669 SY TAN V.

SY TIONG
Date: 15 December 2010 GR Number: 174570 Ponente:
Peralta, J.

Article 3, Section 2 Hazel Dee

Petitioners: Respondents:
Romer Sy Tan Sy Tiong Gue, Felicidad Chan Sy, Sy Chim, Sy
Tiong San, Sy Yu Bun, Sy Yu Shiong, Sy Yu
San, And Bryan Sy Lim

Doctrine:
Search warrant may be issued only if there is probable cause in connection with only one
specific offense alleged in an application on the basis of the applicant's personal knowledge
and his or her witnesses.
Facts:
Petitioner (Romer Sy Tan) filed a criminal case against respondents (Tiong Gue, et al.). The
Respondents moved for the withdrawal of the information which was subsequently granted
by the RTC on the ground that the information for robbery did not contain the essential
elements of robbery as decided upon by the Court of Appeals on an prior complaint. Hence
the case was dismissed. Now the petitioner, seeking shelter from the Supreme Court
contended that he filed information for qualified theft based on the same subject matter of
the dismissed robbery and would like to use the item seized in the previously conducted
search for the new information of qualified theft.

Issue/s: Ruling:
Whether or not the items seized in the previously conducted search No
warrant issued by the court for robbery be included and used for the filing
of for an information for qualified theft.
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis:
No, petitioner cannot include the seized items as part of the evidence in the new
information. Sec. 4 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A search warrant shall not issue except
upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be
seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.
Thus, as search warrant may be issued only if there is probable cause in connection with only
one specific offense alleged in an application on the basis of the applicant's personal
knowledge and his or her witnesses. Therefore, petitioner cannot utilize the evidence seized
by virtue of the search warrant issued in connection with the case of robbery in a separate
case of qualified theft, even if both cases emanated form the same incident. Also, the
withdrawal of the information was justifiable, since there was no probable cause as to indict
respondents of the crime of robbery since unlawful taking, which is an essential element for
Robbery and likewise for Qualified Theft is not present.