265 - washington v ca

7/24/2019 265 - Washington v CA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/265-washington-v-ca 1/4

WASHINGTON Distillers, Inc., Manuel Kehyeng et al v Courto A!!eals an" #a Ton"ea Distillers, Inc

August 22, 1996 | Mendoza, J. | Nature of search warrantsDigester: Angat, Christine Jo !.

S$MMA%&' "a #ondea $%ed a co&'%aint with the N() a%%egingthat *ashington is i%%ega%% using the %i+uor ott%es which had aregistered 'atent. After conducting a sur-ei%%ance and dea%er

'oser o'eration in the /a&'anga warehouse of *ashington, theN() $%ed for a search warrant with the 0#C of Mani%a which wasgranted. ( -irtue of said warrant, N() seized the ott%es fro& the/a&'anga warehouse. *ashington $%ed in the 0#C of an!ernando /a&'anga a &otion to +uash the search warrant issued the Mani%a 0#C the an!ernando 0#C granted the +uasha%saing that such order was outside the 3urisdiction of Mani%a 0#Cand that the grounds for issuance %ac4ed 'roa%e cause. CAre-ersed. #he C granted the 'etition.

DOCT%IN(' A search warrant 'roceeding is not a cri&ina% action,&uch %ess a ci-i% action. )t is a s'ecia% cri&ina% 'rocess, the orderof issuance of which cannot and does not ad3udicate the

'er&anent status or character of the seized 'ro'ert. )t cannottherefore e resorted to as a &eans of ac+uiring 'ro'ert or ofsett%ing a dis'ute o-er the sa&e.

C%IM(' 5io%ation of 0e'u%ic Act No. 62 7%aw re%ating to 'atent'rotection8

ACTION' /etition for re-iew on certiorari under 0u%e

)ACTS'

• /etitioner *ashington Disti%%ers, )nc., 7*ashington8 owned ;eheng, is a do&estic cor'oration with 'rinci'a% o<ice andusiness address at ta. "ucia, an !ernando, /a&'anga. )t isengaged in the &anufacture of %i+uor 'roducts, under the%ae%s =in e-en, *ashington =in 6, "uzon and Anisado, usingas containers >cc round white ?int ott%es with %ownin&ar4s of "a #ondea, )nc. and =inera an Migue%.

• "a #ondea Disti%%ers, )nc., 7"a #ondea8 a do&estic cor'orationengaged in the usiness of &anufacture and sa%e of wines and%i+uors. A&ong 'ri-ate res'ondents 'roducts is a gin 'o'u%ar%4nown as =inera an Migue%, which is ott%ed and so%d in>cc round white ?int ott%es es'ecia%% ordered 'ri-ateres'ondent for its e@c%usi-e use, with %ownin &ar4s "a

#ondea, )nc. and =inera an Migue%. #he trade&ar4s areregistered with the (ureau of /atents.

• "a #ondea $%ed a co&'%aint with the Nationa% (ureau of)n-estigation 7N()8 a%%eging that *ashington has een i%%ega%%using, uing, se%%ing or tra<ic4ing "a #ondeas used orsecondhand 'atented ott%es.o N() acted on the co&'%aint conducting a sur-ei%%ance

o'eration of *ashingtons warehouse in /a&'anga and

so&e of its agents 'osed as 3un4 dea%ers to get into the saidwarehouse

o N()s agents con$r&ed the storage of thousands of "a#ondeas ott%es and attested to such fact in their a<ida-it

o N() $%ed for search warrant with the 0#C of Mani%a

• #he 0#C of Mani%a granted the issued a search warrant to theN() which the %atter used to search the 're&ises of*ashington for the a%%eged -io%ation of 0A No. 62.

• ( -irtue of said warrant, the N() was a%e to seize &ore than>>4 ott%es and stored the sa&e in "a #ondeas warehouse asthe N() had no s'ace to store the&.

