YAO v.

PEOPLE
Facts:
Petitioners are incorporators and officers of Masagana Gas Corporation, engaged in the refilling, sale and distribution of LPG products. Private respondents Petron
and Shell are two (2) of the largest bul suppliers and prioducers and LPG in the Philippines. Petron is the registered owner of the trade!ars G"S#L annd G"S#L
c$linders used for its LPG products. Shell owns the !ars S%&LL"'& and S%&LL. Petron and Shell are the onl$ corporations authori(ed to allow refillers and
distributors to refill, use, sell and distribute LPG using their respective !ared c$linders.
')* "gent +blanca filed two (2) applications for search warrant with Cavite Cit$ ,-C for alleged violation of Section .// in relation to Section .01 of the *PC. -he
applications for search warrant allege that petitioners are producing and distributing LPG products using respondent2s containers and bearing the
tradena!es3trade!ar owned b$ Petron and Shell, without their authorit$. "ttached to the applications were affidavits e4ecuted b$ "la5ar who was hired b$
respondents to carr$ out their )rand Protection Progra!. "la5ar was with +blanca when the for!er conducted surveillance and test6bu$s at petitioner2s plant. ,-C
issued the search warrants.
Petitioners filed a Motion to 7uash Search 8arrant alleging that there was no probable cause for their issuance. Masagana Corporation, as a third part$ clai!ant
filed a Motion for ,eturn of Motor Co!pressor and LPG ,efilling Machine clai!ing that said !achines were used in the operation of its legiti!ate business. ,-C
denied both !otions. -he court ruled that ownership b$ another of the sei(ed ite!s is not a ground to order their return6 what is i!portant is that the ite!s sei(ed
were used or intended to be used a !eans of co!!itting the offense co!plained of. C" affir!ed ,-C.
Petitioners allege that +blanca and "la5ar had no personal nowledge on !atters the$ testified to and that the$ lied when the$ said the$ were the ones who
conducted the test6bu$ (receipts did not bear the na!es of +blanca and "la5ar). *f indeed the$ were the one who conducted the test6bu$s, the$ should have
!entioned it in their search warrant applications.
Issue9 8as the search warrant valid: YES
Held: Petition is ;&'*&;.
Ratio:
Probable Cause
" search warrant can be issued onl$ upon a finding of probable cause. Probable cause for search warrant !eans such facts and circu!stances which would lead a
reasonabl$ discreet and prudent !an to believe that an offense has been co!!itted and that the ob5ects sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be
searched. -he facts and circu!stances being referred thereto pertain to facts, data or infor!ation personall$ nown to the applicant and the witnesses he !a$
present.-he applicant or his witnesses !ust have personal nowledge of the circu!stances surrounding the co!!ission of the offense being co!plained of.
<,eliable infor!ation= is insufficient. Mere affidavits are not enough, and the 5udge !ust depose in writing the co!plainant and his witnesses.
"ccording to Section .//.., !ere unauthori(ed use of a container bearing a registered trade!ar in connection with the sale, distribution or advertising of goods or
services which is likely to cause confusion, !istae or deception a!ong the bu$ers3consu!ers can be considered as trade!ar infringe!ent.
*n his sworn affidavits, +blanca stated that as per his investigation, Masagana is not authori(ed to sell or refill G"S#L and S%&LL"'& LPG containers. %e liewise
said that he conducted surveillance and test6bu$s with "la5ar and that refilling of the respondent2s containers were done in their presence. -esti!onial and
docu!entar$ evidence show that +blanca and "la5ar have personal nowledge of the fact that petitioners have been using respondent2s containers. -hat is sufficient
to establish probable cause -he standards of 5usdge!ent are those of a reasonabl$ prudent !an, not the e4acting calibrations of a 5udge after full blown trial.
-he fact that +blanca and "la5ar used different na!ed does not negate personal nowledge on their part. *t is co!!on practice during covert operations to use
different na!es to conceal their true identies. -he argu!ent that +blanca and "la5ar should have !entioned such !atter during the preli!inar$ investigation is
puerile. -here is no law re>uiring that applicants !ention that during P*.
Searching Questions
-he searching >uestions propounded to the applicant and the witnesses depend largel$ on the discretion of the 5udge. "lthough there is no hard6and?fast rule
governing how a 5udge should conduct his investigation, it is a4io!atic that the e4a!ination !ust be probing and e4haustive, not !erel$ routinar$, general,
peripheral, perfunctor$ or pro for!a. -he 5udge !ust not si!pl$ rehash the contents of the affidavit but !ust !ae his own in>uir$ on the intent and 5ustification of
the application. "fter perusing the -ranscript of Stenographic 'otes of the preli!inar$ e4a!ination, we found the >uestions of @udge Sadang to be sufficientl$
probing, not at all superficial and perfunctor$. -he testi!onies of +blanca and "la5ar were consistent with each other and their narration of facts was credible.
