OBRA v.

CA
G.R. No. 120852 October 28, 1999

Facts:
Petitioner Benjamin Obra was Regional Director of the Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences
(BMGS) in Baguio. On jun 26, 1985, Jeannette Grybos wrote him a letter on behalf of the Gillies
heirs complaining that private respondents (Sps. James and June Brett) had been conducting
illegal mining activities in Bgy. Palasa-an, Mankayan, Benguet, belonging to Gillies family. On
the same day, Obra wrote Brig. Gen Tomas Dumpit1 requesting assistance in apprehending a
truck2 allegedly used by Sps. Brett in illegal mining. The next day, Obra wrote Sps Brett and
Grybos informing them that BMGS was going to conduct an ocular inspection and field
investigation and requesting them to be present “so that all… matters… shall be gathered and
collated in order for this Office to take appropriate action.” Elements of RUC under Maj. Densen
seized the truck3 as it was entering “Mamakar” mining area. It was impounded by the military
and prevented from leaving the area except on mercy missions4. Private respondents filed a
complaint for injunction and damages with the RTC as the truck was seized without due provess
in violation of their constitutional rights under Art. 32 of the Civil Code.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioners (Obra and Dumpit) were authorized to seize the vehicle in the absence
of any finding of probably cause (PC).

Held:
No. Although petitioners have authority to order seizure and confiscation via PD. 1281, Art IV,
S3 of the 1973 Constitution merely validated the grant by law to nonjudicial officers of the
power to issue warrants but did not in any way exempt them from the duty of determining the
eixstence of probable cause. Petitioner Obra’s letters to private respondents and Grybos clearly
stated that an investigation was to be held on July 2-5, 1985 to determine the veracity of the
allegations of Grybo’s complaint. His only basis was an alleged certification from the BMGS
that no mining permit had been issued to the Sps. However, such certification was not presented
in evidence. The seizure cannot be justified under the moving vehicle doctrine as there is no
existence of probable cause. The doctrine does not give poblice officers umliminted discretion to
conduct warrantless searches of automobiles in the absence of PC. Therefore, the CA is correct
in affirming the RTC’s decision that petitioners are liable for damages (P100,000) and attorney’s
fees (P10,000) in violation of the Sps. Rights under Art. 32 of the Civil Code.