Case Digest: Romer Sy Tan vs Sy Tiong Gue

Romer Sy Tan vs Sy Tiong Gue, et al.

G.R. No. 174570                                                                December 15, 2010

Facts:

Petitioner (Romer Sy Tan) filed a criminal case against respondents (Tiong Gue, et al.). The Respondents moved for the withdrawal of the information which was subsequently granted by the RTC on the ground that the information for robbery did not contain the essential elements of robbery as decided upon by the Court of Appeals on an prior complaint. Hence the case was dismissed. Now the petitioner, seeking shelter from the Supreme Court contended that he filed information for qualified theft based on the same subject matter of the dismissed robbery and would like to use the item seized in the previously conducted search for the new information of qualified theft.

Issue:

Whether or not the items seized in the previously conducted search warrant issued by the court for robbery be included and used for the filing of for an information for qualified theft.

Ruling:

No, petitioner cannot iclude the seized items as part of the evidence in the new information. Sec. 4 of Rule 126 of the 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 the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.

Thus, as 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. Therefore, petitioner cannot utilize the evidence seized by virtue of the search warrant issued in connection with the case of robbery in a separate case of qualified theft, even if both cases emanated form the same incident. Also, the withdrawal of the information was justifiable, since there was no probable cause as to indict respondents of the crime of robbery since unlawful taking which is an essential element for Robbery and likewise for Qualified Theft is not present.