Source: Supreme Court E-Library
This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Section 2. Prohibited Acts. - The following acts are prohibited and penalized:In particular, respondents were alleged to be refilling Shellane, Gasul, Totalgaz, Starflame, and Superkalan Gaz LPG cylinders and selling, distributing and transporting the same without the required written authorization from the alleged respective owners of these cylinders - namely, Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, Petron Gasul Corporation, Total (Philippines) Corporation, Caltex (Philippines) Corporation (Caltex), and Superkalan Gaz Corporation.
(a) Illegal trading in petroleum and/or petroleum products;
(b) x x x x
(c) Underdelivery or underfilling beyond authorized limits in the sale of petroleum products or possession of underfilled liquefied petroleum gas cylinder for the purpose of sale, distribution, transportation, exchange or barter;
x x x x
Sec. 3. Definition of terms, For the purpose of this Act, the following terms shall be construed to mean:
Illegal trading in petroleum and/or petroleum products -
x x x x
(C) Refilling of liquefied petroleum gas cylinders without authority from said Bureau, or refilling of another company's or firm's cylinders without such company's or firm's written authorization;
x x x x
Sec. 4. Penalties. Any person who commits any act herein prohibited shall, upon conviction, be punished with a fine of not less than twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) but not more than fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), or imprisonment of at least two (2) years but not more than five (5) years, or both, in the discretion of the court. In cases of second and subsequent conviction under this Act, the penalty shall be both fine and imprisonment as provided herein. Furthermore, the petroleum and/or petroleum products, subject matter of the illegal trading, adulteration, shortselling, hoarding, overpricing or misuse, shall be forfeited in favor of the Government: Provided, That if the petroleum and/or petroleum products have already been delivered and paid for, the offended party shall be indemnified twice the amount paid, and if the seller who has not yet delivered has been fully paid, the price received shall be returned to the buyer with an additional amount equivalent to such price; and in addition, if the offender is an oil company, marketer, distributor, refiller, dealer, sub-dealer and other retail outlets, or hauler, the cancellation of his license.
Trials of cases arising from this Act shall be terminated within thirty (30) days after arraignment.
When the offender is a corporation, partnership, or other juridical person, the president, the general manager, managing partner, or such other officer charged with the management of the business affairs thereof, or employee responsible for the violation shall be criminally liable; in case the offender is an alien, he shall be subject to deportation after serving the sentence.
If the offender is a government official or employee, he shall be perpetually disqualified from office.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Search Warrants Nos. 2005-59 and 2005-60 are hereby ordered QUASHED for lack of probable cause.Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration;[20] however, the same was denied in a January 11, 2006 Order.[21]
The objects seized by virtue thereof are declared inadmissible for any purpose. The applicant, NBI Supervising Agent Marvin E. De Jemil, or any of his authorized representatives, who was authorized to temporarily retain possession and custody of the seized goods/objects for safekeeping at the warehouse located at Barangay Dilan, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, is ordered to immediately return all the seized items to the respondents.
SO ORDERED.[19]
The appellants[22] argue that aside from the testimony of De Jemil and Antonio, other documents were presented at the time of the hearing on the application for Search Warrant No. 2005-59. They posit that these are sufficient to establish probable cause and as such, there was no need for the presentation of persons who certified that Nation was not authorized to refill the branded LPG cylinders. They point out that probable cause is only concerned with probabilities and the standard for its determination is only that of a reasonable prudent man. They stress that after the surveillances and test-buy operations done by De Jemil and Antonio, the two already acquired personal knowledge of the offenses committed by the respondents-appellees.[23] It is claimed too that the RTC's finding, that the certification did not state Nation was not authorized to refill, was a vain attempt to steer clear of respondents-appellees' lack of authorization. It is alleged further that although De Jemil and Antonio did not sign the inspection report detailing the weight of the LPG cylinder acquired during the test-buy operations, they were physically present and actually involved in the weighing done, giving them personal knowledge of the under filling by Nation. The appellants aver too that there is no proof that those who weighed the acquired cylinder were employed by them.Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration,[25] which was denied through the CA's second assailed Resolution of November 17, 2011. Hence, the instant Petition.
x x x x
In reviewing what transpired below, the Court's 'task ... is not to conduct a de novo determination of probable cause but only to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the records supporting the Judge's decision.' This being the rule, the petition must fail.
The determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant requires that the facts surrounding the basis for the application must be within the personal knowledge of the applicant or his witnesses. If this does not obtain, the finding of probable cause of a judge may be set aside and the search warrant issued by him based on his finding may be quashed since 'the Judge must strictly comply with the requirements of the Constitution and the statutory provisions.' The circumstances at hand repeal that there is enough basis for the RTC to quash the Subject Warrants.
