ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1749 April 2, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS GEMPES

    083 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. L-1441 April 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL N. MORENO

    083 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-2179 April 12, 1949 - MANILA TRADING petitioner v. MANILA TRADING LABORERS’ ASSN.

    083 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-979 April 13, 1949 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. FAR EASTERN SURETY

    083 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-2745 April 13, 1949 - FLAVIANO ROMERO v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    083 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. L-856 April 18, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUSANO PEREZ

    083 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. L-493 April 19, 1949 - SANTIAGO BANAAG v. VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION

    083 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-1545 April 19, 1949 - E. R. CRUZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN.

    083 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 48671 April 19, 1949 - EUSEBIO BELVIZ v. CATALINO BUENAVENTURA

    083 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-364 April 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO T. JAUCIAN

    083 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-1282 April 25, 1949 - JUAN S. BARROZO v. MARCELINO T. MACARAEG

    083 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-2525 April 26, 1949 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS v. TOMAS DE VERA

    083 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 48676 April 26, 1949 - LEON ORACION v. PACITA JUANILLO

    083 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-793 April 27, 1949 - FELISA R. PAEZ v. FRANCISCO MAGNO

    083 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-1259 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: CRISANTO DE BORJA v. JULIANA DE BORJA

    083 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-1370 April 27, 1949 - BERNARDA DE VASQUEZ v. ALFONSO DIVA

    083 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-1399 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: GONZALO T. DAVID v. CARLOS M. SISON

    083 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-1590 April 27, 1949 - RAYMUNDA SIVA v. FELIXBERTO IMPERIAL REYES

    083 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-1627 April 27, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAMERTO RAMIREZ

    083 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-1976 April 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARULA

    083 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-2056 April 27, 1949 - SANTIAGO ALERIA v. JUAN MENDOZA

    083 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-2336 April 27, 1949 - ANGELINA CANAYNAY v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 429

  • CA. No. 2592-R April 27, 1949 - SATURNINA ZAPANTA v. VIRGILIO BARTOLOME

    083 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. L-2612 April 27, 1949 - RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION v. DOMINADOR TEMPOROSA

    083 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. L-855 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TROADIO BUTAWAN

    083 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. L-1275 April 28, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FULGENCIO BUSTILLOS.

    083 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-1661 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO CANTOS

    083 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-1672 April 28, 1949 - IN RE: ZENAIDA JIRO-MORI

    083 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-2028 April 28, 1949 - PHIL. SHEET METAL WORKERS’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 453

  • CA. No. 332 April 29, 1949 - CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. B. K. BERKENKOTTER

    083 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-1650 April 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO MACABUHAY

    083 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-2899 April 29, 1949 - NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    083 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. L-150 April 30, 1949 - VICENTE HILADO v. FELIX DE LA COSTA

    083 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. L-1234 April 30, 1949 - VICTORINO FLORO v. SANTIAGO H. GRANADA

    083 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. L-1383 April 30, 1949 - PAZ ESCARELLA DE RALLA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    083 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-1523 April 30, 1949 - BIÑAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ

    083 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. L-1783 April 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CARPIO Y ESTACIO

    083 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. L-1916 April 30, 1949 - PABLO C. SIBULO v. LOPE ALTAR

    083 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-2009 April 30, 1949 - SUNRIPE COCONUT PRODUCTS CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2122 April 30, 1949 - FAUSTINO BUTER v. TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-46798 April 30, 1949 - PINDANGAN AGRICULTURAL CO., INC. v. ERNEST A. SCHENKEL Y OTRO

    083 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 49167 April 30, 1949 - CO TAO v. JOAQUIN CHAN CHICO

    083 Phil 543

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-1545   April 19, 1949 - E. R. CRUZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN. <br /><br />083 Phil 333

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-1545. April 19, 1949.]

    E. R. CRUZ, Petitioner, v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN ET AL., Respondents.

    Angel M. Tesoro for Petitioner.

    First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Honorio Romero for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    1. SEARCH AND SEIZURE; HOW SEARCH WARRANTS MAY ISSUE. — In issuing or not issuing search warrants, judges act in accordance with the evidence presented to them.

    2. ID.; ORDERS ISSUED ARE NOT FINAL AND "RES JUDICATA." — Orders of judges on the matter are not final and do not constitute res judicata.

    3. ID.; SEARCH WARRANT MAY BE ISSUED FOR PROPERTY STOLEN. — Search warrant may be issued to bring before the court property stolen.


    D E C I S I O N


    BENGZON, J.:


    Petitioner prays for mandamus to compel the delivery to him of a certain jeep which the respondents, officials of the National Bureau of Investigation, are holding by virtue of a search warrant issued and ratified by the other respondents, all judges of the Manila court of first instance. He avers that said search warrant is void and that he is the lawful owner of the car, having purchased it from the Government Procurement Commission.

    On July 25, 1946 a Ford jeep, motor No. G. P. W. 223169 of the Department of Justice, assigned to its Division of Investigation —now the National Bureau of Investigation — was stolen from the residence of Agent 45 of San Juan, Rizal.

