PEOPLE V CHOI

GR 152950
August 3, 2006
Facts:
Mario Nieto, an intelligence operative of the
Department of Finance, applied for a search warrant
against Choi for violation of the Intellectual Property
Code. (fake Marlboro red cigarettes and cardboard
cases)
After examination of the applicant and the witnesses,
the judge issued the search warrant. Search was
conducted the same day.
Choi questioned the validity of the search warrant
before the RTC and the CA, arguing that probable
cause was not sufficiently established because the
examination conducted was not probing and
exhaustive.
Moreover,
the
warrant
did
not
particularly describe the place to be searched.
CA ruled that the judge committed GADLEJ in relying
upon the conclusion of the witness that the
cigarettes he received from Choi were fake, without
requiring the presentation of the alleged fake
cigarettes and genuine ones for comparison.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in issuing a
search warrant
Ruling:
No. A search warrant can be issued upon a finding of
probable cause.
Probable cause for a search has been defined as such
facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that
an offense has been committed and that the objects
sought in connection with the offense are in the place
sought to be searched.

In determining the existence of probable cause, it is

required that:
o The judge must examine the complaint and
his witnesses personally
o The examination must be under oath
o The examination must be reduced in writing in
the form of searching questions and answers
Although there is no hard and fast rule governing
how a judge should conduct his examination, it is
necessary that the examination must be probing and
exhaustive, not merely routinary, general, peripheral,
perfunctory, or pro forma. The judge must not simply
rehash the contents of the affidavit but make his own
inquiry on the intent and justification of the
application.
The determination of probable cause does not call for
the application of rules and standards of proof that a
judgment of conviction requires after trial on the
merits. Probable cause is concerned with probability,
not absolute or even moral certainty. The standards
of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man,
not the exacting calibrations of a judge after fullblown trial.
The questions of the judge during the examination in
this case were sufficiently probing, and not at all
superficial and perfunctory. The testimonies were
consistent with each other, and the narration of facts
was credible. The testimonies and other evidence on
record constituted adequate bases to establish
probable cause that the alleged offense has been
committed.
Since probable cause is dependent largely on the
opinion and findings of the judge, the findings of the
judge deserve great weight, and may only be
overturned when there is clear disregard of the facts
before him and dictates of reason, which is not
present in this case.