1
TE VS. BREVA
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the
decision of respondent CA by ruling that the failure to
implead the People of the Philippines as an indispensable
party is a fatal defect in a petition filed assailing the denial
of a motion to quash a search warrant.
FACTS:
- NBI SARDO applied for a search warrant for:
1. violation of the law prohibiting the hoarding of large
quantities of LPG in steel cylinders belonging to Pryce
Gases, Inc.
2. violation of Intellectual Property Code where the steel
cylinders bear an embossed trademarks of Pryce
Gases
- Respondent Judge Breva issued a search warrant against
Te
- Petitioner Filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash Warrant
and/or Suppress Evidence and to Order the return of
seized items (Rule 15 Sec. 8 Rules of Court)
Petitioner’s Contention: (1) failure to specify the
single offense; (2) illegality of nighttime; (3)
improper application of Plain view Doctrine.
RTC Ruling: denied the omnibus motion as
well as the subsequent motion for recon.
- Petitioner went to CA to assail RTC’s order
CA Ruling: dismissed the petition on
certiorari on the ground that (1) the petitioner
failed to implead the People of the Philippines as
respondents;and (2) lack of evidence that the
OSG has been served with a copy of the instant
petition (Rule 46 Sec 3)
- Motion for Recon (CA) arguing that impleading the People
of the Philippines as respondents is premature sinceno
criminal action has been filed.
CA on MFR: denied the motion since he did
not file he appropriate motion to amend the
petition in order to implead the People of the
Philippines as respondents.
- Petitioner now sought the aid of Supreme Court by way of
petition for review on Certiorari (Rule 45)
ISSUE(S):
- Whether or not impleading the People of the Philippines
as respondents is a necessary requisite in a petition filed
assailing the denial of motion to quash a search warrant.
PETITIONER”S CONTENTION(S):
1. Petition for certiorari did not need to implead the People
of the Philippines because there was not yet a criminal
case instituted in court
2. The interested parties should be the NBI SARDO and
Pryce Gases since the People of the Philippines is not yet
a party to be impleaded as respondents.
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
- The petiton for review on certiorari is denied..
Reasons of the Court:
1. Impleading the People of the Philippines did not
depend on whether or not an actual criminal action
had alreeady been commenced in court against
petitioner.
2. Impleading the People of the Philippines is expressly
required under Rule 46 sec. 3. Violation of which
would lead to the dismissal of the petition.
(Section 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of
noncompliance with requirements. — The petition
shall contain the full names and actual addresses of
all the petitioners and respondents, a concise
statement of the matters involved, the factual
background of the case, and the grounds relied upon
for the relief prayed for.)
3. Omission of the People of the Philippines from the
petition was fatal.
4. Search warrant is not similar to a criminal action but
rather a legal process: it is an instrument issued
under the State’s police power, and this is why it must
issue in the name of the People of the Philippines.
PEOPLE VS SALANGUIT
- Petition for certiorari assailing the decision of RTC-QC
finding the accused guilty of violating Dangerous Drugs
Act (Illegal possession/use of shabu and marijuana)
FACTS:
- SPO1 Badua acted as a buyer of Shabu from Salanguit
and was indeed able to purchase the same from the
accused-appellant.
- The sale took place in Salanguit’s room and Badua saw
that shabu was taken from Salanguit’s cabinet.
- Badua reported to Sr. Insp, Aguilar who subsequently filed
for a search warrant in RTC-Dasma, Cavite to search the
residence of Salanguit in Novaliches, QC
- Search warrant was then issued stating the address of
Salanguit and the items to be seized were (1)
Undetermined quantity of Shabu; and (2) Drug
Paraphernalia. It was likewise stated that the search may
be conducted anytime of the da/night.
- 10:30pm, group of 10 policemen went to the residence of
Salanguit, knocked insistently on the door but nobody
opened it. they heard the people inside panicking so they
forced their entry.
- After showing the search warrant they began searching
the premises and found 12 small heat-sealed transparent
plastic bags containing shabu and two bricks of dried
leaves wrapped in a newsprint.
- A receipt was prepared but salanguit refused to sign it.
- RTC-QC Ruling: Salanguit is guilty of violation
Dangerous Drugs Act.
ISSUE(S):
- Whether or not there is probable cause to search for drug
paraphernalia
- Whether or not the search warrant was issued for more
than one specific offense
- Whether or not the particularity of the place to be searched
was sufficient
- Whether the bricks of marijuana wrapped in a newprint
shall be admissible in court by virtue of plain view doctrine
CA’s Ruling(s):
1. There was no probable cause to search for drug
paraphernalia because SPO1 Badua did not testify on
anything about drug paraphernalia (did not mention about

