Te v. Breva 2015

Charlie Te v. Hon.
Augusto Breva
G.R. No. 164974, BERSAMIN, 2015-08-05
Legal Keywords/Doctrine:
The People of the Philippines should be impleaded as respondents in a
petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the order of the Regional
Trial Court denying a motion to quash a search warrant. This is in
accordance with Section 1, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, which states
that a search warrant is issued in the name of the People of the
Philippines.
Contention:
The petitioner argued that impleading the People of the Philippines as
respondents in the petition for certiorari was not necessary because no
criminal case had been filed against him. However, the Court ruled that
the People of the Philippines were indispensable parties in the petition
because the search warrant was issued in their name. The petitioner
failed to comply with the requirement to implead the People of the
Philippines, and this omission was fatal to his case.
Facts:
A petition for certiorari filed by Charlie Te against the Presiding Judge
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), the Special Investigator of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), and Pryce Gases, Inc. The
petitioner sought to annul and set aside the order of the RTC denying
his motion to quash the search warrant issued against him. The search
warrant was issued based on the finding of probable cause for hoarding
large quantities of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in steel cylinders
belonging to Pryce Gases.
Issue:
Whether the People of the Philippines should be impleaded as
respondents in the petition for certiorari.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the petition for certiorari,
stating that the requirement to implead the People of the Philippines
was imposed by the Rules of Court. The search warrant was issued in
the name of the People of the Philippines, and therefore they were
indispensable parties in the case.
Ratio:
The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition for certiorari for
failure to implead the People of the Philippines as respondents and for
lack of proof that a copy of the petition was served on the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG). The petitioner argued that impleading the
People of the Philippines was premature since no criminal case had
been filed against him. The CA denied the petitioner's motion for
reconsideration, stating that the search warrant was issued in the
name of the People of the Philippines and that they were indispensable
parties in the proceedings.
The Supreme Court agreed with the CA's ruling, emphasizing that the
requirement to implead the People of the Philippines as respondents in
a petition for certiorari is mandated by the Rules of Court. The search
warrant was issued in the name of the People of the Philippines,
indicating their involvement and interest in the case. As such, they
were considered indispensable parties and their absence in the petition
for certiorari rendered it dismissible.
The Court further explained that the purpose of impleading the People
of the Philippines as respondents is to afford them the opportunity to
defend the validity of the search warrant and the legality of the search
and seizure conducted. The People of the Philippines, represented by
the Office of the Solicitor General, play a crucial role in protecting the
interests of the state and ensuring that the search warrant was
properly issued and executed.
In this case, the petitioner argued that impleading the People of the
Philippines was premature since no criminal case had been filed against
him. However, the Court held that the absence of a criminal case did
not negate the need to implead the People of the Philippines in the
petition for certiorari. The search warrant was issued in their name,
and their participation was necessary to address the issues raised by
the petitioner.
Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for
certiorari for failure to implead the People of the Philippines as
respondents. The requirement to implead them is a procedural
safeguard that ensures the proper and complete resolution of the issues
raised in the petition.

Te v. Breva 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Te v. Breva 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Te v. Breva 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charlie Te v. Hon.

You might also like