Spouses Marimla v People (2009, G.R. N0. 158467)

 

Spouses Joel and Marietta Marimla v. People of the Philippines, et al.

G.R. No. 158467, July 23, 2009

 

Facts:

            In February 2002, an investigator and a witness applied for a search warrant in RTC-Manila to search the house of spouses Marimla in Pampanga, based on their personal knowledge of the spouses’ violation of RA 6425 (drugs).

 

            The petitioners filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant and to Suppress Evidence Illegally Seized on the following grounds: 

(1)   the application for search warrant was filed outside the territorial jurisdiction and judicial region of the court where the alleged crime was committed; 

(2)   the court which issued the questioned search warrant committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued the same because under the law it cannot issue a search warrant outside its territorial jurisdiction; 

(3)   the questioned search warrant is void ab initio; and 

(4)   the evidence illegally seized by virtue of the questioned search warrant is therefore inadmissible in evidence.

 

Issues: 

 

1.     W/N the search warrant issued by RTC Manila was valid despite the house searched being in Pampanga.

 

2.     W/N the search warrant issued is valid despite not being personally endorsed by the NBI Head, but only endorsed by a Deputy Director.

 

Held: 

 

1.     The search warrant is valid. A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC authorizes the Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City to act on all applications for search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms on application filed by the PNP, NBI, PAOC-TF, and REACT-TF.

 

 

 

2.     The search warrant is valid. Nothing in A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC prohibits the heads of the PNP, NBI, PAOC-TF and REACT-TF from delegating their ministerial duty of endorsing the application for search warrant to their assistant heads. Under Section 31, Chapter 6, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, an assistant head or other subordinate in every bureau may perform such duties as may be specified by their superior or head, as long as it is not inconsistent with law. 

 

AM 99-10-09-SC

-       authorizes the Executive Judges and Vice Executive Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City to act on all applications for search warrants involving dangerous drugs, among others (namely heinous crimes, illegal gambling, and illegal possession of firearms), filed by the NBI, and provides that said warrants may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City.

-       Applications personally endorsed by the heads of said agencies

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.