Solid Triangle V Sheriff
Solid Triangle V Sheriff
SHERIFF OF RTC QC
NATURE
Petition for Certiorari
PETITIONERS
Solid Triangle Sales Corp. & Robert Sitchon
RESPONDENTS
The Sheriff of RTC QC; Sanly Corp.; Era Radio &
Electrical Supply, et al
SUMMARY. Judge Bruselas, after having issued a search warrant against
Sanly Corp. for alleged unfair competition, quashed said warrant holding
that there was doubt whether the act complained of amounted to a crime.
Solid Triangle, who filed the complaint w/ the prosecutors office, assailed
such quashal as invalid as the Constitution does not authorize such, after
goods had been seized and that such deprived them with evidence
regarding their case. Court held that inherent in the courts power to issue
search warrants is the power to quash warrants already issued. Since there
was no probable cause for the issuance of the warrant, evidence obtained
by virtue thereof was inadmissible.
DOCTRINE. Inherent in the courts power to issue search warrants is the
power to quash warrants already issued. A search warrant maybe quashed
upon finding of lack of probable cause in connection with a specific
offense. Such quashal, however, do not affect the proceedings of the
preliminary investigation except that such evidence procured therefrom
becomes inadmissible. This does not preclude the finding of probable
cause by the prosecutor based on other competent evidence for the
purpose of filing the information.
FACTS.
January 28, 1999: J. Bruselas issued against Sanly Corporation for violation
of Sec 168 of RA 8293 (unfair competition). By virtue of said SW, EIIB
agents seized 451 boxes of Mitsubishi photographic color paper, which
according to Solid Triangle, were sold and distributed by Sanly to their
damage and prejudice, the former being the sole and exclusive
distributor thereof.
Solid Triangle then filed with the QC City Prosecutor a complaint for unfair
competition against Sanly and LWT who were alleged to be in
conspiracy.
February 8, 1999: Sanly, LWT and ERA moved to quash the SW which was
granted upon MR. J. Bruselas held that there was doubt as to whether
the act complained of amounted to unfair competition. Solid Triangle
filed an MR as to the quashal but such was denied.
Bruselas, then directed Solid Triangle to divulge and report to the court the
exact location of the warehouse where the goods are kept.
CA: initially granted Solid Triangles certiorari holding that the quashal of
the warrant deprived the prosecution of vital evidence to determine
probable cause.
Upon motion of the defendants, the CA reversed itself. It held that there
was no probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. Hence
In this case: (1) the things seized are genuine and not mere
imitations (2) no showing that Sanly has presented, sold, or passed
off its photographic paper as goods which come from Solid Triangle
(3) Both Sanly and Solid Triangle sell genuine Mitsubishi products,
and Sanly is a parallel importer, taking its goods from HK (4) Sanly
sold the products without altering its appearance
o
On a factual basis, the real dispute is between Solid Triangle and
Mitsubishi.1
Petitioner contends before the SC that the Constitution does not authorize
the judge to reverse himself and quash the warrant especially after the
goods had been seized pursuant to the SW, and the prosecution is
poised to push forward with the goods as evidence.
o
from making his own determination that a crime has been committed
and that probable cause exists for purposes of filing the information.
2. WON the facts of the case constitute an offense. NO.
The evidence presented before the trial court does not prove
unfair competition under Section 168 of the Intellectual
Property Code. Sanly Corporation did not pass off the subject
goods as that of another. See CA ruling as to this issue.
DECISION.
Petition upheld the quashal and petitioners are ordered to return to
respondent Sanly the 451 boxes of Mitsubishi photographic color paper
seized.