Case: Search warrant - Sy Tan v. Sy Tiong, G.R. No.

174570, February 17, 2010

Case Digest

Title: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Romer Sy Tan, seeking to annul and set
aside the Decision dated December 29, 2005, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
81389 and the Resolution dated August 18, 2006, denying petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration. The case involves Information for the crime of Robbery filed against
respondents Sy Tiong Gue, Felicidad Chan Sy, Sy Chim, Sy Tiong Yan, Sy Yu Bun, Sy Yu
Siong, Sy Yu San, Bryan Sy Lim, and two police officers.

Facts of the Case : The case involves a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by Romer Sy
Tan against respondents Sy Tiong Gue, Felicidad Chan Sy, Sy Chim, Sy Tiong Yan, Sy Yu Bun,
Sy Yu Siong, Sy Yu San, Bryan Sy Lim, and two police officers. The petitioner sought to annul
and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated December 29, 2005, in CA-G.R.
SP No. 81389, and the Resolution dated August 18, 2006, denying petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration.

The antecedents of the case begin with the filing of an Information for the crime of Robbery on
January 11, 2006. The accused were alleged to have conspired and unlawfully taken
P6,500,000.00 cash, 286 postdated checks, five boxes of Hennessy Cognac, a television set, a
computer set, and other documents from Guan Yiak Hardware on April 15, 2003, in Manila.
Subsequently, on April 22, 2003, Police Inspector Edgar A. Reyes filed applications for the
issuance of search warrants before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila. The applications
were based on the sworn statements of petitioner Romer Sy Tan and witnesses Maricho
Sabelita and Anicita Almedilla. The search warrants, known as Search Warrant Nos. 03-3611
and 03-3612, were issued by Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas, directing the search of specific
locations for the items allegedly stolen during the robbery.

Upon the execution of the search warrants on April 22, 2003, some items were seized under
Search Warrant No. 03-3611, but there were negative results for Search Warrant No. 03-3612.
Respondents filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrants on May 21, 2003, which was denied by
the RTC on September 1, 2003. The RTC judge found probable cause based on the sworn
statements and testimonies submitted.

Unsatisfied, respondents filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, arguing that
the judge committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to quash the search warrants due to
the absence of probable cause.

On December 29, 2005, the CA granted the petition, reversed and set aside the RTC's orders,
quashing the search warrants. The CA agreed with respondents that there was no probable
cause for the issuance of the search warrants.
Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on August 18, 2006.
Consequently, the petitioner brought the case to the Supreme Court through a Petition for
Review on Certiorari.
The Supreme Court, in its decision, affirmed the sufficiency of probable cause for the issuance
of the search warrants and reversed the CA decision. The Court held that the RTC judge did not
commit grave abuse of discretion and justified the finding of probable cause based on the
evidence presented during the application for the search warrants.

Issues :
● Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in refusing to quash Search Warrant Nos.
03-3611 and 03-3612.
● Whether there was probable cause for the issuance of Search Warrant Nos. 03-3611
and 03-3612 based on the evidence presented during the application for the search
warrants.
● Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the search warrants and quashing
the proceedings initiated by the respondents.
● Whether the Supreme Court, upon review, should affirm the validity of Search Warrant
Nos. 03-3611 and 03-3612 or uphold the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Ruling / Decision : The Supreme Court, in reviewing the case, affirms the sufficiency of
probable cause for the issuance of the search warrants. The Court concludes that the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion and appropriately exercised
discretion in finding probable cause based on the evidence presented during the application for
the search warrants.

The Court emphasizes that the determination of probable cause is within the sound discretion of
the judge issuing the search warrants. In this case, the judge, through searching and probing
questions, was satisfied that there were substantial reasons to believe that the respondents
were involved in the commission of the alleged robbery. The Sinumpaang Salaysay (sworn
statements) and testimonies of witnesses, consisting of 37 pages, provided adequate
justification for the issuance of Search Warrant Nos. 03-3611 and 03-3612.

The Court further underscores that probable cause, at this stage, is concerned with probability,
not absolute or even moral certainty. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably
prudent person, and the prosecution need not present reasonable doubt during this stage.
While the ruling upholds the validity of the search warrants and the judge's determination of
probable cause, it is crucial to note that this decision does not delve into the guilt or innocence
of the accused. The case is limited to the propriety of the issuance of the search warrants by the
RTC. The guilt of the accused will be determined in the appropriate criminal proceedings.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court grants the petition, reversing the Decision and Resolution of
the Court of Appeals and reinstating the Orders of the RTC. The validity of Search Warrant Nos.
03-3611 and 03-3612 is sustained based on the established probable cause.
Case: rights of the acused - Andrado v. People, 452 SCRA 685

Case Digest

Title: PETER ANDRADA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.

