Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
|
ROMER SY TAN, Petitioner, -versus- SY TIONG GUE, FELICIDAD
CHAN SY, SY CHIM, SY TIONG SAN, SY YU BUN, SY YU SHIONG, SY YU SAN, and BRYAN
SY LIM,
Respondents. |
G.R. No. 174570 Present: VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, PERALTA, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: December
15, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I O N
PERALTA, J.:
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
petition is GRANTED. The Decision and Resolution dated December
29, 2005 and August 18, 2006, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 81389 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Orders of the RTC dated
On
In
his Comment[3] dated
July 7, 2010, petitioner maintains that the motion is a mere reiteration of
what respondents have previously alleged in their Comment and which have been
passed upon by this Court in the subject decision. Petitioner alleges that he also filed with
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila a Complaint for Qualified Theft
against the respondents based on the same incidents and that should the
Information for Qualified Theft be filed with the proper court, the items
seized by virtue of the subject search warrants will be used as evidence
therein.
On
On
On
In granting the motion to withdraw
the Information, the RTC took into consideration the Amended Decision of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 90368 dated August 29, 2006, which
affirmed the findings of the City Prosecutor of Manila and the Secretary of
Justice that the elements of Robbery, i.e.,
unlawful taking with intent to gain, with force and intimidation, were absent.
Thus, there was lack of probable cause, warranting the withdrawal of the
Information.[6] The RTC also considered that the said
pronouncements of the CA were affirmed by no less than this Court in G.R. No.
177829 in the Resolution[7]
dated
Accordingly, the RTC granted
respondents’ motion to withdraw the information without prejudice, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the motion to withdraw information is hereby GRANTED and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
Consequently, in view of the withdrawal
of the Information for Robbery, the quashal of the subject search warrants and
the determination of the issue of whether or not there was probable cause
warranting the issuance by the RTC of
the said search warrants for respondents’ alleged acts of robbery has been
rendered moot and academic. Verily,
there is no more reason to further delve into the propriety of the quashal of
the search warrants as it has no more practical legal effect.[8]
Furthermore, even if an Information
for Qualified Theft be later filed on the basis of the same incident subject
matter of the dismissed case of robbery, petitioner cannot include the seized
items as part of the evidence therein. Contrary
to petitioner’s contention, he cannot use the items seized as evidence in any
other offense except in that in which the subject search warrants were issued. Section 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of
Court provides:
Section 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A search warrant shall not issue except 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 things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.
Thus, a search warrant may be issued
only if there is probable cause in connection with only one specific offense alleged in an application on the basis of the
applicant’s personal knowledge and his or her witnesses. Petitioner cannot, therefore, utilize the
evidence seized by virtue of the search warrants issued in connection with the
case of Robbery in a separate case of Qualified Theft, even if both cases
emanated from the same incident.
Moreover, considering that the
withdrawal of the Information was based on the findings of the CA, as affirmed
by this Court, that there was no probable cause to indict respondents for the
crime of Robbery absent the essential element of unlawful taking, which is
likewise an essential element for the crime of Qualified Theft, all offenses
which are necessarily included in the crime of Robbery can no longer be filed,
much more, prosper.
Based on the foregoing, the Court
resolves to Grant the motion.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the respondents is
GRANTED. The Decision of this Court dated
February 17, 2010 is RECONSIDERED
and SET ASIDE. The petition filed by Romer Sy Tan is DENIED for being MOOT and ACADEMIC.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify
that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 241-251.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] CA-G.R. SP No. 90368, Amended
Decision dated
[7] Rollo (Sy Siy Ho & SONA, Inc. v. Sy Tiong Gui, at al., G.R. No. 177829), pp. 906-907.
[8] See Drugmaker’s Laboratories, Inc. v. Jose, G.R. No. 128766, October 9, 2006, 504 SCRA 9.