Marcelo v. De Guzman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Sgt. Alejandro Quirante applied for a search warrant from Judge Jose C. de Guzman of the City Court of Quezon City to search the premises of KANEBO Laboratory, owned by Lourdes Marcelo, in connection with Criminal Case No. 558, where KANEBO Laboratory was the accused. The application was supported by affidavits from Bruno Goot and Leonardo Salome. Judge de Guzman issued the search warrant. Procedural History: Agents of PARGO, led by Capt. Reynaldo San Gabriel and Sgt. Alejandro Quirante, seized various goods, articles, commercial documents, and papers from KANEBO Laboratory under the authority of the warrant. On November 17, 1966, Marcelo filed a motion to quash the warrant and recover the seized items. Judge de Guzman denied this motion on December 5, 1966. Marcelo's motion for reconsideration was also denied. The Petition: Marcelo filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Judge de Guzman, Bartolome Cabangbang (Chairman of PARGO), Capt. Reynaldo San Gabriel, Sgt. Alejandro Quirante, and their agents. She prayed that the search warrant be declared null and void and the seized properties be returned. The Court of First Instance set aside the search warrant and ordered the return of the seized properties.
Issue(s)
Whether the order of the City Court denying the motion to quash the search warrant and to recover seized properties is final and therefore appealable. Whether the search warrant was issued with probable cause and in accordance with the requirements of law, and whether certiorari and mandamus are proper remedies.
Ruling
The Court denied the petition, affirming the decision of the Court of First Instance which declared the search warrant null and void and ordered the return of the seized properties.
Ratio Decidendi
On the appealability of the order denying the motion to quash: The Court held that an order denying a motion to quash a search warrant and to return seized properties is interlocutory in character and, therefore, not appealable. This is because such an order does not dispose of the entire case but leaves something more to be done upon its merits, specifically the determination of guilt in the criminal case. The rule against appealing interlocutory orders is to avoid multiplicity of appeals. Citing Cruz vs. Dinglasan, the Court clarified that orders of restoration or denial thereof in criminal proceedings are interlocutory. On the validity of the search warrant and the propriety of certiorari and mandamus: The Court found that the search warrant was issued with grave abuse of discretion and was null and void. Judge de Guzman ignored the mandate of Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, which requires that a search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense, determined by the judge after examination under oath, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The warrant was issued for more than one specific offense and without proper ascertainment of probable cause for a specific offense. The affidavits supporting the application did not clearly draw the offense violated nor specifically identify the things to be seized. Furthermore, Section 11 of Rule 126 regarding the inventory and delivery of seized property was not strictly followed. Given that the order denying the motion to quash was interlocutory and the search warrant was issued with grave abuse of discretion, rendering it a patent nullity, the Court held that certiorari and mandamus were the proper remedies. An appeal would not have been an adequate or speedy remedy, as the seizure of appellee's property had paralyzed her business, and an appeal would have unduly delayed the recovery of the improperly seized articles and documents. Certiorari is allowed when appeal cannot afford adequate and expeditious relief to prevent irreparable damage.
Main Doctrine
An order denying a motion to quash a search warrant and to return seized properties is interlocutory and not appealable; thus, certiorari and mandamus are proper remedies, especially when the search warrant was issued with grave abuse of discretion, rendering it null and void.