PEOPLE V. DORIA301 SCRA 668

Facts: North Metropolitan District, Philippine National Police (PNP) Narcotics Command (Narcom), received information from two (2) civilian informants (CI) that one “Jun” was engaged in illegal drug activities in Mandaluyong City. The Narcom agents decided to entrap and arrest “Jun” in a buy-bust operation scheduled on December 5, 1995 at E. Jacinto Street in Mandaluyong City.

On December 5, 1995, at 6:00 in the morning, P/Insp. Cortes designated PO3 Manlangit as the poseur-buyer and SPO1 Badua as his back-up, and the rest of the team as perimeter security. PO3 Manlangit set aside P1,600.00 as money for the buy-bust operation.. PO3 Manlangit marked the bills with his initials and listed their serial numbers in the police blotter.

At 7:20 of the same morning, “Jun” appeared and the CI introduced PO3 Manlangit as interested in buying one (1) kilo of marijuana. PO3 Manlangit handed “Jun” the marked bills worth P1,600.00. “Jun” instructed PO3 Manlangit to wait for him at the corner of Shaw Boulevard and Jacinto Street while he got the marijuana from his associate. An hour later, “Jun” appeared at the agreed place where PO3 Manlangit, the CI and the rest of the team were waiting. “Jun” took out from his bag an object wrapped in plastic and gave it to PO3 Manlangit. PO3 Manlangit forthwith arrested “Jun” as SPO1 Badua rushed to help in the arrest. They frisked “Jun” but did not find the marked bills on him. Upon inquiry, “Jun” revealed that he left the money at the house of his associate named “Neneth.” “Jun” led the police team to “Neneth’s” house nearby at Daang Bakal.

The team found the door of “Neneth’s” house open and a woman inside. “Jun” identified the woman as his associate. SPO1 Badua asked “Neneth” about the P1,600.00 as PO3 Manlangit looked over “Neneth’s” house. Standing by the door, PO3 Manlangit noticed a carton box under the dining table. He saw that one of the box’s flaps was open and inside the box was something wrapped in plastic. The plastic wrapper and its contents appeared similar to the marijuana earlier “sold” to him by “Jun.” His suspicion aroused, PO3 Manlangit entered “Neneth’s” house and took hold of the box. He peeked inside the box and found that it contained ten (10) bricks of what appeared to be dried marijuana leaves.

Simultaneous with the box’s discovery, SPO1 Badua recovered the marked bills from “Neneth.” The policemen arrested “Neneth.” They took “Neneth” and “Jun,” together with the box, its contents and the marked bills and turned them over to the investigator at headquarters. It was only then that the police learned that “Jun” is Florencio Doria y Bolado while “Neneth” is Violeta Gaddao y Catama. The one (1) brick of dried marijuana leaves recovered from “Jun” plus the ten (10) bricks recovered from “Neneth’s” house were examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory. The bricks, eleven (11) in all, were found to be dried marijuana fruiting tops of various weights totaling 7,641.08 grams. The RTC found them guilty.

Issue: 1. WON the warrantless search of Doria is valid.2. WON the warrantless arrest of Gaddao is valid

thereby justifying the search of her person and house, and the admissibility of the pieces of

evidence obtained therefrom as incident to her arrest.

3. WON the marijuana was seized validly for being plain view of the police officers.

Held: 1. We also hold that the warrantless arrest of

accused-appellant Doria is not unlawful. Warrantless arrests are allowed in three instances as provided by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:“Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c)When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be arrested without a warrant if he “has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.” In the case at bar, Appellant Doria was caught in the act of committing an offense. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police are not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.

There is no rule of law which requires that in "buy-bust" operations there must be a simultaneous exchange of the marked money and the prohibited drug between the poseur-buyer and the pusher. Again, the decisive fact is that the poseur-buyer received the marijuana from the accused-appellant.

2. The warrantless arrest of appellant Gaddao, the search of her person and residence, and the seizure of the box of marijuana and marked bills are not valid.

Accused-appellant Gaddao was not caught red-handed during the buy-bust operation to give ground for her arrest under Section 5 (a) of Rule 113. She was not committing any crime. Contrary to the finding of the trial court, there was no occasion at all for appellant Gaddao to flee from the policemen to justify her arrest in “hot pursuit.” In fact, she was going about her daily chores when the policemen pounced on her.Neither could the arrest of appellant Gaddao be justified under the second instance of Rule 113. “Personal knowledge” of facts in arrests without warrant under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be based upon “probable cause” which means an “actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.” The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense, is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.

