Sy Tan vs Sy Tiong Gue

GR No. 174570
22 February 2010
FACTS
An Information for the crime of Robbery was filed against respondents for allegedly taking
Php6,500,000.00 cash, 286 postdated checks, five boxes of Cognac, a television set, a computer set, and
other documents from the Guan Yiak Hardware. Consequently, police inspector Reyes filed two separate
applications for the issuance of search warrant before RTC Manila, alleging that P/Insp. Reyes had
personal knowledge that respondent Sy had in her possession five boxes of the Cognac as well as 286
company checks taken from the said hardware. He prayed the issuance of a search warrant authorizing
him or another agent to take possession of the property and bring them to the court. In support of the
application, he submitted the sworn statements of petitioner Sy Tan and 2 witnesses. Presiding Judge
Lanzanas posed searching questions to the applicant and the witnesses to determine the existence of
probable cause. Subsequently, search warrant was issued, directing any peace officer to make an
immediate search on the specified items on the specific place it provided, and if found, to bring them
before the court.
Respondents filed a Motion to Quash search warrants. RTC denied the motion. Respondents filed an MR
but it was also denied. A motion for Certiorari under Rule 65 was filed to the CA. The CA opined that
quashing the search warrants for lack of personal knowledge was unwarranted. It added that the
description of the items to be seized complied with the requirement of particularity. Moreover, the CA
found the inquiries made by the judge to be sufficiently probing. However, the CA agreed with the
respondents and concluded that there was no probable cause for the issuance of the subject search
warrants; thus, respondents motion to quash should have been granted by the RTC. Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.
ISSUE
Whether there was probable cause warranting RTC to issue the search warrant
HELD
YES.
The validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the following factors: (1) it must be issued
upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the
applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under
oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant
issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.
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. As implied by the words themselves, "probable
cause" is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The prosecution need not
present at this stage reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man,
not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial.

The power to issue search warrants is exclusively vested in the trial judges in the exercise of their judicial
functions. A finding of probable cause, which would merit the issuance of a search warrant, needs only to
rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was
committed by the accused. The determination of whether probable cause exists as to justify the issuance
of a search warrant is best left to the sound discretion of a judge. Apparent in the case at bar and as aptly
found by the RTC judge, there was probable cause justifying the issuance of the search warrants. This was
established by the Sinumpaang Salaysay and the testimonies, consisting of no less than 37 pages, given
by witnesses who had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the crime of robbery had been
committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense were in the place sought to be
searched. The facts narrated by the witnesses while under oath, when they were asked by the examining
judge, were sufficient justification for the issuance of the subject search warrants.

A Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is intended for the correction of errors of
jurisdiction only, or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Its principal
office is only to keep the inferior court within the parameters of its jurisdiction, or to prevent it from
committing such grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

It is to be noted, however, that while this Court affirms the sufficiency of probable cause in the issuance
of the search warrants in connection with the crime of robbery allegedly committed by the respondents,
the guilt of the accused still remains to be determined in the appropriate criminal action against them, not
in the present case which is limited only to the propriety of the issuance of the subject search warrants by
the RTC.