Case Digest: Romer Sy Tan vs Sy Tiong Gue

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
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.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Ebralinag vs The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR No 95770 95887

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Ebralinag, et al. vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR Nos. 95770 and 95887                                                     March 1, 1993 Facts: The petitioners (Ebralinag, et al.) are elementary and high school students who were expelled from their classes by public school authorities for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by RA 1265 and Department Order No. 8 of the DepEd. Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of worship" or "religious devotion” which they "cannot conscientiously give . . . to anyone or anything except God". They feel bound by the Bible's command to "guard ourselves from idols — 1 John 5:21". They consider the flag as an image or idol representing the State (p. 10, Rollo). They think the action of th
Read more

Tax Case Digest: ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita GR No 168056

By PactaSuntServanda -
ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita G.R. No. 168056                                       September 1, 2005 Facts: ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for prohibition o questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).  Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties; Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods; and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties; These provisions contain a provision which authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after specified conditions have been satisfied. Issues: Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution. Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28(2) of the
Read more

Case Digest: Estrada vs Escritor 492 SCRA 1 AM No P-02-1651

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Estrada vs. Escritor, 492 SCRA 1, A.M. No. P-02-1651,  August 4, 2003 Facts: Escritor is the Court Interpreter of RTC Branch 253 of Las Piñas City. Estrada requested an investigation of respondent for cohabiting with a man not her husband and having a child with the latter while she was still married.Estrada believes  that Escritor is committing a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the image of the judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed  therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. Escritor admitted the above-mentioned allegations but denies any liability for the alleged gross immoral conduct for the reason that she is a member of the religious sect Jehovah’s Witness and Watch Tower Society and her conjugal arrangement is approved and is in conformity with her religious beliefs. She further alleged that they executed a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” in accordance with her religion which allows members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who h
Read more