Tan v. Gue
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On or about April 15, 2003, in Manila, respondents Sy Tiong Gue, Felicidad Chan Sy (petitioner Romer Sy Tan's grandmother), Sy Chim, Sy Tiong San (noted as Sy Tiong Yan in information), Sy Yu Bun, Sy Yu Siong, Sy Yu San, Bryan Sy Lim, Sy Yu Hui-Pabilona, PO1 Mamerto J. Madronio, and PO1 Marvin Sumang allegedly conspired to commit robbery by forcibly entering the office of Guan Yiak Hardware at 453-455 Tomas Pinpin Street, Binondo, Manila, armed with guns, using violence and intimidation. They took P6,500,000 cash from the vault, 286 postdated checks worth P4,325,642 payable to Guan Yiak Hardware (owned by Sy Siy Ho and Sons, Inc., represented by Romer Sy Tan), five boxes of Hennessy XO Cognac valued at P240,000, a television set worth P20,000, a computer set worth P50,000, and other documents, totaling P11,135,642. Petitioner Romer Sy Tan, through witnesses, later averred personal knowledge that Felicidad Chan Sy and companions, including maids and 'Yubol,' took the items to 524 T. Pinpin St., specifically Hennessy to the 8th floor and checks to the 7th floor, stunning Tan due to accompanying policemen. On January 11, 2006 (contextually aligning with prior 2003 events), an Information for Robbery was filed against them. On April 22, 2003, P/Insp. Edgar A. Reyes applied for search warrants based on sworn statements of Tan, Maricho Sabelita, and Anicita Almedilla, alleging personal knowledge of the stolen items' location. Procedural History: Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas, RTC Branch 7 Manila, examined the applicant and witnesses under searching questions on April 22, 2003, issuing Search Warrant Nos. 03-3611 (for five boxes Hennessy XO at 8th floor, 524 T. Pinpin) and 03-3612 (for 286 checks at 7th floor). Warrants served same day: SW 03-3611 yielded three boxes (12 bottles) and one box (7 bottles) Hennessy; SW 03-3612 negative. Respondents moved to quash on May 21, 2003, alleging no probable cause; petitioner opposed. RTC denied motion September 1, 2003, and reconsideration October 28, 2003. Respondents filed Rule 65 certiorari to CA (SP No. 81389), arguing grave abuse for lack of probable cause despite particularity and inquiries. CA granted petition December 29, 2005, quashing warrants for no probable cause; denied MR August 18, 2006. The Petition: Petitioner sought certiorari to SC, assigning CA errors in setting aside warrants and granting respondents' petition despite no grave abuse by RTC judge. Petitioner argued substantial basis from sinumpaang salaysay and testimonies proving robbery and items' location via personal knowledge. Respondents countered CA correctly found no probable cause from witnesses' admissions negating it.
Issue(s)
Whether there was probable cause warranting issuance of Search Warrant Nos. 03-3611 and 03-3612 by RTC Branch 7, Manila.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The CA Decision (December 29, 2005) and Resolution (August 18, 2006) in CA-G.R. SP No. 81389 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. RTC Orders (September 1, 2003 and October 28, 2003) are REINSTATED. Validity of Search Warrant Nos. 03-3611 and 03-3612 is SUSTAINED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Sole Issue of Probable Cause: The Supreme Court held there was probable cause, reversing the CA, as the RTC judge complied with Rule 126, Sections 4-6, by personally examining under oath complainant P/Insp. Reyes and witnesses Romer Sy Tan, Maricho Sabelita, and Anicita Almedilla via searching questions, attaching their sworn statements and 37-page transcript. Probable cause exists where facts and circumstances warrant a prudent man to believe an offense (robbery) was committed and items (Hennessy, checks) linked thereto are at specified places (7th/8th floors, 524 T. Pinpin), per Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp (G.R. No. 140946) emphasizing probability, not certainty, unlike conviction standards. Witnesses' personal knowledge detailed Felicidad Chan Sy and companions forcibly taking items post-April 15, 2003 robbery, transporting them with policemen present, stunning Tan; Judge Lanzanas probed consistency, satisfying himself of nexus. Warrants particularly described places and items, yielding partial recovery under SW 03-3611. No grave abuse under Rule 65, as issuance rests in judicial discretion (Skechers, U.S.A. v. Interpacific, G.R. No. 164321), binding SC absent jurisdictional excess; guilt remains for trial, not warrant validity. CA erred isolating 'no probable cause' despite acknowledging compliance with other requisites, ignoring holistic evidence from sinumpaang salaysay showing calculated theft.
Main Doctrine
A search warrant shall issue only upon probable cause personally determined by the judge after examining under oath the complainant and witnesses through searching questions on facts personally known to them, particularly describing the place and things to be seized. Probable cause means such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe an offense has been committed and the objects sought are in the place to be searched, emphasizing probability over certainty. The judge must attach sworn statements to the record, and satisfaction with the evidence justifies issuance in the prescribed form. Deference is given to the issuing judge's discretion, with appellate review limited to grave abuse under Rule 65. In this case, detailed sinumpaang salaysay and 37 pages of stenographic notes from personal knowledge sufficed, reversing the CA's erroneous nullification.