Authority to file application for search warrant
Petitioner clai!s that 5udge erred when he did not >uestion the authorit$ of +blanca to file applications for search warrant. +blanca is a !e!ber of the "nti6
+rgani(ed Cri!e Group of the ')*. Petitioner asserts that for intellectual propert$ cases, the *ntellectual Propert$ ;ivision should be the one conducting the
investigation and filing for such warrants. -he fact that +blanca is a !e!ber of the "nti6+rgani(ed Cri!e ;ivision and not that of the *ntellectual Propert$ ;ivision
does not abrogate his authorit$ to appl$ for search warrant. "s aptl$ stated b$ the ,-C and the Court of "ppeals, there is nothing in the provisions on search warrant
under ,ule .2A of the ,evised ,ules on Cri!inal Procedure, which specificall$ co!!ands that the applicant law enforcer !ust be a !e!ber of a division that is
assigned or related to the sub5ect cri!e or offense before the application for search warrant !a$ be acted upon.
Place of search
-he long standing rule is that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identif$ the
place intended and distinguish it fro! other places in the co!!unit$. "n$ designation or description nown to the localit$ that points out the place to the e4clusion of
all others, and on in>uir$ leads the officers unerringl$ to it, satisfies the constitutional re>uire!ent. Moreover, in the deter!ination of whether a search warrant
describes the pre!ises to be searched with sufficient particularit$, it has been held that the e4ecuting officerBs prior nowledge as to the place intended in the warrant
is relevant. -his would see! to be especiall$ true where the e4ecuting officer is the affiant on whose affidavit the warrant had been issued, and when he nows that
the 5udge who issued the warrant intended the co!pound described in the affidavit. *t appears that the raiding tea! had ascertained and reached M"S"G"'"
co!pound without difficult$ since M"S"G"'" does not have an$ other offices3plants in -rece Martires, Cavite Cit$. Moreover, +blanca, who was with the raiding
tea!, was alread$ fa!iliar with the M"S"G"'" co!pound as he and "la5ar had !onitored and conducted test6bu$s thereat.
Products seized
" search warrant !a$ be said to particularl$ describe the things to be sei(ed when the description therein is as specific as the circu!stances will ordinaril$ allowC or
when the description e4presses a conclusion of fact not of law b$ which the warrant officer !a$ be guided in !aing the search and sei(ureC or when the things
described are li!ited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. 8hile it is true that the propert$ to be sei(ed under a
warrant !ust be particularl$ described therein and no other propert$ can be taen thereunder, $et the description is re>uired to be specific onl$ in so far as the
circu!stances will ordinaril$ allow. -he law does not re>uire that the things to be sei(ed !ust be described in precise and !inute details as to leave no roo! for
doubt on the part of the searching authoritiesC otherwise it would be virtuall$ i!possible for the applicants to obtain a search warrant as the$ would not now e4actl$
what ind of things the$ are looing for. +nce described, however, the articles sub5ect of the search and sei(ure need not be so invariant as to re>uire absolute
concordance, in our view, between those sei(ed and those described in the warrant. Substantial si!ilarit$ of those articles described as a class or specie would
suffice. Measured against this standard, we find that the ite!s to be sei(ed under the search warrants in >uestion were sufficientl$ described with particularit$.
"dditionall$, since the described ite!s are clearl$ li!ited onl$ to those which bear direct relation to the offense, i.e., violation of section .// of ,epublic "ct 'o. D2EF,
for which the warrant was issued, the re>uire!ent of particularit$ of description is satisfied.
*t is apparent that the !otor co!pressor, LPG refilling !achine and the G"S#L and S%&LL LPG c$linders sei(ed were the corpus delicti, the bod$ or substance of
the cri!e, or the evidence of the co!!ission of trade!ar infringe!ent. -hese were the ver$ instru!ents used or intended to be used b$ the petitioners in
trade!ar infringe!ent. *t is possible that, if returned to M"S"G"'", these ite!s will be used again in violating the intellectual propert$ rights of Petron and
Pilipinas Shell. -hus, the ,-C was 5ustified in den$ing the petitionersB !otion for their return so as to prevent the petitioners and3or M"S"G"'" fro! using the!
again in trade!ar infringe!ent.
PetitionersB reliance on Section 21 of ".M. 'o. 126.61A6SC, is not tenable. "s correctl$ observed b$ the Solicitor General, ".M. 126.61A6SC is not applicable in the
present case because it governs onl$ searches and sei(ures in civil actions for infringe!ent of intellectual propert$ rights. -he offense co!plained of herein is for
cri!inal violation of Section .// in relation to Section .01 of ,epublic "ct 'o. D2EF.