Santos vs Pryce Gases [G.R. NO. 165122] Case Digest

 

Santos vs Pryce Gases

G.R. NO. 165122

 

Facts:

 Respondent Pryce Gases noticed the decline in the return of its LPG cylinders for refilling. Respondent's employees suspected that the LPG cylinders had been removed from market circulation and refilled by respondent's competitors, one of whom was Sun Gas, Inc. Petitioner Rowland Kim Santos is the manager of Sun Gas, Inc.  Arnold T. Figueroa, respondent's sales manager ought the assistance of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) to recover the LPG cylinders allegedly in the possession of Sun Gas, Inc. Acting on Figueroa's complaint, CIDG operatives conducted surveillance on the warehouse of Sun Gas, Inc. located at 130 Timawa Avenue, Molo, Iloilo.  The CIDG operatives entered the warehouse and were able to take photographs of the LPG cylinders.

PO2 Vicente D. Demandara, Jr. applied before the RTC of Iloilo City for a warrant to search the premises described as No. 130, Timawa Avenue, Mol  o, Iloilo. The application alleged that petitioner was in possession of Pryce LPG tanks, the Pryce logos of some of which were scraped off and replaced with a Sun Gas, Inc. marking, and other materials used in tampering Pryce gas tanks.  The search warrant authorized the seizure of the following items Assorted sizes of PRYCE LPG GAS TANKS CYLINDERS in different kilograms and others.  CIDG agents served the search warrant on petitioner and were able to recover the following Pryce LPG tanks of different sizes.

Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the search warrant on the grounds of lack of probable cause. The trial court made a turnaround in its first decision and held that probable cause as found by it at the time of the application for search warrant fell short of the requisite probable cause necessary to sustain the validity of the search warrant. Respondent elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a special civil action for certiorari.  CA set aside the two orders of the trial court and ordered the return of the seized items to respondent.

 

Issue:

Whether or not CA committed an error in reversing the trial court’s quashal of search warrant yet ordered the return of the seized items to respondent.

 

Held:

Yes.

 

Ratio:

Section 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Criminal Procedure expressly mandates the delivery of the seized items to the judge who issued the search warrant to be kept in custodia legis in anticipation of the criminal proceedings against petitioner. The delivery of the items seized to the court which issued the warrant together with a true and accurate inventory thereof, duly verified under oath, is mandatory in order to preclude the substitution of said items by interested parties. The judge who issued the search warrant is mandated to ensure compliance with the requirements for (1) the issuance of a detailed receipt for the property received, (2) delivery of the seized property to the court, together with (3) a verified true inventory of the items seized. Any violation of the foregoing constitutes contempt of court.