OBRA v.

CA

FACTS

Petitioner Benjamin Obra was Regional Director of the Bureau of Mines and Geo-
Sciences (BMGS) in Baguio. On jun 26, 1985, Jeannette Grybos wrote him a letter on
behalf of the Gillies heirs complaining that private respondents (Sps. James and June
Brett) had been conducting illegal mining activities in Bgy. Palasa-an, Mankayan,
Benguet, belonging to Gillies family. On the same day, Obra wrote Brig. Gen Tomas
Dumpit1 requesting assistance in apprehending a truck2 allegedly used by Sps. Brett in
illegal mining. The next day, Obra wrote Sps Brett and Grybos informing them that
BMGS was going to conduct an ocular inspeciton and field investigation and requesting
them to be present “so that all… matters… shall be gathered and collated in order for
this Office to take appropriate action.” Elements of RUC under Maj. Densen seized the
truck3 as it was entering “Mamakar” mining area. It was impounded by the military and
prevented from leaving the area except on mercy missions4. Private respondents filed a
complaint for injunction and damages with the RTC as the truck was seized without due
provess in violation of their constitutional rights under Art. 32 of the Civil Code.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioners (Obra and Dumpit) were authorized to seize the vehicle in
the absence of any finding of probably cause (PC).

HELD

NO.Although peittioners have authority to order seizure and confiscation via PD. 1281,
Art IV, S3 of the 1973 Constitution merely validated the grant by law to nonjudicial
officers of the power to issue warrants but did not in any way exempt them from the
duty of determining the eixstence of probable cause. Petitioner Obra’s letters to private
respondents and Grybos clearly stated that an investigation was to be held on July 2-5,
1985 to determine the veracity of the allegations of Grybo’s complaint. His only basis
was an alleged certification from the BMGS that no mining permit had been issued to
the Sps. However, such certification was not presented in evidence. The seizure cannot
be justified under the moving vehicle doctrine as there is no existence of probable cause.
The doctrine does not give poblice officers umliminted discretion to conduct warrantless
searches of automobiles in the absence of PC. Therefore, the CA is correct in affirming
the RTC’s decision that petitioners are liable for damages (P100,000) and attorney’s
fees (P10,000) in violation of the Sps. Rights under Art. 32 of the Civil Code.