SOLID TRIANGLE SALES CORP. v.

SHERIFF OF RTC QC

the evidence obtained by virtue of the warrant was inadmissible in the

preliminary investigation.
o
Under Sections 168 and 170 of R.A. 8293 (the Intellectual Property
Code), there is unfair competition if the alleged offender has given to his

G.R. No. 144309 / November 23, 2001 / KAPUNAN, J. / CRIMPRO-Remedies against

Unreasonable Search & Seizure: Exclusionary Rule: Motion to quash search
warrant/suppress evidence / ECSCALA

NATURE
Petition for Certiorari
PETITIONERS
Solid Triangle Sales Corp. & Robert Sitchon
RESPONDENTS
The Sheriff of RTC QC; Sanly Corp.; Era Radio &
Electrical Supply, et al
SUMMARY. Judge Bruselas, after having issued a search warrant against
Sanly Corp. for alleged unfair competition, quashed said warrant holding
that there was doubt whether the act complained of amounted to a crime.
Solid Triangle, who filed the complaint w/ the prosecutors office, assailed
such quashal as invalid as the Constitution does not authorize such, after
goods had been seized and that such deprived them with evidence
regarding their case. Court held that inherent in the courts power to issue
search warrants is the power to quash warrants already issued. Since there
was no probable cause for the issuance of the warrant, evidence obtained
by virtue thereof was inadmissible.
DOCTRINE. Inherent in the courts power to issue search warrants is the
power to quash warrants already issued. A search warrant maybe quashed
upon finding of lack of probable cause in connection with a specific
offense. Such quashal, however, do not affect the proceedings of the
preliminary investigation except that such evidence procured therefrom
becomes inadmissible. This does not preclude the finding of probable
cause by the prosecutor based on other competent evidence for the
purpose of filing the information.
FACTS.
January 28, 1999: J. Bruselas issued against Sanly Corporation for violation
of Sec 168 of RA 8293 (unfair competition). By virtue of said SW, EIIB
agents seized 451 boxes of Mitsubishi photographic color paper, which
according to Solid Triangle, were sold and distributed by Sanly to their
damage and prejudice, the former being the sole and exclusive
distributor thereof.
Solid Triangle then filed with the QC City Prosecutor a complaint for unfair
competition against Sanly and LWT who were alleged to be in
conspiracy.
February 8, 1999: Sanly, LWT and ERA moved to quash the SW which was
granted upon MR. J. Bruselas held that there was doubt as to whether
the act complained of amounted to unfair competition. Solid Triangle
filed an MR as to the quashal but such was denied.
Bruselas, then directed Solid Triangle to divulge and report to the court the
exact location of the warehouse where the goods are kept.
CA: initially granted Solid Triangles certiorari holding that the quashal of
the warrant deprived the prosecution of vital evidence to determine
probable cause.
Upon motion of the defendants, the CA reversed itself. It held that there
was no probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. Hence

goods the general appearance of the goods of another manufacturer or

dealer and sells or passes them off as goods of that manufacturer or dealer in
order to deceive or defraud the general public or the legitimate trader.

In this case: (1) the things seized are genuine and not mere
imitations (2) no showing that Sanly has presented, sold, or passed
off its photographic paper as goods which come from Solid Triangle
(3) Both Sanly and Solid Triangle sell genuine Mitsubishi products,
and Sanly is a parallel importer, taking its goods from HK (4) Sanly
sold the products without altering its appearance
o
On a factual basis, the real dispute is between Solid Triangle and
Mitsubishi.1
Petitioner contends before the SC that the Constitution does not authorize
the judge to reverse himself and quash the warrant especially after the
goods had been seized pursuant to the SW, and the prosecution is
poised to push forward with the goods as evidence.
o

ISSUES & RATIO.

1. WON the quashal of the warrant was valid. YES.
Inherent in the courts power to issue search warrants is the power to
quash warrants already issued. A search warrant maybe quashed when
the requisites under Sec 3, Rule 126 (Sec 4, after amendment) 2 are not
present. In this case, probable cause was found to be wanting.
As to the contention that the quashal resulted in deprivation of vital
evidence in the prelim investigation, the Court held that although such
is the inevitable result as evidence obtained illegaly is inadmissible, this
doesnt mean that the prelim investigation will not proceed because
other competent evidence may be admitted.
o Proceedings for the issuance/quashal of a search warrant and prelim
investigation are proceedings independent of each other.
o One is not bound by the others finding as regards the existence of a
crime such that when the court, in determining probable cause for a
search warrant, finds that no offense has been committed, it does
not affect the proceedings in the prelim investigation. Such does not
preclude the authorized officer conducting the prelim investigation

If Solid Triangle feels aggrieved, it should sue Mitsubishi for damages, if

at all for breach of its distributorship.
2 SEC. 3. Requisites for issuing search warrant.A search warrant
shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific
offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be
seized (which may be anywhere in the Philippines.-amendment)

from making his own determination that a crime has been committed
and that probable cause exists for purposes of filing the information.
2. WON the facts of the case constitute an offense. NO.
The evidence presented before the trial court does not prove
unfair competition under Section 168 of the Intellectual

Property Code. Sanly Corporation did not pass off the subject
goods as that of another. See CA ruling as to this issue.
DECISION.
Petition upheld the quashal and petitioners are ordered to return to
respondent Sanly the 451 boxes of Mitsubishi photographic color paper
seized.