In this case, there was no reasonable ground of suspicion because Gaddao was arrested solely on the basis of the alleged identification made by her co-accused.Appellant Doria did not point to appellant Gaddao as his associate in the drug business, but as the person with whom he left the marked bills. This identification does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that appellant Gaddao conspired with her co-accused in pushing drugs. Appellant Doria may have left the money in her house, with or without her knowledge, with or without any conspiracy. Save for accused-appellant Doria’s word, the Narcom agents had no reasonable grounds to believe that she was engaged in drug pushing.Since the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Gaddao was illegal, it follows that the search of her person and home and the subsequent seizure of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be deemed legal as an incident to her arrest.

3. The marijuana was not in plain view of the police officers and its seizure without the requisite search warrant was unlawful.

It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. The difficulty arises when the object is inside a closed container. Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant. However, if the package proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an observer, then the contents are in plain view and may be seized.

In this case, a close scrutiny of the records reveals that the plastic wrapper was not colorless and transparent as to clearly manifest its contents to a viewer. Each of the ten (10) bricks of marijuana in the box was individually wrapped in old newspaper and placed inside plastic bags—white, pink or blue in color. The content of the box where the marijuana was partially hidden was not readily apparent to PO3 Manlangit. He did not know exactly what the box contained that he had to ask appellant Gaddao about its contents.

PEOPLE V. GERENTE219 SCRA 756

Facts: Edna Edwina Reyes testified that at about 7:00 a.m. of April 30, 1990, appellant Gabriel Gerente, together with Fredo Echigoren and Totoy Echigoren, started drinking liquor and smoking marijuana in the house of the appellant which is about six (6) meters away from the house of the prosecution witness who was in her house on that day. She overheard the three men talking about their intention to kill Clarito Blace. She testified that she heard Fredo Echigoren saying, "Gabriel, papatayin natin si Clarito Blace," and Totoy Echigoren allegedly seconded Fredo's suggestion saying: "Papatayin natin 'yan mamaya." Appellant allegedly agreed: "Sigue, papatayin natin mamaya." Fredo and Totoy Echigoren and Gerente carried out their plan to kill Clarito Blace at about 2:00 p.m. of the same day. The prosecution witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, testified that she witnessed the killing. Fredo Echigoren struck the first blow against Clarito Blace, followed by Totoy Echigoren and Gabriel Gerente who hit him twice with a piece of wood in the head and

when he fell, Totoy Echigoren dropped a hollow block on the victim's head. Thereafter, the three men dragged Blace to a place behind the house of Gerente.

At about 4:00 p.m. of the same day, Patrolman Jaime Urrutia of the Valenzuela Police Station received a report from the Palo Police Detachment about a mauling incident. He went to the Valenzuela District Hospital where the victim was brought. He was informed by the hospital officials that the victim died on arrival. The cause of death was massive fracture of the skull caused by a hard and heavy object. Right away, Patrolman Urrutia, together with Police Corporal Romeo Lima and Patrolman Alex Umali, proceeded to Paseo de Blas where the mauling incident took place. There they found a piece of wood with blood stains, a hollow block and two roaches of marijuana. They were informed by the prosecution witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, that she saw the killing and she pointed to Gabriel Gerente as one of the three men who killed Clarito.

The policemen proceeded to the house of the appellant who was then sleeping. They told him to come out of the house and they introduced themselves as policemen. Patrolman Urrutia frisked appellant and found a coin purse in his pocket which contained dried leaves wrapped in cigarette foil. The dried leaves were sent to the National Bureau of Investigation for examination. The Forensic Chemist found them to be marijuana.Only the appellant, Gabriel Gerente, was apprehended by the police. The other suspects, Fredo and Totoy Echigoren, are still at large.On May 2, 1990, two separate informations were filed by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Benjamin Caraig

against him for Violation of Section 8, Art. II, of R.A. 6425, and for Murder. The trial court rendered a decision convicting him of Violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6425 and of Murder. Hence, this appeal.

Issue: 1 WON the warrantless arrest is valid.2 WON the seizure of the marijuana leaves

violates the accused constitutional right not to be subjected to illegal search and seizure.

Held:1 The warrantless arrest is valid because

pursuant to Sec. 5(b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court the arresting officer has a personal knowledge that the person to be arrested has committed the crime. The policemen arrested Gerente only some three (3) hours after Gerente and his companions had killed Blace. They saw Blace dead in the hospital and when they inspected the scene of the crime, they found the instruments of death: a piece of wood and a concrete hollow block which the killers had used to bludgeon him to death. The eye-witness, Edna Edwina Reyes, reported the happening to the policemen and pinpointed her neighbor, Gerente, as one of the killers. Under those circumstances, since the policemen had personal knowledge of the violent death of Blace and of facts indicating that Gerente and two others had killed him, they could lawfully arrest Gerente without a warrant. If they had postponed his arrest until they could obtain a

warrant, he would have fled the law as his two companions did.

