific

I: whether RTC has
jurisdiction to quash the
SW

SEC vs Mendoza