Hon Ne Chan v Honda Digest

Hon Ne Chan v Honda Motors Nature of the Petition PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

DOCTRINE  The validity of the the issuance of a search warrant warrant rests upon the following factors: (! it "ust #e issued upon pro#a#le cause$ (%! the pro#a#le cause "ust #e deter"ined #y the &udge hi"self and not #y the applicant or any other person$ ('! in the deter"ination of pro#a#le cause the  &udge "ust e)a"ine under under oath or a*r"ation a*r"ation the co"plainant and such witnesses as the latter "ay produce$ and (+! the warrant issued "ust particularly descri#e the place to #e searched and persons or things to #e sei,ed. -earch warrants are not issued on loose vague or dou#tful #asis of fact or on "ere suspicion or #elief. Pro#a#le cause cause as far as the issuance of a search warrant is concerned has #een unifor"ly dened as such facts and circu"stances which would lead a reasona#le discreet and prudent "an to #elieve that an o/ense has #een co""itted and that the o#&ects sought in connection with the o/ense are in the place sought to #e searched. FACTS: On + Nove"#er %00' the National 1ureau of Investigation (N1I! through -pecial Investigator (-I! 2lenn 3acaran applied for search warrants with the 4TC •

•

•

•

•

•

against petitioners for alleged violation of -ection 56 in relation to -ection 70 of 4epu#lic 4epu#lic Act No. 6%8' or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines On the sa"e date 4TC 9udge Arte"io -. Tipon issued two (for on Ne Chan and ;un&i otion to ?uash -earch @arrants and to 4eturn Illegally -ei,ed Ite"s averring therein that the search warrants were issued despite the a#sence of pro#a#le cause and that they were in the nature of general search warrants.  Trial  Trial court ordered ordered the N1I to return return to petitioners petitioners the articles sei,ed CA reversed the 4TC

ISSUES 1 !hether "ro#a#$e %ause e&isted in the issuan%e of the su#'e%t sear%h (arrants) * !hether said sear%h (arrants (ere in the nature of +enera$ sear%h (arrants and therefore nu$$ and void) and , !hether there e&isted an o-ense to (hi%h the issuan%e of the sear%h (a rrants (as %onne%ted. HE/D0RATIO:  The validity of the issuance of a search search warrant rests rests upon the following factors: (! it "ust #e issued upon pro#a#le cause$ (%! the pro#a#le cause "ust #e deter"ined #y the &udge hi"self and not #y the applicant or any other person$

('! in the deter"ination of pro#a#le cause the  &udge "ust e)a"ine under oath or a*r"ation the co"plainant and such witnesses as the latter "ay produce$ and (+! the warrant issued "ust particularly descri#e the place to #e searched and persons or things to #e sei,ed.

1 !hether "ro#a#$e %ause e&isted in the issuan%e of the su#'e%t sear%h ( arrants NO. Petitioners Ar+ue:  The state"ent “[Lacaran] has information and verily believes that (petitioners) are in  possession or has in their control properties” failed to meet the condition that probable cause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay  Court: Ne)t paragraph of the a#ove uoted application for search warrant states that “Lacaran „personally veried the report and found [it] to be a fact!”  Pro#a#le cause as far as the issuance of a search warrant is concerned has #een unifor"ly dened as such facts and circu"stances which would lead a reasona#le discreet and prudent "an that an o/ense has #een co""itted and that the o#&ects sought in connection with the o/ense are in the place sought to #e searched to #elieve that an o/ense has #een co""itted and that the o#&ects sought in connection with the o/ense are in the place sought to #e searched.

>icrosoft Corporation and 3otus Bevelop"ent Corporation v. >a)icorp Inc: "he determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a  #udgment of conviction re$uires after trial on the merits! %s implied by the words themselves&  probable cause is concerned with probability& not  absolute or even moral certainty! "he  prosecution need not present at this stage reasonable doubt! "he standards of #udgment  are those of a reasonably prudent man& not the e'acting calibrations of a #udge after a fullblown trial!” 

* !hether said sear%h (arrants (ere in the nature of +enera$ sear%h (arrants and therefore nu$$ and void NO.

Petitioners Ar+ue:  The search warrants in uestion partooD the nature of general search warrants in that they included "otorcycles #earing the "odel na"e @AE.F Court It is ele"ental that in order to #e valid a search warrant "ust particularly descri#e the place to #e searched and the things to #e sei,ed. It is not however reuired that the things to #e sei,ed "ust #e descri#ed in precise and "inute detail as to leave no roo" for dou#t on the part of the searching authorities. , !hether there e&isted an o-ense to (hi%h the issuan%e of the sear%h (a rrants (as %onne%ted.  2ES.

Petitioners Ar+ue:  The search warrants were issued in relation to no particular o/ense. Court Application for -earch @arrant led #y N1I -I 3acaran it is clearly stated that what

respondents are co"plaining a#out was the alleged violation of the goodwill they have esta#lished. It is uite o#vious then that their cause of action arose out of the intrusion intotheir esta#lished goodwill involving the two "otorcycle "odels and not patent infringe"ent