2 The seizure of marijuana leaves in Gerente’s possession does not violate his constitutional right because they were incident to a lawful warrantless arrest. Under Sec. 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant. The frisk and search of appellant's person upon his arrest was a permissible precautionary measure of arresting officers to protect themselves, for the person who is about to be arrested may be armed and might attack them unless he is first disarmed.

PEOPLE V. SUCRO195 SCRA 388

Facts: On March 21, 1989, Pat. Roy Fulgencio, a member of the INP, Kalibo, Aklan, was instructed by P/Lt. Vicente Seraspi, Jr. (Station Commander of the INP Kalibo, Aklan) to monitor the activities of appellant Edison Sucro, because of information gathered by Seraspi that Sucro was selling marijuana.

As planned, at about 5:00 P.M. on said date, Pat. Fulgencio

positioned himself under the house of a certain Arlie Regalado at C. Quimpo Street. Adjacent to the house of Regalado, about 2 meters away, was a chapel. Thereafter, Pat. Fulgencio saw appellant enter the chapel, taking something which turned out later to be marijuana from the compartment of a cart found inside the chapel, and then return to the street where he handed the same to a buyer, Aldie Borromeo. After a while appellant went back to the chapel and again came out with marijuana which he gave to a group of persons. It was at this instance that Pat. Fulgencio radioed P/Lt. Seraspi and reported the activity going on. P/Lt. Seraspi instructed Pat. Fulgencio to continue monitoring developments. At about 6:30 P.M., Pat. Fulgencio again called up Seraspi to report that a third buyer later Identified as Ronnie Macabante, was transacting with appellant.

At that point, the team of P/Lt. Seraspi proceeded to the area and while the police officers were at the Youth Hostel at Maagma St., Pat. Fulgencio told P/Lt. Seraspi to intercept Macabante and appellant. P/Lt. Seraspi and his team caught up with Macabante at the crossing of Mabini and Maagma Sts. in front of the Aklan Medical Center. Upon seeing the police, Macabante threw something to the ground which turned out to be a tea bag of marijuana. When confronted, Macabante readily admitted that he bought the same from appellant (Edison Sucro) in front of the chapel. The police team was able to overtake and arrest appellant at the corner of C. Quimpo and Veterans Sts. The police recovered 19 sticks and 4 teabags of marijuana from the cart inside the chapel and another teabag from Macabante, The teabags of marijuana were sent to the PC-INP Crime Laboratory

Service, at Camp Delgado, Iloilo City for analysis. The specimens were all found positive of marijuana. The accused-appellant contends that his arrest was illegal, being a violation of his rights granted under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. He stresses that there was sufficient time for the police officers to apply for a search and arrest warrants considering that Fulgencio informed his Station Commander of the activities of the accused two days before March 21, 1989, the date of his arrest.

Issue:1. WON the arrest without warrant of the

accused is lawful.2. WON the evidence resulting from such arrest

is admissible.

Held: 1. Yes, the arrest without warrant of the

accused is lawful. Under Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court, A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, within the meaning of the rule authorizing an arrest without a warrant, when the officer sees the offense, although at a distance, or hears the

disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof.The records show that Fulgencio went to Arlie Regalado's house at C. Quimpo Street to monitor the activities of the accused who was earlier reported to be selling marijuana at a chapel two (2) meters away from Regalado's house.Fulgencio, within a distance of two meters saw Sucro conduct his nefarious activity. He saw Sucro talk to some persons, go inside the chapel, and return to them and exchange some things. These, Sucro did three times during the time that he was being monitored. Fulgencio would then relay the on-going transaction to P/Lt. Seraspi.Anent the second requirement, the fact that Macabante, when intercepted by the police, was caught throwing the marijuana stick and when confronted, readily admitted that he bought the same from accused-appellant clearly indicates that Sucro had just sold the marijuana stick to Macabante, and therefore, had just committed an illegal act of which the police officers had personal knowledge, being members of the team which monitored Sucro's nefarious activity.

The failure of the police officers to secure a warrant stems from the fact that their knowledge acquired from the surveillance was insufficient to fulfill the requirements for the issuance of a search warrant. What is paramount is that probable cause existed.

2. The evidence resulting from such arrest is admissible there having a valid search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest.There is nothing unlawful about the arrest considering its compliance with the requirements of a warrantless

arrest. Ergo, the fruits obtained from such lawful arrest are admissible in evidence.

PEOPLE V. TONOG195 SCRA 388

Facts:

ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE CO. INC. V. HERRERA

54 SCRA 312Nature of the Action: Petition to quash and annul a search warrant issued by respondent Judge Jose Herrera of the City Court of Manila, and to command respondents to return immediately the documents, papers, receipts and records alleged to have been illegally seized thereunder by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) led by respondent Celso Zoleta, Jr.

