Search-and-seizure-cases.docx - G.R No 165306 MANLY SPORTWEAR MANUFACTURING INC petitioner vs DADODETTE ENTERPRISES AND\/OR HERMES SPORTS CENTER

Search-and-seizure-cases.docx - G.R No 165306 MANLY...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 17 pages.

G.R. No. 165306. September 20, 2005.*MANLY SPORTWEAR MANUFACTURING, INC., petitioner, vs.DADODETTE ENTERPRISES AND/ORHERMES SPORTS CENTER, respondents.Searches and Seizures; Search Warrants; Quashal of Warrants;Courts; After the judge has issued awarrant, he is not precluded to subsequently quash the same, if he finds upon reevaluation of the evidencethat no probable cause exists.—The power to issue search warrants is exclusively vested with the trial judgesin the exercise of their judicial function. As such, the power to quash the same also rests solely with them.After the judge has issued a warrant, he is not precluded to subsequently quash the same, if he finds uponreevaluation of the evidence that no probable cause exists. Our ruling in Solid Triangle Sales Corp. v. Sheriff,RTC, Q.C., Br. 93is instructive, thus: Inherent in the courts’ power to issue search warrants is the power toquash warrants already issued. In this connection, this Court has ruled that the motion to quash should befiled in the court that issued the warrant unless a criminal case has already been instituted in another court,in which case, the motion should be filed with the latter. The ruling has since been incorporated in Rule 126of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.Same; Same; Same; Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 8293); Copyrights; Wherethe copyrighted products do not appear to be original creations and are not among the classes of workenumerated under Section 172 of RA 8293, the trial court may not be faulted for overturning its initialassessment that there was probable cause to issue search warrant and to quash the same.—In the instantcase, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it entertained the motion to quashconsidering that no criminal action has yet been instituted when it was filed. The trial court also properlyquashed the search warrant it earlier issued after finding upon reevaluation of the evidence that no probablecause exists to justify its issuance in the first place. As ruled by the trial court, the copyrighted products donot appear to be original creations of MANLY and are not among the classes of work enumerated underSection 172 of RA 8293. The trial court, thus, may not be faulted for overturning its initial assessment thatthere was probable cause in view of its inherent power to issue search warrants and to quash the same. Noobjection may be validly posed to an order quashing a warrant already issued as the court must be providedwith the opportunity to correct itself of an error unwittingly committed, or, with like effect, to allow theaggrieved party the chance to convince the court that its ruling is erroneous.Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; In determination of the existence of probable cause for the issuanceor quashal of a warrant, it is inevitable that the court may touch on issues properly threshed out in a regularproceeding.—The trial court was acting within bounds when it ruled, in an ancillary proceeding, that the
Background image
Image of page 2

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture