Pagkalinawan vs. Gomez
December 8, 1967
21 SCRA 1275
Facts:
The RTC of Manila presided by Judge Santos issued a search warrant which resulted to seizure
of an automobile which was then held by the latter in custodia legis. Now, Norberto Dayrit filed
a replevin in RTC Cebu presided by Judge Gomez who then directed petitioner (NBI supervising
agent) to turn over the seized car to the Sheriff of Cebu City. Petitioner was threatened to be held
in contempt of court and was forced to turn over the car to the Cebu Sheriff which was later
turned over to Dayrit. When the RTC Manila sought the car, petitioner filed an MR in RTC Cebu
setting aside the replevin order which was however denied. He filed a petition for certiorari with
SC. SC issued Preliminary Injunction.
Issue: Whether or not a court of first instance of one district in a replevin proceeding may ignore
a search warrant issued by another court of first instance.
Held: No.
Once a Court of First Instance has been informed that a search warrant has been issued by
another court of first instance, it cannot require a sheriff or any proper officer of the court to take
the property subject of the replevin action, if theretofore it came into custody of another public
officer by virtue of a search warrant. Only the court of first instance that issued such a search
warrant may order its release. A contrary ruling would be subversive of a doctrine steadfastly
adhered to, the main purpose of which is to assure stability and consistency in judicial actuations
and to avoid confusion that may otherwise ensue if courts of coordinate jurisdiction are permitted
to interfere with each other’s lawful orders.
Bagalihog vs. Fernandez
June 27, 1991
198 SCRA 614
Facts:
Rep. Moises Espinosa was shot to death shortly after disembarking at the Masbate Airport. On the
same day, petitioner’s house was searched with his consent to see if the killers had sought refuge
there. Two (2) days later, Capt. Julito Roxas and his men from the Philippine Constabulary (PC)
seized the petitioner’s motorcycle and took it to the PC Head Quarters in Masbate without any
search warrant. After investigation, the petitioner and several others were charged with multiple
murder and frustrated murder for killing Espinosa and three (3) of his bodyguards. Petitioner
filed a complaint against Capt. Roxas for the recovery of the motorcycle with an application for
Writ of Replevin with damages but was dismissed by Judge Fernandez stating that property
seized in enforcing criminal laws is in the custody of the law and cannot be replevied until such
custody is ended.
Issue: Whether or not the property may be replevied.
Held: Yes.
The rule that property held as evidence in a criminal case cannot be replevied applies only where
the property is lawfully held that is seized in accordance with the rule against warrantless
searches and seizures or its accepted exceptions. It is true that property held as evidence in a
criminal case cannot be replevied. But the rule applies only where the property is lawfully held,
that is, seized in accordance with the rule against warrantless searches and seizures or its
accepted exceptions. Property subject of litigation is not by that fact alone in custodia legis. As
the Court said in Tamisin v. Odejar, “A thing is in custodia legis when it is shown that it has
been and is subjected to the official custody of a judicial executive officer in pursuance of his
execution of a legal writ.” Only when property is lawfully taken by virtue of legal process is it
considered in the custody of the law, and not otherwise.