PEOPLE V CHOI
GR 152950
August 3, 2006
Facts:
 Mario Nieto, an intelligence operative of the Department of
Finance, applied for a search warrant against Choi for violation
of the Intellectual Property Code. (fake Marlboro red cigarettes
and cardboard cases)
 After examination of the applicant and the witnesses, the judge
issued the search warrant. Search was conducted the same day.
 Choi questioned the validity of the search warrant before the
RTC and the CA, arguing that probable cause was not
sufficiently established because the examination conducted
was not probing and exhaustive. Moreover, the warrant did not
particularly describe the place to be searched.
 CA ruled that the judge committed GADLEJ in relying upon the
conclusion of the witness that the cigarettes he received from
Choi were fake, without requiring the presentation of the
alleged fake cigarettes and genuine ones for comparison.
Issue:
 Whether or not the trial court erred in issuing a search warrant
Ruling:
 No. A search warrant can be issued upon a finding of probable
cause.
 Probable cause for a search has been defined as such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed
and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are
in the place sought to be searched.
 In determining the existence of probable cause, it is required
that:
o The judge must examine the complaint and his
witnesses personally
o The examination must be under oath
o The examination must be reduced in writing in the
form of searching questions and answers
 Although there is no hard and fast rule governing how a judge
should conduct his examination, it is necessary that the
examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely
routinary, general, peripheral, perfunctory, or pro forma. The
judge must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but
make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the
application.
 The determination of probable cause does not call for the
application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of
conviction requires after trial on the merits. Probable cause is
concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral
certainty. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably
prudent man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge after full-
blown trial.
 The questions of the judge during the examination in this case
were sufficiently probing, and not at all superficial and
perfunctory. The testimonies were consistent with each other,
and the narration of facts was credible. The testimonies and
other evidence on record constituted adequate bases to
establish probable cause that the alleged offense has been
committed.
 Since probable cause is dependent largely on the opinion and
findings of the judge, the findings of the judge deserve great
weight, and may only be overturned when there is clear
disregard of the facts before him and dictates of reason, which
is not present in this case.