Romer Sy Tan vs Sy Tiong Gue, et al.

G.R. No. 174570 December 15, 2010

FACTS:
Petitioner (Romer Sy Tan) filed a criminal case against respondents (Tiong Gue,
et al.). The Respondents moved for the withdrawal of the information which was
subsequently granted by the RTC on the ground that the information for robbery
did not contain the essential elements of robbery as decided upon by the Court
of Appeals on an prior complaint. Hence the case was dismissed. Now the
petitioner, seeking shelter from the Supreme Court contended that he filed
information for qualified theft based on the same subject matter of the dismissed
robbery and would like to use the item seized in the previously conducted search
for the new information of qualified theft.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the items seized in the previously conducted search warrant
issued by the court for robbery be included and used for the filing of for an
information for qualified theft.

RULING:
No, petitioner cannot iclude the seized items as part of the evidence in the new
information. Sec. 4 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. A search warrant shall not
issue except 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, as search warrant may be issued only if there is probable cause in
connection with only one specific offense alleged in an application on the basis of
the applicant's personal knowledge and his or her witnesses. Therefore,
petitioner cannot utilize the evidence seized by virtue of the search warrant
issued in connection with the case of robbery in a separate case of qualified
theft, even if both cases emanated form the same incident. Also, the withdrawal
of the information was justifiable, since there was no probable cause as to indict
respondents of the crime of robbery since unlawful taking which is an essential
element for Robbery and likewise for Qualified Theft is not present.