marijuana).However, rendering the search warrant for
drug parapernalia as invalid will not render the whole
search warrant as void.
2. Accused-appellant contends that the search warrant
violated the specificity of the offense charged since his
violations are punished under two different provisions of
RA 6425.
Ruling: contention is bereft of merit. The Court
reasoned that a warrant has complied with
specificity of offense requirement when offenses
are so related as to be subsumed in the category
of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. (Valid
Warrant: because it the offense is the violation of
Dangerous Drugs Act, hence, regardless of how
many sections he may violate under the same
Act would still constitute as a single offense)
3. The Particularity of the Place to be searched was sufficient
because the search warrant bears the decription that the
place to be seized is (1) located between No. 7 and 11
Binhagan St. San Jose, QC; (2) described as a house
without a number; and (3) sketched. More than that, Insp.
Aguilar resides in the same neighborhood which would no
confuse him of the location of the place to be searched.
4. Marijuana is inadmissible as evidence in court since the
elements of a plain view doctrine were not satisfied.
ELEMENTS:
a. Prior Justification (The court also opined that seizure of
things by virtue of plain view doctrine must precede the
warrant of another object; hot pursuit; incident to a lawful
arrest; etc.)
b. Inadvertent discovery of the evidence
c. Immediate apparent illegality of the evidence before
the police (The marijuana was also covered by a
newsprint which would render the police officers clueless
as to the contents of the wrapped bricks which is not
readily discernible as a marijuana.)
Thus, premises considered, the court ruled in finding the
accused-appellant guilty of possession of illegal drugs under
Sec. 16 RA 6425, but acquits him from possession of
prohibited drugs under Sec. 8 RA 6425
(Section 8. Possession or Use of Prohibited Drugs. The
penalty of imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to
twelve years and a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve
thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who,
2
unless authorized by law, shall possess or use any prohibited 6. Counsel for petitioner sent a letter to Atty. Robles
drug, except Indian hemp as to which the next following (Chief of SAID) requesting for an extension of 15 days
paragraph shall apply. from april 14 to produce the required documents for
the seized items but Robles denied. And eventually
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six months and one submitted his recommendation to DENR Secretary
day to six years and a fine ranging from six hundred to six Factoran
thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, 7. Sec. Factoran issued an order confiscating the items
unless authorized by law, shall possess or use Indian hemp. seized on april 1 and 3 and suspended immediately
the lumber-dealer’s permit of the petitioner
Section 16. Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs. The
PETITIONER filed for certiorari and prohibition with
penalty of imprisonment ranging from six months and one day
the RTC of Manila praying for prelim injunction
to four years and a fine ranging from six hundred to four
against Factoran and Robles questioning the seizure
thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall
of his items in April 1 without being accompanied by
possess or use any regulated drug without the corresponding
a valid search warrant.
license or prescription.)
[RTC Ruling: the order of confiscation in favor of gov’t
by Sec. Factoran is set aside and vacated, and
instead the respondents are required to report and to
MUSTANG LUMBER, INC. VS. CA bring the seized item to the RTC Valenzuela;
respondents are also required to institute appropriate
FACTS: action before the proper court; prayer for the return of
items seized is withheld until after the proper court
- Mustang Lumber, Inc. was charged with violation of
has taken cognizance]
Revised Forestry Code for having a huge stockpile of
[RTC Reason: it held the validity of
lumbers, including the banned specie of Almaciga and
warrantless search by virtue of search of a moving
Laua
vehicle when they searched and seized the truckload
- FIRST CIVIL CASE:
of lumber coming out of the petitioner’s premises; it
1. On April 1, 1990, DENR-SAID acted on an
also held that the search and seizure on April 4 was
information regarding the sale and possession of a
also valid since it was just a mere continuation of the
stockpile of narra flitches, shorts and slabs inside the
search and seizure made in the previous day]
lumberyard of petitioner in Valenzuela without a valid
- SECOND CIVIL CASE
search warrant.
1. Sept. 17, 1990 the team of DENR agents went to the
2. They went to the said lumberyard and while in the
premises of Mustang Lumberyard and caught that the
course of surveillance, they saw petitioner’s truck
petitioner still operates as a lumber dealer although
coming out of the premises loaded with lauan and
their permit has been suspended since April 23, 1990.
almaciga in various sizes. They asked the driver to
2. They went inside and found an owner-type jeepney
present transport documents and other required
with a trailer loaded with lumber which is set to be
invoices but the driver was not able to produce the
delivered to petitioner’s customer.
same.
3. They met the wife of the owner of Mustang Lumber
3. The team seized the truck with its cargo and
Inc. and took photographs of the stockpiles of lumber,
impounded them at the DENR compound.
the transport vehicles and other equipment inside the
4. April 3, 1990, they were able to secure a search
premises.
warrant from RTC Valenzuela where the team was
4. They subsequently effected a constructive seizure of
able to seize four truckloads of narra shorts,
lumber and issued a receipt therefor.
trimmings, lumber as well as almaciga and supa.
PETITIONER filed with RTC-Manila a petition for
5. They continued the search and seizure the next day.
certiorari and prohibition.
 3