    On January 27, 1947, while the jeep allegedly now in question was parked on the Escolta, an operative of said Bureau spotted it and knowing it was stolen personalty, drove it to the Bureau where it was identified by Agent 45 as the same vehicle that had been taken away from his residence. Later herein petitioner Erasmo R. Cruz appeared and claimed the jeep. The officers relinquished it to him only to swear the following day before Hon. Sotero Rodas (then judge of Manila) in criminal case No. 1267 an application for a search warrant of one Ford jeep bearing plate No. 18-395, series of 1946. The jeep was again seized. But on February 1, 1947, Erasmo R. Cruz filed in court an urgent motion for its return. Judge Rodas, apparently was impressed by the fact that the chemist of the National Bureau of Investigation had been applying chemicals to the motor (obviously for the purpose of clinching its identification of the property), concluded that the Bureau was not sure of its position and directed that the vehicle be handed back to claimant Cruz.

    In the meantime the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI for short) obtained better evidence of its case of theft of the automobile against Erasmo R. Cruz, Et Al., then pending investigation in the city fiscal’s office, and desirous of retaining the jeep as part of the corpus delicti filed another application for search warrant in criminal case No. 1288 against Erasmo R. Cruz, Et Al., for theft. The NBI had at that time statements of the accused. Judge Rafael Dinglasan issued a search warrant, for one "jeep now bearing plate No. 18395 (series 1946) motor No. MVD 620 and chassis No. 203961." It was consequently carried out. Upon motion for the return of the jeep, Judge Ramon San Jose refused to modify or revoke the warrant. Upon another motion to reconsider, Judge Conrado V. Sanchez of the same court issued this order:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It is alleged that the jeep in question was seized under search warrant issued in criminal case No. 1267, the search warrant issued in said case was quashed. The order of February 7, 1947 in criminal case No. 1267 is predicated upon the fact that the jeep, seized upon the search warrant therein issued, was not the one applied for. Needless to state, the jeep seized in the present case (criminal case No. 1288) is the very same jeep applied for herein. The order of February 7, 1947, in criminal case No. 1267 is, therefore, not controlling in the present case.

    "It is also urged in behalf of defendant that the jeep seized herein is not the same jeep claimed and owned by the Division of Investigation and that the aforesaid jeep does not form part of the corpus delicti in criminal case No. 3011 of this Court, entitled ’The People of the Philippines v. Dionisio Macaranas Et. Al.’ After hearing the arguments of the parties, it is clear that the prosecution in said case claims that the jeep, the subject of herein search warrant, is the same jeep which was alleged to have been stolen from the Division of Investigation, and that the identification numbers thereof have been tampered with. It is obvious that to order, at this time, the return of the jeep, may nullify the efforts of the People to procure conviction in criminal case No. 3011, for the reason that the jeep in question constitutes, the corpus delicti of the crime charged, according to its theory.

    "Premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Hence this petition attacking the validity of the warrant. The points involved have been fully argued.

    Whether or not the jeep now in the custody of the NBI —holding the property for the court — is the same jeep stolen from Agent 45, or is another vehicle purchased by the herein petitioner from the Government Procurement Commission is obviously a question of fact that should be ventilated neither in this forum nor in this litigation. That issue properly belongs to the courts of first instance.

    Petitioner’s grievance seems to be planted mainly on the proposition that after Judge Rodas had determined that the jeep was not the stolen jeep, other judges may not thereafter declare that it was.

    On this phase of the controversy, it should be noted that, in issuing or not issuing search warrants, judges act in accordance with the evidence presented to them. The proofs submitted to Judge Rodas were not probably as strong as the evidence introduced before Judge Dinglasan. And then it should be remembered that the motions were filed in different cases. Anyway orders of judges on the matter are not final and do not constitute res judicata.

    "The denial of a search warrant on the ground of the insufficiency of the affidavit and deposition is not a bar to further proceedings, nor is the issuance of the warrant and its subsequent discharge res judicata as to the right to the warrant." (56 C. J., 1228.)

    "Where accused in a criminal proceeding has petitioned for the return of goods seized, the order of restoration by an inferior court is interlocutory and hence not appealable; likewise a denial, by the United States district court, of defendant’s petition for the return of articles seized under a warrant, is such an interlocutory order." (56 C. J., 1253.)

    We may now advert briefly to the other contention of petitioner that the warrant had not been issued by Judge Dinglasan in accordance with the rules. It should be observed that the warrant may be issued to "bring before the court" "property stolen" (Rule 122, sections 1 and 2), and that Judge Dinglasan issued it after considering testimony of agents of the NBI which seems to be justified by the subsequent presentation of information for theft of that jeep. According to the order, the judge was satisfied "after examining under oath" two agents of the Division of Investigation that the jeep was "stolen" property. Therefore, under the circumstances, we do not see any material violation of the principles laid down by this Court in the Garcia 1 and Alvarez 2 cases invoked by petitioner to support his contention.

    In fine, this request for restoration is not clearly meritorious; and we should hesitate to favorably act on the petition, there being an indication that petitioner is under a cloud in connection with the larceny of the motor vehicle which he seeks to retrieve from the hands of the law. Petition denied, with costs.

    Moran, C.J., Para, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Briones, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Garcia v. Judge of First Instance of Tarlac, 36 Off. Gaz., 3275.

    2. Alvarez v. Court of First Instance of Tayabas, 64 Phil., 33.

    G.R. No. L-1545   April 19, 1949 - E. R. CRUZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN. <br /><br />083 Phil 333


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED