CHAN v. HONDA MOTOR CO., LTD. AND HONDA PHIL.

(1) This a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85353,
granting respondents' Petition for Certiorari and setting aside the Orders dated 20 February 2004 and 18
May 2004, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 46.

(2) On November 14, 2003, the NBI through Special Investigator (SI) Glenn Lacaran, applied for search
warrants with the RTC against petitioners for alleged violation of Section 168 (Unfair Competitions,
Rights, Regulations and Remedies) in relation to Sec 1701 of RA 8293 or the Intellectual Code of the
Philippines.

(3) On the same date, RTC Judge Tipon issued two search warrants:
a. Directed against Petitioner "Hon Ne Chan and John Does, operating under the name and style
'Dragon Spirit Motorcycle Center,' located at No. 192 M.H. del Pilar Street corner 10th Avenue, Grace
Park, Caloocan City, Metro Manila."
b. Directed against Yunji Zeng and John Does, operating under the name and style 'Dragon Spirit
Motorcycle Center,' located at No. 192 E. Delos Santos Avenue, Caloocan City, Metro Manila."

(4) Both warrants stated that by virtue of the oath of SI Lacaran of the NBI and his witnesses Atty. Elmer NA.
Cadano and Mr. Rene C. Baltazar, that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that a
violation of Sec. 168 in relation to Sec. 170 of the R.A. No. 8293 has been committed and that there
are good and sufficient reasons to believe that the following are under the control and possession of
HON NE CHAN and JOHN DOES, operating under the name and style "DRAGON SPIRIT
MOTORCYCLE CENTER.
i. Motorcycles bearing the model names and/or markings "DS-110", "DSM-110", "SUPER
WAVE", "DS-125", "DSM-125", "WAVE R", and "WAVE" (including all its parts and
accessories)
ii. Papers, documents and storage materials (USB, diskettes etc) used or intended to be used
in importing, producing, manufacturing, assembling, selling, marketing, distributing, dealing
with and/or otherwise disposing of motorcycles bearing the model names and/or
markings "DS-110", "DSM-110", "SUPER WAVE", DS-125, DSM-125", "WAVE
R", and WAVE"

(5) Relying on the strength of the said warrants, NBI agents conducted a search in the premises of the
Chan and Yunji and seized several units of motorcycles bearing the model stated above and
documents related thereto with the exception of 22 units of WAVE-CX which were not specified in
the warrant.

(6) Chan and Yunji then filed with the RTC a JOINT MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANTS AND TO
RETURN ILLEGALLY SEIZED ITEMS based on the following grounds:
i. absence of probable cause;
ii. nature of general warrant.

(7) The trial court then issued an order which quashed both search warrants and ordered the NBI to
return to petitioners the article seized:
i. 22 WAVE CX 110 UNITS- for not being specified in the warrant
ii. Rest of items seized- lack of probable cause.

1
Penalty of Independent of the civil and administrative sanctions imposed by law, a criminal penalty of
imprisonment from two (2) years to five (5) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) to
Two hundred thousand pesos(P200,000)
 (8) The NBI filed a motion for reconsideration but was subsequently denied. This prompted them to file a
petition for certiorari before the CA who granted the petition and UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF THE 2
SEARCH WARRANTS.

ISSUES:
1) whether probable cause existed in the issuance of the subject search warrants;
2) whether said search warrants were in the nature of general search warrants and therefore null and void;
3) whether there existed an offense to which the issuance of the search warrants was connected.

SEC. 4. Requisites 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 which may be anywhere in the Philippines.

Thus, the validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the following factors: (1) it must be issued upon
probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any
other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the
complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the
place to be searched and persons or things to be seized

1. THERE IS A PROBABLE CAUSE.

a. PETITIONERS: It was stated in the Application for Search Warrant of National Bureau of
Investigation Special Investigator (NBI SI) Lacaran that "(h)e has information and verily believes that
(petitioners) are in possession or has in their control properties…in violation of Secs 168 in relation
to 170 of Intellectual Property Code.” Such statement 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.
b. COURT:
i. Probable cause, as far as the issuance of a search warrant is concerned, has been
uniformly defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable,
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. It is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The
prosecution need not present at this stage reasonable doubt.
ii. It is settled that in determining probable cause, a judge is duty-bound to personally
examine under oath the complainant and the witnesses he may present. Emphasis
must be laid on the fact that 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."
iii. In the case at bar, petitioners capitalize on the first paragraph of the Application for Search
Warrant executed by NBI SI Lacaran to support their argument that he lacked the personal
knowledge required by both the Rules of Court and by jurisprudence. NBI SPI LACARAN
PERSONALLY VERIFIED THE REPORT AND FOUND IT TO BE TRUE, thus removing
it from mere hearsay.
iv. Thus, the RTC overstepped its boundaries when it ruled upon the merits of the case
and by saying that “There may be similarities as claimed by the (respondents) but the
differences far outweigh the similarities that any confusion to the consumer is remote and
 speculative.” This statement unmistakably conveys the message that no unfair competition
exists in this case - a conclusion that is not within its competence to make, for its task is
merely confined to the preliminary matter of determination of probable cause and
nothing more.

2. THE LOCATIONS TO BE SEARCHED AND ITEMS TO BE SEIZED ARE DESCRIBED WITH

PARTICULARITY.
a. PETITIONERS: The search warrants in question partook the nature of general search warrants
in that they included motorcycles bearing the model name "WAVE." They insist that word
"WAVE" is generic and that it fails to pass the requirement of particularity of the items to be
seized.
b. COURT:
i. IN ORDER TO BE VALID, a search warrant must particularly describe the place
to be searched and the things to be seized. This constitutional requirement is
primarily meant to enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to:
1. Readily identify the properties to be seized to prevent them from seizing
wrong items;
2. Leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be
seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures.
ii. It is not, however, required that the things to be seized must be described in
precise and minute detail as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the
searching authorities.
iii. In BACHE and co v. RUIZ, the court held that the test to determine whether there
is particularity is when the things described are limited to those which bear
direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued.
iv. A reading of the search warrants issued by the trial court in this case reveals that
the items to be seized, including motorcycles, are those which are connected
with the alleged violation of Section 168 in relation to Section 170 of Republic Act
No. 8293, notwithstanding the use of the generic word "WAVE.” The reason
being is that Wave is the model name of the motorcycles produced by the
Honda and, therefore, any imitation unit that is in the possession of the petitioners
and carries the name Wave is the fit object of the warrants - whether some
other name or figure is affixed to it or not.