[RTC Ruling: moot and academic by the expiration of
lumber dealer’s permit; dismissed the petition
because the petitioner did not exhaust administrative
remedies; when the seizure was made on sept 17, his
permit was still under suspension; seizure was valid
under sec 68 of PD 705; and the warrantless search
and seizure was valid under sec 80 of the same
code.]
- DOJ INVESTIGATING PROSECUTOR
1. Robles filed with the DOJ, a complaint against
petitioner for violation of [sec 68 PD 705] and the
investigating prosecutor recommended that an
information be filed against Mustang for illegal
possession and shipment of almaciga and lauan.
- CRIMINAL CASE
1. A criminal case was instituted against Mustang
Lumber in RTC-Valenzuela
[RECOURSE TO CA (mustang): petitioner
filed a motion to quash and/or to suspend
proceedings alleging that the information does not
charge an offense for possession of ‘lumber’, as
opposed to tiber, is not penalized under sec 68 of PD
705
CA Ruling: granted the petitioner’s motion to quash
and dismissed the case on the ground that
possession of lumber without the legal dosuments
required by forest laws is not a crime]
search or seizure shall be made wihtout a valid warrant
issued by a judge.
- Yes, it is still valid. The court agrees to the ruling of the
trial court and CA that the search on the following day was
a mere continuation of the search conducted on April 3.
Sec. 10 Rule 126 that a search warrant has a valid lifetime
of 10 days.
- Yes lumber is included in the provision by contruing that it
is covered under the term ‘timber’ and which is likewise
found under sec 3(aa) defined ass processing plant which
is any mechanical set-up, machine or combination of
machine used for the processing of logs and other forest
raw materials into lumber, veneer, plywood, wall bond,
blockboard, paper board, pulp, paper or other finished
wood products. Suffice it to say that lumver is a processed
log or processed forest raw material. In addition, the law
does not distinguish between raw and processed timber.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS COURT OF APPEALS AND
VALENTINO ORTIZ
- This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking the
reversal of respondent court’s decision declaring as
inadmissible as evidence the firearms and ammunitions
irregularly and unreasonably seized pursuant to a search
warrant.
FACTS:
instruments used in the manufacture of firearms,
ammunition or explosives, and imposing stiffer penalties
for certain violations thereof and for relevant purposes to
the MTC-Paaranaque
- To support their application, two police officers asserted
that they had personal knowledge that Ortiz has in his
possession in his residence at 148-D Peru St. Better
Living Subd., Paranaque City [baby armalite M-16;
Shotgun; .9mm pistol; .45 caliber pistol with their
corresponding ammunitions]
- The MTC judge issued a search warrant to make
immediate search at any reasonable hour of the day or
night.
- The PNP-SISC went to Ortiz’s residence at 7:30pm where
his wife and their nanny were inside the house and present
during the search. But the two refused to be a witness for
the search.
- The wife signed the receipt after seizing all the unlicensed
firearms and ammunitions they found therein.
PROSECUTOR’S FINDINGS (PRELIM
INVESTIGATION): warrantless search of Ortiz
after he alighted from the jeepney was invalid for trampling
upon his constitutional right against unreasonable
searches. The prosecutor however, upheld the validity of
search and seizure held in the residence of Ortiz.
- Ortiz was then charged in RTC Makati for violating sec. 1
of PD 1866