De Jemil and Antonio relied on sources furnished to them made by persons not presented as witnesses. They, thus, testified as to the truth of facts they had no personal knowledge of. 'Search warrants are not issued on loose, vague or doubtful basis of fact, nor on mere suspicion or belief.' For instance, de Jemil testified as follows:while a portion of Antonio's testimony goes:
-oXo-
'5. Pinagbigay-alam sa akin na ang Nation Gas ay walang pahintulot na nagkakarga ng mga Shellane, Petron Gasul, Totalgaz, Caltex Starflame[,] at Superkalan Gaz na tangke ng LPG dahil ang Nation [G]as ay Mndi pinahintulutan ng mga nabanggit na mga lehitimong kompanya.'
SO ORDERED.[24]
THE COURT OF APPEALS MADE A DECISION NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE REVISED RULES OF COURT AND THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE HONORABLE COURT AS REGARDS THE DETERMINATION OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF WITNESSES IN SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATIONS. CERTAINLY, THERE IS A NEED TO REVERSE AND SET ASIDE THE RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT NBI AGENT DE JEMIL AND HIS WITNESSES HAD NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT THE RESPONDENTS COMMITTED ILLEGAL TRADING AND UNDERFILLING OF LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS (LPG) PRODUCTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING PROBABLE CAUSE IN SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATIONS.[27]Petitioners' Arguments
The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized. x x x Probable cause for a search warrant is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably 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. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than bare suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction. The judge, in determining probable cause, is to consider the totality of the circumstances made known to him and not by a fixed and rigid formula, and must employ a flexible, totality of the circumstances standard. x x x[32]Petitioners claim that respondents are engaged in the illegal trading and refilling of Shellane, Gasul, Totalgaz, Starflame, and Superkalan Gaz LPG cylinders, as they were not authorized dealers or refillers of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, Petron Gasul Corporation, Total (Philippines) Corporation, Caltex, and Superkalan Gaz Corporation. Additionally, they accuse respondents of underfilling LPG cylinders. To prove illegal trading and refilling, they presented written certifications to the effect that Nation Gas was not an authorized LPG refiller of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, Petron Gasul Corporation, Total (Philippines) Corporation, Caltex, and Superkalan Gaz Corporation. And to prove underfilling, they presented photographs as well as the results of an examination of the refilled Starflame LPG cylinder obtained through De Jemil's test-buy.
Probable violation of Sec. 2 (a) of BP 33, as amendedAn examination of petitioners' evidence in the instant case reveals that it is practically identical to that presented in the Ty case. A complaint was filed with the NBI, which conducted surveillance and test-buy operations; written certifications were submitted to the effect that the respondent was not an authorized refiller of the LPG companies' branded cylinders; finally, an inspection of the test-buy cylinder was conducted, and the results thereof embodied in a written document which was submitted as evidence in the proceedings. Moreover, photographs taken indicate that Barba Gas was not an exclusive dealer/distributor of Caltex Starflame cylinders and LPG products, and that the cylinders involved - including the test-buy cylinder - belonged to Caltex, the same being stamped with its Starflame mark.
First. The test-buy conducted on April 15, 2004 by the NBI agents, as attested to by their respective affidavits, tends to show that Omni illegally refilled the eight branded LPG cylinders for PhP1,582. This is a clear violation of Sec. 2 (a), in relation to Sees. 3 (c) and 4 of BP 33, as amended. It must be noted that the criminal complaints, as clearly shown in the complaint-affidavits of Agent De Jemil, are not based solely on the seized items pursuant to the search warrants but also on the test-buy earlier conducted by the NBI agents.
Second. The written certifications from Pilipinas Shell, Petron[,] and Total show that Omni has no written authority to refill LPG cylinders, embossed, marked or stamped Shellane, Petron Gasul, Totalgaz[,] and Superkalan Gaz. In fact, petitioners neither dispute this nor claim mat Omni has authority to refill these branded LPG cylinders.
Third. Belying petitioners' contention, the seized items during the service of the search warrants tend to show that Omni illegally refilled branded LPG cylinders without authority.
x x x x
As petitioners strongly argue, even if the branded LPG cylinders were indeed owned by customers, such fact does not authorize Omni to refill these branded LPG cylinders without written authorization from the brand owners Pilipinas Shell, Petron[,] and Total. In Yao, Sr. v. People, a case involving criminal infringement of property rights under Sec. 1.55 of RA 8293, in affirming the courts a quo's determination of the presence of probable cause, this Court held that from Sec. 155.1 of RA 8293 can be gleaned that 'mere unauthorized use of a container bearing a registered trademark in connection with the sale, distribution or advertising of goods or services which is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception among the buyers/consumers can be considered as trademark infringement. The Court affirmed the presence of infringement involving the unauthorized sale of Gasul and Shellane LPG cylinders and the unauthorized refilling of the same by Masagana Gas Corporation as duly attested to and witnessed by NBI agents who conducted the surveillance and test-buys.