%TC San )ernan"o, *a+!anga• *ashington $%ed a &otion to +uash with the 0#C of an

!ernando, /a&'anga. Arguing:o 0#C of Mani%a had no 3urisdiction to issue a search warrant

to e e@ecuted in an !ernando, /a&'angao there was no 'roa%e cause for issuing the search warrant

ecause 0.A. No. 62 does not co-er registered ott%es of%i+uor &anufacturers, and granting arguendo, no actioncou%d e instituted against 'etitioners ecause the ott%eshad %awfu%% een so%d to the&.

o "a #ondea was gui%t of foru&sho''ing ecause twice it

had a''%ied for a search warrant o-er the sa&e su3ectwith the 0#C of an !ernando, which was oth +uashed for%ac4 of 'roa%e cause

CA'

• "a #ondea went u' to the CA wa of certiorari contendingthat contending that Assisting Judge Desca%%ar had no 3urisdiction to +uash a search warrant issued another 3udgeecause a &otion to +uash shou%d e $%ed with the sa&e courtwhich issued the search warrant, es'ecia%% so in this caseecause Jdg. De %a 0osa a%%eged% issued the search warrant inhis ca'acit as e@ecuti-e 3udge.



• CA set aside the 0#C decision and he%d that fo%%owing the Cru%ing in Malaloan v CA Bdecided in 199 wherein a searchwarrant &a e enforced outside the territoria% 3urisdiction ofthe 0egiona% #ria% Court of Mani%a. )n addition, it was he%d that,as assisting 3udge, the on. Desca%%ar did not ha-e authorit to+uash the search warrant issued Jdg. De %a 0osa in hisca'acit as e@ecuti-e 3udge.

%$#ING' /etition granted. CA re-ersed and 0#C reinstated. #hedecision of the Court of A''ea%s shou%d e re-ersed ecause:- #he search warrant issued against 'etitioners %ost its -a%idit

as a resu%t of the fai%ure of the N() to co&&ence cri&ina%'rosecution and the ott%es seized fro& the& shou%d ereturned to 'etitioners in the asence of an ci-i% action fortheir reco-er.

- 0es'ondent Judge Desca%%ar, as assisting 3udge of (ranchEE5))) of the 0#C of Mani%a, had authorit to +uash the searchwarrant issued the regu%ar 3udge, on. De %a 0osa.

- A%though res'ondent Judge Desca%%ars ru%ing that thesecond warrant cou%d not e enforced in an !ernando,

/a&'anga is erroneous in -iew of our %ater ru%ing in Malaloan v. Court of Appeals, his ru%ing shou%d ha-e eensustained on the other ground on which it is ased, i.e., -io%ation 'ri-ate res'ondent "a #ondea of the ru%e againstforu&sho''ing in otaining the search warrant.

Whether #a Ton"ea has authority or ca!acity to le the!etition or certiorari -ith the CA as it is not a !arty to thesearch -arrant !rocee"ings, the search -arrant issue" inthe na+e o the *eo!le u!on a!!lication o the NI / NO, itshoul"0ve 1een the NI contesting such 2uashal. /etitioners argue that 'ri-ate res'ondent had no 'ersona%it

to ring the action for certiorari in the Court of A''ea%secause the 'roceedings for a search warrant were rought the N() in eha%f of the /eo'%e and 'ri-ate res'ondent "a#ondea Disti%%ers, )nc. cannot re'resent the /eo'%e. As thus'ut, the contention disregards ru%ings of this Court in se-era%cases recognizing the right of 'arties at whose instance searchwarrants are a''%ied for to +uestion orders +uashing thesearch warrants. owe-er, there is a sense in which'etitioners contention is correct. )n those cases in which'ri-ate 'arties were a%%owed to ring suits, the 'arties werethe co&'%ainants or o<ended 'arties in 'ending cri&ina%'rosecutions or in cases where at %east 're'arator ste's had

een ta4en to co&&ence cri&ina% 'rosecution and the searchwarrant was issued in those cases either as an incident of the'ending action or in antici'ation thereof.

• (ut, in the case at ar, there has een not e-en an atte&'t to'rosecute for -io%ation of 0.A. No. 62, 'ursuant to which thea''%ication for search warrant was ostensi% &ade. #he N(),which a''%ied for the search warrant in 199, did not $%e ancase against 'etitioners. *hen 'etitioners $%ed a &otion to