- On Aug. 13, 1992 the operatives of PNP-SISC were PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR REINVESTIGATION;
ISSUE(S):
conducting a surveillance of drug-pushing activities at denied by the RTC
- Whether or not there is a valid warrantless search on April Regine Condominium in Makati. Among their target PETITIONER’S MOTION TO QUASH: grounds:
1, 1990 suspects was Ortiz. [1) he was not
- Whether or not the search and seizure the next day is still - They spot Ortiz alighting from a jeepney and saw the present during the
valid suspiciously bulging pants pocket. The police immediately search in his home;
- Whether or not the lumber is included in sec 68 of PD 705 accosted him and frisked him where they found in his 2) search warrant
despite the absence of expressly mentioning it in the possession an unlicensed .25 caliber Raven Automatic was not shown to his
provision of the law Pistol. wife; 3) search
- They also searched his car where they retrieved a sealed warrant was in
SC RULING: cellophane packet of shabu. Later, they took him into violation of the
- Yes there is a valid warrantless search on April 1 by virtue custody. witness-to-search
of search of a moving vehicle which is one of the doctinally - Subsequently, PNP-SISC applied for a search warrant rule]
accepted exceptions to the constitutional mandate that no against Ortiz for violation of the laws on illegal/unlawful
possession, manufacture, dealing in, acquisition or
disposition, of firearms, ammunition or explosives or

