MUSTANG LUMBER, INC VS. CA (Davide, Jr., 1996) A search warrant has a lifetime of 10 days.

It could be served at any time within 10 days. If its object or purpose cannot be accomplished in 1 day, the same may be continued the following day or days until completed, provided it is within the 10 day period. FACTS: On 1 April 1990, Special Actions and Investigation Division (SAID), acting on information that a huge pile of narra flitches, shorts, and slabs were seen inside the lumberyard of Mustang Lumber, conducted a surveillance at Mustang lumberyard. The team saw a truck loaded with lauan and almaciga lumber coming out of the lumberyard. Since the driver could not produce the required invoices and transport documents, the team seized the truck together with its cargo and impounded them at DENR compound. On 3 April 1990, RTC Valenzuela issued a search warrant. On same day, the team seized from the lumberyard narra shorts, trimmings and slabs, narra lumber, and various species of lumber and shorts. On 4 April 1990, team returned to lumberyard and placed under administrative seizure (owner retains physical possession of seized articles, only an inventory is taken) the remaining lumber because Mustang Lumber failed to produce required documents upon demand. Upon recommendation of SAID Chief Robles, DENR Sec Factoran suspended Mustang Lumbers permit and confiscated in favor of the govt the seized articles. Mustang Lumber filed for a TRO against Factoran and Robles, and questioned the validity of the April 1 and 4 seizure. RTC held that the warrantless seizure on April 1 is valid as it comes within the exceptions where warrantless seizure is justified (search of a moving vehicle), and April 4 seizure was also valid pursuant to the search warrant issued on April 3. CA affirmed. Mustang lumber filed a petition for review on certiorari. ISSUES: a) WON the search and seizure on April 4 was valid. HELD: Yes. The search and seizures made on April 1, 3, 4 were all valid. valid. (1) April 1 search was conducted on a moving vehicle, which could be lawfully conducted without a search warrant. (2*) The search on April 4 was a continuation of the search on April 3 done under and by virtue of the search warrant issued on 3 April 1990 by Exec Judge Osorio. Under ROC Rule 126 Sec 9, a search warrant ahs a lifetime of 10 days. Hence, it could be served

at any time within the said period, and if its object or purpose cannot be accomplished in 1 day, the same may be continued the following day or days until completed, provided it is still within the 10-day period. DISPOSITIVE: Petition is denied. CA did not commit any reversible error in affirming RTC judgment. Search and seizure done was valid. CASE DIGEST BY Agee Romero ***There were other issues in the case: the owner of Mustang Lumber was charged with violation of the Forestry Reform Code. Mustang lumber moved to quash the information on the ground that the facts comprising the charge did not amount to a criminal offense (subject matter of the information is lumber, which is neither timber nor other forest product under Forestry Reform Code and hence, possession thereof w/o the required legal documents is not prohibited) and to suspend the proceedings pending the outcome of the formal challenge of Mustang Lumber regarding the legality of the seizure. Lengthy discussion on the meaning of lumber. But SC held that the information validly charged an offense because lumber is included in the term timber.