+uash the search warrant, the N() did not o''ose the&otion. Fn% 'ri-ate res'ondent "a #ondea did.• )ndeed, what is noticea%e aout this case is that 'ossession of

the ott%es was transferred to 'ri-ate res'ondent through thee@'edienc of a search warrant, so that instead of &ere% eingan anci%%ar writ issued either as an incident of cri&ina%'roceedings or in antici'ation of such 'roceedings, the'roceedings for a search warrant ha-e eco&e, for a%% intentsand 'ur'oses, the &ain 'roceedings which 'ri-ateres'ondent ha-e een a%e to otain 'ossession of what itc%ai&s to e its 'ro'ert. Gn%i4e in an ordinar action, howe-er,there was neither co&'%aint which 'etitioners cou%d ha-e

een infor&ed of the charge against the& nor answer whichthe cou%d ha-e een heard in their defense, efore 'ro'ertc%ai&ed the& was ta4en fro& the& and gi-en to 'ri-ateres'ondent.

• Contrar to the re+uire&ent of 0u%e 126, that 'ro'ert seized -irtue of a search warrant &ust e de'osited in custodialegis, the N() de%i-ered the ott%es to the 'ri-ate res'ondent"a #ondea. )t is c%ai&ed that this was done ecause there wasno '%ace for storage either at the N() co&'ound or in the're&ises of the 0#C.#his is not a good e@cuse. o&e '%acecou%d ha-e een found or rented for the 'ur'ose, ut thede%i-er of the ott%es to 'ri-ate res'ondent cannot e &ade

without gi-ing the i&'ression that 'ri-ate res'ondent has eengi-en 'ossession of ott%es c%ai&ed 'etitioners to ha-e een%awfu%% ac+uired the&.

• #here were se-era% atte&'ts "a #ondea to seize the ott%es:o )ndeed, it wou%d see& that 'ri-ate res'ondent "a #ondea

%ater rought the certiorari 'roceedings in the Court of A''ea%s &ain% in order to 4ee' the ott%es in its 'ossessionand not rea%% as %ega% custodian, in antici'ation of acri&ina% 'roceeding. /ri-ate res'ondent had eenfrustrated not on% in a''%ing for a search warrant to the0#C at an !ernando, /a&'anga.



o )t $%ed a re'%e-in case against 'etitioners in 19HI, utagain it %ost, and it had to ring an a''ea% which, u' to theti&e it a''%ied for a search warrant to the Mani%a 0#C, wassti%% 'ending in the Court of A''ea%s.

o )t desired to &aintain the search warrant wou%d eunderstanda%e if there was a cri&ina% action. (ut therewas none. #o &a4e &atters worse, when the de'ut sheri<,(en3a&in =arrido, tried to reco-er the seized ott%es fro&

"a #ondeas warehouse where the had een de'osited, in -iew of the +uasha% of the search warrant, the ott%es cou%dnot e found.

• "a #ondea a%%eged that it owned the su3ect 'ro'ert a readingof the 0A 62 wi%% re-ea% that unauthorized use /etitionersof "#D) ott%es with &ar4s =inera an Migue% and "a #ondea,)nc. is i%%ega%. ence, ha-ing een "e!rive" o its !ro!erty ,0es'ondent "#D), with the assistance of the agents of theNationa% (ureau of )n-estigation a''%ied for a searchwarrant, in or"er to recover its o-n 1ottles , on% to $nd out%ater that the said search warrant was +uashed without gi-ing"#D) the o''ortunit to su&it e-idence in su''ort of its

o''osition to +uash search warrant.• (ut 'ri-ate res'ondents are c%ai& of ownershi' does not

entit%e it to an award of the 'ossession of the seized ott%esthrough the e@'edienc of search warrant 'roceedings. #hetit%e to and 'ossession of the ott%es are -er &uch dis'uted,'etitioners ha-ing asserted ownershi' of the sa&e 'ro'ert %awfu% ac+uisition for -a%ue, in addition in-o4ing of 0.A. No.62 as a defense. #hese considerations 'rec%ude 'ri-ateres'ondents 'ossession of the 'ro'ert under the searchwarrant.

