Tambasen v.

People
G.R. No. 89103
July 14, 1995

FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of
Court to set aside the order of RTC Bacolod, nullifying the order issued by the MTCC Bacolod.
Municipal Trial Circuit Court ordered the return to petitioner the amount of P14,000 seized by
the police.
P/Sgt. Natuel applied for the issuance of a search warrant from the MTCC, alleging that
he received information that petitioner had in his possession and keeps in his house M-16
Armalite Rifles, Hand Grenades, .45 Cal. Pistols, Dynamite Sticks and Subversive Documents
used or intended to be used for illegal purposes. The MTCC issued the search warrant and the
police team executed the search and seizure of P14,000 in cash, a handset, a transceiver,
regulator, notebooks, papers and battery packs. The petitioner filed with the MTCC a motion to
return the seized articles. Sgt. Natuel instead submitted a report to the court, stating that he was
not present when the warrant was served. Again petition filed before the MTCC praying that the
search and seizure be declared illegal and the articles be returned. The Police argued that the cash
of P14,000 has been earmarked for payment of the allowance of NPA personalities, but the
MTCC still ruled in favor of petitioner stating that the seizure should be limited to the specific
items stated in the warrant. The MTCC also ruled that the money is not covered under subversive
documents.
The Solicitor General filed before the RTC seeking the annulment of the order of MTCC.
It was argued that petitioner is not entitled to the return of the money since according to
jurisprudence, pending determination of the legality of seized articles they must be held in
custodia legis. Also the criminal complaint against the petitioner was a crime against public
order, and the Revised Penal Code requires its confiscation. RTC stated that petitioner Tambasen
never questioned the validity of the warrant but just assails its execution, petitioner arguing that
there were articles seized which are not covered by the warrant. The question then which
determines the admissibility of the evidence and legality of the articles seized comes under the
jurisdiction of the Trial Court, not under the MTCC, for it relates exclusively with the criminal
charges of the petitioner. RTC ruled for the Solicitor General, thus this petition.

Prepared by: Jo-Anne D. Coloquio

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the RTC gravely abused its discretion in ordering the money seized from
petitioner to be retained and kept in custodia legis.

HELD:
1. Yes.
Pending this petition, the petitioner was arrested and detained due to a complaint filed against
him under the Anti-Subversion Law. However petitioner filed a motion to quash the information
which was eventually granted by the RTC. Petitioner was dropped from the criminal case, the
RTC denying the prosecutors motion for reconsideration.
The search warrant violates the Constitution and the Rules of Court, for it is for more than
one specific offense, reflecting the violation of two special laws: P.D. No. 1866 for illegal
possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives; and R.A. No. 1700, the Anti-Subversion
Law. Also, because of the seizure of articles not contained in the warrant, the police went beyond
their authority in executing it. The evident purpose and intent of the requirement is to limit the
things to be seized to those to only those particularly described in the search warrant to leave the
officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize, to the end that
unreasonable searches and seizures may not be made and that abuses may not be committed.
This just leads to the conclusion that the money not being indicated in the warrant had been
illegally seized. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail
against the constitutionally enshrined rights of the petitioner.
The Court added that the petitioner was already dropped from the criminal case, so there is
no justification for the retention of the seized article. To add, the Anti-Subversion Law, which is
the law which supposedly the petitioner violated was already repealed so it no longer exists.
Wherefore, the petition is granted.

Prepared by: Jo-Anne D. Coloquio