Shell and Petron v RIGC (2015, G.R. No. 189669)

 Shell and Petron v Romars International Gases Corp

G.R. No. 189669, July 23, 2015

 

Facts:

            RIGC was charged for illegal refilling, distribution, and/or sale of LPG products under the name of Shell and Petron (violation of IPC or RA 8293, and RA 623). The NBI investigated the case and found that some of the tanks were delivered in Edrich Enterprises in Iriga City. The NBA filed for two separate Applications for Search Warrant with RTC-Naga.

            RIGC filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant for the following grounds: a) there was no probable cause; (b) there had been a lapse of four weeks from the date of the test-buy to the date of the search and seizure operations; (c) most of the cylinders seized were not owned by respondent but by a third person; and (d) Edrich Enterprises is an authorized outlet of Gasul and Marsflame. They also filed an Appearance with Motion for Consideration, contending that the NBI should have applied for search warrant in RTC-Iriga, which has territorial jurisdiction over Edrich Enterprises.

Issue: W/N RTC-Naga has jurisdiction to issue search warrants when the crime was committed beyond it’s territorial jurisdiction.

Held: RTC-Naga has jurisdiction to issue criminal processes such as a search warrant for a criminal activity in Iriga. It is not a criminal action, and thus the rule that venue is jurisdictional does not apply. Moreover, RIGC failed to include the issue of jurisdiction at the first instance in its motion to quash, as such, the motion is denied.

 

Why the SC denied the motion to quash the SW on the ground of jurisdiction:

The Court would take cognizance of an issue that was not raised in the motion to quash in two cases (according to the omnibus motion rule), one of which is if the issue was one involving jurisdiction over the subject matter. However, an application for a search warrant is not a criminal action, thus, the rule that venue is jurisdictional does not apply thereto. Therefore, the Court denied the motion since it was not raised in the MTQ, and the court cannot take cognizance of the issue raised in the MR because it is not an issue pertaining to/questioning jurisdiction.

        The omnibus motion rule embodied in Section 8, Rule 15, in relation to Section 1, Rule 9, demands that all available objections be included in a party's motion, otherwise, said objections shall be deemed waived; and, the only grounds the court could take cognizance of, even if not pleaded in said motion are: 

1. lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; 
2. existence of another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; and 
3. bar by prior judgment (res judicata) or by statute of limitations.

It must be noted in Section 2(b), Rule 126, the application for search warrant in this case should have stated compelling reasons why the same was being filed with the RTC-Naga instead of the RTC-Iriga City, considering that it is the latter court that has territorial jurisdiction over the place where the alleged crime was committed and also the place where the search warrant was enforced. The wordings of the provision is of a mandatory nature, requiring a statement of compelling reasons if the application is filed in a court which does not have territorial jurisdiction over the place of commission of the crime.

A search warrant is 

-       an order in writing 

-       issued in the name of the People of the Philippines 

-       signed by a judge

-       directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property and bring it before the court

-       in the nature of a criminal process akin to a writ of discovery

-       a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in its nature, and made necessary because of a public necessity

-       the rule that venue is jurisdictional does not apply thereto

o   the power to issue a special criminal process is inherent in all courts.