FRANK UY and UNIFISH PACKING CORPORATION, petitioners, vs.

BUREAU OF INTERNAL
REVENUE and HON. MERCEDES GOZO-DADOLE, respondents.

G.R. No. 129651. October 20, 2000

Facts:

Rodrigo Abos who was a former employee of UNifish Packing corporation, reported to the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) that Unifish and Uy Chin Ho alias Frank Uy were evading taxes by issuing unregistered
receipts and delivery receipts only. Uy Chin Ho a director of UNIFISH buys in bulk from the company. He
dictates the number of goods, delivers it to the different supermarkets such as White Gold, Gaisano, etc.
Payments are made by checks drawn payable to cash and delivered to Uy Chin Ho which are also not receipted.
Uy Chin Ho will then pay UNIFISH for the quantity of sardines he had withdrawn from the corporation.
Another fraudulent practice is the sale of Soy oil and cans to other companies. The importation of oil and cans
were exempted from tax provided that that the company will only use it for processing tuna. But the company
sold the said materials to the local customers.

PREMIER INDUSTRIAL & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION which used to manage UNIFISH; [a]t

that time was also committing the same fraudulent acts. After hearing the depositions of Labaria, Assistant
Chief of the Special Investigation Branch of the BIR and Abos, Judge Mercedes Gozo-Dadole issued the
disputed search warrants. Agents of the BIR, accompanied by members of the Philippine National Police,
searched the premises of the Unifish Packing Corporation and seized, the records and documents of petitioner
corporation. BIR filed against petitioners a case before the Department of Justice. The records, however, do not
reveal the nature of this case. Petitioners filed motions to quash the subject search warrants with the RTC but
was denied as well as their subsequent motion for reconsideration.

Petitioners file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals but was dismissed holding that petitioners
failed to comply with Section 2(a), Rule 6 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA),
which states:

a. What Should be Filed. - The petition shall be filed in seven (7) legible copies and a copy thereof shall be
served on each of the respondents, and must be accompanied by a certified true copy of the decision or order
complained of and true copies of the pleadings and other pertinent documents and papers. 

The CA also held that certiorari was not the proper remedy to question the resolution denying the
motion to quash stating that Certiorari should not be allowed where petitioner has other remedies available: a
petition for reinvestigation; the right to post bail; a Motion to Quash the Information; and in case of denial, an
appeal, after judgment on the merits. Additionally, CA ruled, no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction was committed by the RTC in the issuance of the warrants. Petitioners claim that they did submit to
the CA certified true copies of the pleadings and documents listed above along with their Petition, as well as in
their Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioners contend that there are several defects in the subject warrants such
as inconsistencies in the description of the place to be searched in Search Warrant A-1, as well as
inconsistencies in the names of the persons against whom Search Warrants A-1 and A-2 were issued. That two
search warrants (Search Warrants A-1 and A-2) were issued for the same crime, for the same place, at a single
occasion and things to be seized were not described with particularity. Petitioners also claim that the testimonies
of Labaria and Abos are hearsay thus these should render the warrant void.

Issues:
1. Whether certiorari is the proper remedy

2. Whether failure to comply with 7-copy requirement warrants dismissal.

3. Whether the trial judge commit a grave abuse of discretion by not conforming with Sec 3 of Rule 126 of the
Rules of court.

Ruling:

1. Yes.

Expressly announced in Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the general rule that certiorari is available
where a tribunal or officer exercising judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction,
or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. Where the remedy of appeal cannot afford an adequate and expeditious relief, certiorari
can be allowed as a mode of redress to prevent irreparable damage and injury to a party.

2. No

CA should not have dismissed the petition. First, it appears that the case could have been decided without these
pleadings and documents. Second, even if the CA deemed them essential to the resolution of the case, it could
have asked for the records from the RTC. Third, in the submission of a document together with the motion for
reconsideration constitutes substantial compliance with Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court, requiring the
submission of a certified true copy of material portions of the record as are referred to [in the petition], and
other documents relevant or pertinent thereto along with the petition.The rules of procedure are not to be
applied in a very rigid, technical sense; rules of procedure are used only to help secure substantial justice. If a
technical and rigid enforcement of the rules is made, their aim could be defeated.

3. Yes but only on the 3 rd requirement which is - particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized

Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 3. Requisite for issuing search warrant.  - A search warrant shall not issue but 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.

Inconsistencies in the description of the place to

be searched

The rule is that a description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with
reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended[17]and distinguish it from other places in the
community. In this case, it was not shown that a street similarly named Hernan Cortes could be found in Cebu
City. Nor was it established that the enforcing officers had any difficulty in locating the premises. Therefore the
deficiency in the writ is not of sufficient gravity to call for its invalidation."

Inconsistencies in the description of the persons

named in the two warrants

It was held that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, from which Section 2, Article III
of our own Constitution is historically derived, does not require the warrant to name the person who occupies
the described premises. Since, in the case at bar, the warrant was issued not for search of the persons but only a
search of the premises the search could not be declared unlawful.

Two warrants issued at one time for one crime

and one place

Two warrants, Search Warrants A-1 and A-2, were actually issued by the trial court for the same crime
(violation of SEC. 253 of the National Internal Revenue Code). It appears, however, that Search Warrant A-2
was issued merely to correct the inconsistencies in the address in Search Warrant A-1, as well as to include
Unifish Packing Corporation as a party against whom the warrant was issued. Search Warrant A-2 was
evidently an attempt by the issuing judge to be more precise in the names of the persons. Indeed, it would be
absurd for the judge to issue on a single occasion two warrants authorizing the search of a single place for a
single offense hence, the latter should be deemed revoked by the former.

The alleged absence of probable cause

Probable cause is 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 the determination of probable cause, the Constitution and the
Rules of Court require an examination of the witnesses under oath. The examination must be probing and
exhaustive, not merely routine or pro forma. The examining magistrate must not simply rehash the contents of
the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the application. The witnesses, in
turn, must testify under oath to facts of their own personal knowledge. The oath required must refer to the truth
of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to
convince the committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the
warrant, of the existence of probable cause.

In the case at bar, the court agrees that Labaria’s testimony is only a hearsay as shown in his deposition.
His knowledge of the alleged illegal activities of petitioners was acquired not through his own perception but
was merely supplied by Abos. The application for the warrants, however, is not based solely on Labarias
deposition but is supported by that of Abos, whose knowledge was apparently obtained during his employment
with Unifish.
Things to be seized must be particularly described

A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the description therein is
as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow (People vs. Rubio, 57 Phil, 384); or when the description
expresses a conclusion of fact, or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the
offense for which the warrant is being issued. The herein search warrant does not conform to any of the
foregoing tests except on unregistered delivery receipts and unregistered purchase & sales invoices, the warrant
pertaining to it remains valid, since it is not possible to do so precisely because they are unregistered.

In the case at bar, the things to be seized were described in the following manner:

1. Multiple sets of Books of Accounts; Ledgers, Journals, Columnar Books, Cash Register Books,
Sales Books or Records; Provisional & Official Receipts;

2. Production Record Books/Inventory Lists [,] Stock Cards;

3. Unregistered Delivery Receipts;

4. Unregistered Purchase & Sales Invoices;

5. Sales Records, Job Order;

6. Corporate Financial Records; and

7. Bank Statements/Cancelled Checks

The use of a generic term or a general description in a warrant is acceptable only when a more specific
description of the things to be seized is unavailable. 

The things belonging to petitioner not specifically mentioned in the warrants, like those not particularly
described, must be ordered returned to petitioners.