Similarly, in the instant case, the fact that Omni refilled various branded LPG cylinders even if owned by its customers but without authority from brand owners Perron, Pilipinas Shell[,] and Total shows palpable violation of BP 33, as amended. As aptly noted by the Court in Yao, Sr. v. People, only the duly authorized dealers and refillers of Shellane, Petron Gasul and, by extension, Total may refill these branded LPG cylinders. Our laws sought to deter the pernicious practices of unscrupulous businessmen.
Fourth. The issue of ownership of the seized branded LPG cylinders is irrelevant and hence need no belaboring. BP 33, as amended, does not require ownership of the branded LPG cylinders as a condition sine qua non for the commission of offenses involving petroleum and petroleum products. Verily, the offense of refilling a branded LPG cylinder without the written consent of the brand owner constitutes the offense regardless of the buyer or possessor of the branded LPG cylinder.
After all, once a consumer buys a branded LPG cylinder from the brand owner or its authorized dealer, said consumer is practically free to do what he pleases with the branded LPG cylinder. He can simply store the cylinder once it is empty or he can even destroy it since he has paid a deposit for it which answers for the loss or cost of the empty branded LPG cylinder. Given such fact, what the law manifestly prohibits is the refilling of a branded LPG cylinder by a refiller who has no written authority from the brand owner, Apropos, a refiller cannot and ought not to refill branded LPG cylinders if it has no written authority from the brand owner.
Besides, persuasive are the opinions and pronouncements by the DOE: brand owners are deemed owners of their duly embossed, stamped and marked LPG cylinders even if these are possessed by customers or consumers. The Court recognizes this right pursuant to our laws, i.e., Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. Thus the issuance by the DOE [of] Circular No. 2000-05-007, the letter-opinion dated December 9, 2004 of then DOE Secretary Vincent S. Perez addressed to Pilipinas Shell, the June 6, 2007 letter of then DOE Secretary Raphael P.M. Lotilla to the LPGIA, and DOE Department Circular No. 2007-10-0007 on LPG Cylinder Ownership and Obligations Related Thereto issued on October 13, 2007 by DOE Secretary Angelo T. Reyes.
Fifth. The ownership of the seized branded LPG cylinders, allegedly owned by Omni customers as petitioners adamantly profess, is of no consequence.
The law does not require that the property to be seized should'be owned by the person against whom the search [warrant] is directed. Ownership, therefore, is of no consequence, and it is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the property sought to be seized. Petitioners cannot deny that the seized LPG cylinders were in the possession of Omni, found as they were inside the Omni compound.
x x x x
Probable violation of Sec. 2 (c) of BP 33, as amended
Anent the alleged violation of Sec. 2 (c) in relation to Sec. 4 of BP 33, as amended, petitioners strongly argue that there is no probable cause for said violation based upon an underfilling of a lone cylinder of the eight branded LPG cylinders refilled during the test-buy. Besides, they point out that there was no finding of underfilling in any of the filled LPG cylinders seized during the service of the search warrants. Citing DOE's Bureau of Energy Utilization Circular No. 85-3-348, they maintain that some deviation is allowed from the exact filled weight. Considering the fact that an isolated underfilling happened in so many LPG cylinders filled, petitioners are of the view that such is due to human or equipment error and does not in any way constitute deliberate underfilling within the contemplation of the law.
Moreover, petitioners cast aspersion on the report and findings of LPG Inspector Navio of the LPGLA by assailing his independence for being a representative of the major petroleum companies and that the inspection he conducted was made without the presence of any DOE representative or any independent body having technical expertise in determining LPG cylinder underfilling beyond the authorized quantity.
Again, we are not persuaded.
Contrary to petitioners' arguments, a single underfilling constitutes an offense under BP 33, as amended by PD 1865, which clearly criminalizes these offenses. In Perez v. LPG Refillers Association of the Philippines, Inc., the Court affirmed the validity of DOE Circular No. 2000-06-010 which provided penalties on a per cylinder basis for each violation x x x.
x x x x
The Court made it clear that a violation, like underfilling, on a per cylinder basis falls within the phrase of any act as mandated under Sec. 4 of BP 33, as amended. Ineluetably, the underfilling of one LPG cylinder constitutes a clear violation of BP 33, as amended, The finding of underfilling by LPG Inspector Navio of the LPGIA, as aptly noted by Manila Assistant City Prosecutor Catalo who conducted a preliminary investigation, was indeed not controverted by petitioners.[35]