RTC RULING:
DENIED motion to
quash for lack of
merit.
RECOURSE TO CA:
- The CA ruled in favor of Ortiz and declaring as
inadmissible as evidence the items seized in his
residence.
ISSUE(S):
- W/N the search at 7:30 pm constitutes an unreasonable
time of search
- W/N the police officers complied with witness-to-search
rule which is a requisite to a valid search and seizure.
RULING OF SC:
- No. Although, Sec. 8 Rule 126 is the general rule which
provides that search warrants must be served during the
daytime. The exception to this is the judge’s discretion in
fixing the the time within which warrant may ve served.the
court ruled that 7:30 pm is still a reasonable hour of night
since the law enforcement has the discretion to set the
exact time of execution of the search warrant. The court
took the judicial notice that 7:30pm in suburban subd in
metro manila is an hour at which the residents are still up-
and-about. To rule otherwise, would not only hamper the
law enforcement but could also lead to absurd results,
enabling criminals to conceal their illegal activities only at
night.
- Yes, they complied with witess-to-search rule because
Ortiz’s wife and Nanny were present during the search,
and they had no justifiable reason to refuse to be a witness
to the search and her refusal to be a witness cannot
hamper the performance of official duty. There was also
no irregularity when the PNP-SISC team asked the bailiff
of Paranaque Court and Brgy Security Officer to act as
witnesses to the search. To hold otherwise, would allow
lawful searches to be frustrated by the mere refusal of
those required by law to be witnesses.
Petition is granted, the items seized are admissible as
evidence.
WORLDWIDE WEB CORPORATION AND YU VS
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PLDT
- This is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the
decision of CA reversing the quashal of the search
warrants previously issued by RTC.
FACTS:
- Police chief Insp. Villegas of RISOO-PNP filed
applications for warrants before RTC-QC to search the
office premises of petitioner Worldwide Web Corp. as well
as the office of Planet Internet Corp alleging that both were
conducting illegal toll bypass operations... particularly the
unauthorized installation of telephone connections.
- The alleged violations of petitioners amounted to theft and
violation of PD 401 (penalizing the unauthorized
installation of water, electrical or telephone connections,
the use of tampered water or electrical meters, and other
acts)
- During the hearing on the applications for search warrants
Rivera and Gali of PLDT testified as witnesses.
- There they testified that petitioners were able to provide
international long distance call services by using PLDT’s
telephone lines, but bypassing its IGF (international
Gateway Facilities) where all international long distance
calls pass through.
[TOLL BYPASS: a method of routing and
completing international long distance calls using
lines, cables, antenna and/or wave or frequency
which connects directly to local or domestic
exchange facilities of the originating country or
the country where the call is originated]
- They also alleged that all PLDT lines and equipment had
been illegally connected by petitioners to a piece of
equipment that route international calls and bypassed
PLDT’s IGF.
- They also alleged the commission of theft because
through the misuse of PLDT phone lines/numbers and
equipment and with clear intent to gain, they stole the
business and revenues that rightly belong to PLDT
- RTC granted application for search warrants.
- Among the items seized were diskettes, CPUs, software
tapes, cables other devices capable of accepting,
4
processing information, or capable of transmitting waves
or frequency
[PETITIONERS FILED A MOTION TO QUASH:
(Contentions): (1) toll bypass was not a crime; (2)
there was no probable cause since the acts complained of
did not constitute theft; (3) search warrants were general
warrants; and (4) the objects seized were fruits of the
poisonous tree.
- RTC granted petitioner’s Motion to Quash on the grounds
that it was indeed in nature of a general warrant. It also
directed the return of the seized items to the petitioners
- PLDT moved for reconsideration but was DENIED for
failure to get the conformity of the city prosecutor prior to
the filing of the motion as required under [Sec 5 Rule 110]
CA RULING
- PLDT appealled to CA which reversed and set aside the
reolution made by the lower court.
- Petitioners moved for recon invoking that PLDT should
have filed a petition for certiorari rather than appeal.
- CA denied WWWC motion
ISSUE(S):
- W/N PLDT had no personality to question quashal of
warrants without conformity of the city prosecutor
- W/N PLDT should have assailed the order of RTC through
certiorari rather than appeal
- W/N the acts complained of constitute the crime of theft
- W/N said search warrants were general warrants
RULING OF SC:
- No. PLDT has personality to question said quashal without
the coformity of the city prosecutor since an application for
a search warrant is not a criminal action; and conformity
of city prosecutor is not necessary to give the aggrieved
party personality to question said quashal. The General
Rule is that the public prosecutor has direction and control
of the prosecution of all criminal actins commenced by
complaint or information. A search warrant, as in this case,
 5

is obtained not by filing a complaint of information, but by

filing an application therefor.
- No, the PLDT can avail an appeal not by certiorari.
[WWWC’s Contention: RTC ruling on motion to quash was
interlocutory which cannot be appealed under Rule 41.
PLDT should have filed a Rule 65 instead.
[INTERLOCUTORY ORDER: does not dispose of the
case completely; FINAL ORDER: disposes the whole
subject matter and terminates the entire proceeding.]

An application for a search warrant is a judicial process

conducted either as an incident in a main criminal case
already filed in court or in anticipation of one yet to be filed.
In the case at bar, the quashal was a final order since
there was no criminal action filed yet in court.
- Yes, the acts complained of constitute a crime of theft
citing the case of Laurel v. Abrogar that the use of
communications facilities without the consent of PLDT
constitute the crime charged which is the unlawful taking
of telephone services and business in a manner that it
derives gain from stealing the business of PLDT. Thus, the
Court held that the business of providing
telecommunication and telephone service are personal
property.
- No. Although there is a need for particularity of the things
to be searched and seized, technical precision is not
required. The warrant would still stand valid when it
enables the police officers to readily identify the properties
to be seized and leaves them with no discretion regarding
the articles to be seized. The court also found that the
search warrant fulfills the requirement of particularity in the
description of the things to be seized when the things
described are limited to those that bear a direct relation
to the offense for which the warrant is being issued.

Therefore, the Court denied the petition of WWWC and upheld

the resolutions of RTC and CA.