Facts of the Case: Peter Andrada was charged with frustrated murder for attacking and
hacking Arsenio Ugerio on the head with a bolo. The incident occurred on September 24, 1986,
in Baguio City, following a confrontation at Morlow’s Restaurant. The prosecution argued that
the attack was unprovoked, while the defense claimed self-defense, alleging threats and
aggression by military men. Despite petitioner's plea, the trial court found him guilty, and the
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision with a modification on the penalty due to the petitioner's
age. The issues raised include due process violations, the validity of self-defense, the nature of
the crime committed, and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

Issues:

● Whether there was a violation of petitioner's right to due process.

● Whether the plea of self-defense is valid and justifiable.
● Whether the crime committed should be categorized as frustrated murder or frustrated
homicide.
● Whether the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be considered in
favor of the petitioner.

Ruling / Decision:

Violation of Right to Due Process: No.

The Court found no violation of the petitioner's right to due process. The petitioner's claims of
incompetence and negligence on the part of counsel did not meet the threshold for gross
incompetence or negligence that would prejudice the constitutional rights of the accused.

Validity of Self-Defense: No.

The petitioner failed to sufficiently prove the elements of self-defense. The Court determined
that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim at the time of the attack, as the
petitioner unexpectedly assaulted the victim from behind.

Categorization of Crime: Frustrated Murder.

The Court affirmed the lower courts' decision that the crime committed was frustrated murder.
The presence of treachery was evident in the sudden and unexpected attack, which occurred
while the victim was seated and defenseless, justifying the categorization of the crime as
frustrated murder.
Mitigating Circumstance of Voluntary Surrender: No.
The Court ruled against the appreciation of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
The surrender was not deemed spontaneous, as the petitioner fled the scene after the attack
and was apprehended later.

In summary, the Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, affirming the petitioner's guilt of
frustrated murder and dismissing the claims of due process violation, self-defense, and the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The rulings were based on a thorough
examination of the facts and issues presented during the trial.

Case: Arrest - Valdez v. People, G.R.170180, November 23, 2007

Case Digest

Title: ARSENIO VERGARA VALDEZ, Petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

Facts of the Case : On 17th March 2003, petitioner Arsenio Vergara Valdez was charged with
violating Section 11, par. 2(2) of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165) for the possession of
dried marijuana leaves without the necessary permit. The prosecution, led by three barangay
tanods, claimed to have apprehended Valdez after he alighted from a mini-bus and displayed
suspicious behavior. The subsequent search of his bag allegedly revealed dried marijuana
leaves wrapped in newspaper and cellophane. During the trial, Valdez contested the legality of
his arrest and the warrantless search, asserting that the evidence was obtained in violation of
his constitutional rights.

Issue :

● Whether the arrest of petitioner Arsenio Vergara Valdez was lawful.

● Whether the warrantless search and seizure of Valdez's bag were conducted in
accordance with constitutional standards.
● Whether the evidence obtained through the search is admissible in court.
● Whether the prosecution has proven, beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of Valdez for
violating Section 11, par. 2(2) of Republic Act No. 9165.

Ruling / Decisions: The Supreme Court, in assessing the circumstances surrounding the case,
concluded that the arrest of petitioner Arsenio Vergara Valdez was not lawful. The warrantless
arrest conducted by the barangay tanod lacked a legal basis, as none of the conditions justifying
a warrantless arrest were present during Valdez's apprehension, as specified in Section 5, Rule
113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Additionally, the Court determined that the warrantless
search and seizure of Valdez's bag were not conducted in accordance with constitutional
standards. The search was found not to be incidental to a lawful arrest, and any argument
suggesting Valdez's consent to the search was dismissed, considering it was obtained under
coercive or intimidating circumstances. Consequently, the evidence obtained through the
warrantless search, particularly the marijuana leaves allegedly seized from Valdez's bag, was
deemed inadmissible in court. Emphasizing the importance of the chain of custody, the Court
ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a clear and unbroken link from the time of seizure
to the presentation of the evidence in court. In light of these findings, the Court held that the
prosecution did not prove, beyond reasonable doubt, Valdez's guilt for violating Section 11, par.
2(2) of Republic Act No. 9165. Consequently, Valdez was acquitted on reasonable doubt.