• )ndeed in Vlasons Enterprises Corporation v. Court of Appeals, we he%d, through then Justice Nar-asa, that if no cri&ina% case

is instituted after the seizure &ade 'ursuant to a searchwarrant, the 'ro'ert seized shou%d e de%i-ered to its rightfu%owner, or at %east to the 'erson fro& who& it had eenseized. #he 'ro'ert cou%d not e 'er&itted to sta in a'er'etua% state of custodia legis. #o sustain the cha%%engeddecision of the Court of A''ea%s in this case wou%d e to 4ee'the seized ott%es in a 'er'etua% state of custodia legis, if not togi-e their custod to 'ri-ate res'ondent for an inde$nite'eriod of ti&e, the e<ect of which wou%d e the su&&arad3udication of the 'ossession of the ott%es in fa-or of 'ri-ateres'ondent without the ene$t of a 'ro'er action for that

'ur'ose. #his certain% cannot e countenanced under anregi&e.

• A search warrant 'roceeding is not a cri&ina% action, &uch%ess a ci-i% action. )t is a s'ecia% cri&ina% 'rocess, the order ofissuance of which cannot and does not ad3udicate the'er&anent status or character of the seized 'ro'ert. )t cannottherefore e resorted to, as was done here 'ri-ateres'ondent, as a &eans of ac+uiring 'ro'ert or of sett%ing a

dis'ute o-er the sa&e. #he 'ro'er re&ed is for 'ri-ateres'ondent or for the =o-ern&ent itse%f, assu&ing the ro%e of asta4eho%der, to ring the a''ro'riate action.

Whether 3u"ge De #a %osa ha" no authority in issuing asearch -arrant outsi"e o his court0s territorial 4uris"iction/ NO, 3"g. De #a %osa ha" 4uris"iction to issue such -arrant. #he Court of A''ea%s, citing the ru%ing in Malaloan v. Court of

Appeals, he%d that the 0#C of Mani%a had no authorit to issue awarrant e<ecti-e outside its territoria% 3urisdiction. #his issuewas not raised the 'ri-ate res'ondent in their 'etitionfor certiorari. A%though this is a +uestion aout 3urisdiction it is

not a &atter which cou%d e raised in a certiorari 'roceeding.• #he 0#C &a ha-e erred in ho%ding that the warrant issued

Judge De %a 0osa cou%d not e enforced outside the territoria% 3urisdiction of the 0#C of Mani%a ut this is not a 3urisdictiona%error correcti%e certiorari. #he fact is that Judge Desca%%ardid not act without 3urisdiction or in e@cess of his 3urisdictionor with gra-e ause of discretion.

• )t cannot e said that, in ru%ing that the search warrant cou%dnot e enforced in an !ernando, /a&'anga, Judge Desca%%aracted with gra-e ause of discretion disregarding a decisionof this Court. !or Judge Desca%%ar issued his order on August1, 199, whereas our decision in Malaloan ca&e down on% on

Ma 6, 199.• *hat is &ore, as this Court said, the +uestion was primae

impressionis. )n fact there &a e a serious 'ro%e& ofretroacti-it in a''%ing the new ru%ing in this case. (ut fornow it is enough to sa that the error sought to e corrected certiorari 'ri-ate res'ondent "a #ondea was not an errorof 3urisdiction ut if at a%%, on% an error of 3udg&ent.

Whether 3"g. Descallar0s authority as assisting 4u"ge to2uash the -arrant issue" 1y (5ec. 3"g. De #a %osa -as notin or"er / NO, such -as in or"er.



*ashington contends that, contrar to the ru%ing of the Court of A''ea%s, Judge Desca%%ar had authorit to +uash the searchwarrant 're-ious% issued Judge De %a 0osa.

• #his contention is we%% ta4en. )t is sett%ed that a 3udge &are-o4e the orders of another 3udge in a %itigation suse+uent%assigned to hi&. )n this case, the fact that Judge De %a 0osawas the e@ecuti-e 3udge is not &ateria%, ecause 3urisdiction is -ested in the court, not in hi& qua e@ecuti-e 3udge.

A''%ications for search warrant are &ade to the e@ecuti-e

3udge on% for ad&inistrati-e 'ur'oses. Judge Desca%%ar, asassisting 3udge, was co&'etent to reso%-e the &otion see4ingto +uash the search warrant.

• Nor is there asis for 'ri-ate res'ondents c%ai& that Judge

Desca%%ar did not conduct a 'ersona% e@a&ination ofco&'%ainant efore he issued his order. #he re+uire&ent of'ersona% e@a&ination refers to the deter&ination of 'roa%ecause for 'ur'oses of issuing a search warrant, not to reso%-e a

&otion to +uash such warrant.

265 - washington v ca

Documents