G.R. No.

110604 October 10, 2003

BUENAVENTURA S. TENORIO, Acting Chief, Law Division, MARIANO ABANILLA, Chief,
Prosecution & Investigation Division, ROMEO SARTE, Special Counsel, all of the Bureau of
Customs, P/LT. CHRISTOPHER TAMBUNGAN, Chief, Investigation Branch RPIU-CAPCOM, P/LT.
GILBERT CRUZ, PNP-RPIU-CAPCOM,petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. SANTIAGO G. ESTRELLA, Presiding Judge, Br. 68
of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, HON. MANUEL L. VILLAMAYOR, Presiding
Judge, Br. 57 of the Regional Trial Court of San Juan, Metro Manila, and ANTONIO
COSENG, respondents.

Rule 126, Section 11(a) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure reads:

SEC. 11. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court. - The officer must forthwith deliver the property
seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath.
The duty of petitioner Tambungan to deliver the items seized by him to the court which issued the search
warrant is mandatory in character. This is evident by the use in the rule of the word "must." The rule is not
merely a piddling procedural rule. The requirement is to preclude substitution of the items seized by
interested parties or the tampering thereof, 36 or the loss of such goods due to the negligence of the officers
effecting the seizure or their deliberate acts. On the face of the search warrant issued by the court,
petitioners Tambungan and Cruz were "commanded to bring the goods described therein to the court to be
dealt with as the law requires." The officers enforcing the search warrant were acting on orders of the court;
hence, were under its supervision and control. 37 The Court has inherent disciplinary power over such
officers and can thus enforce its powers against them. Such officers may not retain possession and
custody of the items seized unless with the approval of the court that issued the warrant. 38 Absent such
approval, the said officers had no authority to deliver the items seized to another person or agency of the
government. If the items seized are delivered to others or another government agency without the approval
of the court that issued the search warrant, goods are not considered in the custody of the court. 39 If the
officers enforcing the warrant refuse to turn over the goods, as ordered by the court, they may be cited for
indirect contempt under Rule 71, Section 3(b) of the Rules of Court which reads:
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court, including the act of
a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real property by the judgment or process of
any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real
property, for the purpose of executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the
possession given to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto; 40

A.M. No. MTJ-05-1608 February 28, 2006

(formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 00-910-MTJ)
BERNARDO P. BETOY, SR.* , Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE MAMERTO Y. COLIFLORES, Respondent.

On the failure of respondent judge to conduct a judicial inquiry as to the whereabouts of the seized firearms
and ammunitions, it appears that respondent judge failed to abide by the Rules in this respect. Paragraph
(b), Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the issuing judge to
ascertain ten days after the issuance of the search warrant if the return has been made, and if none, shall
summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was made.
Nothing in the records shows that a return of the questioned search warrant was made by the police
officers. Neither did respondent judge claim in his comment that he complied with the above Rule. His lame
excuse that the issuing judge has no physical control on the manner the Search Warrant was being
implemented and conducted as his primordial concern only is the compliance with the statutory and
constitutional requirements for the issuance of the search warrant betrays his ignorance of the Rules. The
Rule heretofore mentioned requires the issuing judge, in case the return has been made, (a) to see to it
that the officer forthwith deliver to him the property seized, together with a true inventory thereof duly
verified under oath; and (b) to ascertain whether Section 11 of Rule 126 has been complied with. Should
the issuing judge ascertain that the officers seizing the property under the warrant failed to follow the
procedures mandated by the Rules, he may cite them in contempt of court. It appears that despite the
absence of a return of the questioned search warrant, respondent judge failed to summon and require
P/Inspector Arquillano to explain why no return was made.