Facts: On October 27, 1965, respondent Judge Herrera, upon the sworn application of NBI agent Celso Zoleta, Jr. supported by the deposition of his witness, Manuel Cuaresma, issued a search warrant in connection with an undocketed criminal case for estafa, falsification, insurance fraud, and tax evasion, against the Asian Surety and Insurance Co. The search warrant reads:

“It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned, after examining under oath NBI Agent Celso J. Zoleta, Jr. and his witness Manuel Cuaresma that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that Mr. William Li Yao or his employees has/have in his/their control in premises No. 2nd Floor Republic Supermarket Building, in Rizal Avenue district of Sta. Cruz, Manila, property (Subject of the offense; stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense) should be seized and brought to the undersigned.You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search at any time in the ----- of the premises above-described and forthwith seize and take possession of the following personal property to wit: Fire Registers, Loss Bordereau, Adjusters Report including subrogation receipt and proof of loss, Loss Registers, Books of Accounts, including cash receipts and disbursements and general ledger, check vouchers, income tax returns, and other papers connected therewith ... for the years 1961 to 1964 to be dealt with as the law directs.”

Armed with the search warrant Zoleta and other agents entered the premises of the Republic Supermarket Building and served the search warrant. After the search they seized and carried away two (2) carloads of documents, papers and receipts. Petitioner assails the validity of the search warrant.

Issue: WON the search warrant is valid.

Held: The search warrant is invalid based on the following.

1 Under Sec. 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, no search warrant shall for more than one specific offense. In the case at bar, the search warrant was issued for four separate and distinct offenses of: (1) estafa, (2) falsification, (3) tax evasion and (4) insurance fraud.

2 The search warrant was a general warrants for it violates the constitutional mandate requiring particular description of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. In the case at bar, the search warrant herein involved reads in part: "... property (Subject of the offense, stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense) should be seized and brought to the undersigned."The respondent judge intended the search to apply to all the three classes of property. It is impossible to see how the above-described property can simultaneously be contraband goods, stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of one and the same offense. What is plain and clear is the fact that the respondent Judge made no attempt to determine whether the property he authorized to be searched and seized pertains specifically to any one of the three classes of personal property that may be searched and seized under a search warrant under Rule 126, Sec. 3 of the Rules. The respondent Judge simply authorized search and seizure under an omnibus description of the personal properties to be seized.

3 Failure to give a detailed receipt of the things seized. Going over the receipts, the Court found the following: one bordereau of reinsurance, 8 fire registers, 1 marine register, four annual statements, folders described only as Bundle gm-1 red folders; bundle 17-22 big carton folders; folders of various sizes, etc., without stating therein the nature and kind of documents contained in the folders of which there were about a thousand of them that were seized. In the seizure of two carloads of documents and other papers, the possibility that the respondents took away private papers of the petitioner, in violation of his constitutional rights, is not remote, for the NBI agents virtually had a field day with the broad and unlimited search warrant issued by respondent Judge as their passport.

4 The search warrant violated the specific injunctions of Section 8 of Rule 126. 6 Annex "A" of the Petition which is the search warrant in question left blank the "time" for making search, while actual search was conducted in the evening of October 27, 1965, at 7:30 p.m., until the wee hours of the morning of October 28, 1965, thus causing untold inconveniences to petitioners herein. Authorities 7 are of the view that where a search is to be made during the night time, the authority for executing the same at that time should appear in the directive on the face of the warrant.

5 Existence of Probable cause and the time of the making of the Search Warrant. It has likewise been observed that the offenses alleged took place from 1961 to 1964, and the application for

search warrant was made on October 27, 1965. The time of the application is so far remote in time as to make the probable cause of doubtful veracity and the warrant vitally defective. A good and practical rule of thumb to measure the nearness of time given in the affidavit as to the date of the alleged offense, and the time of making the affidavit is thus expressed: The nearer the time at which the observation of the offense is alleged to have been made, the more reasonable the conclusion of establishment of probable cause.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, petition is hereby granted; the search warrant of October 27, 1965, is nullified and set aside, and the respondents are hereby ordered to return immediately all documents, papers and other objects seized or taken thereunder.

PEOPLE V. ACOL232 SCRA 406

Brief Summary: Two passengers who were apprehended after they supposedly staged a hold-up inside a passenger jeepney on September 29, 1990 were haled to court, not for the felonious asportation, but for possession of the two unlicensed firearms and bullets recovered from them which were instrumental in the commission of the robo.

Facts: At around 3:45 in the morning of September 29, 1990, when Percival Tan was driving his jeepney, two men boarded the vehicle in Cubao. When they crossed Pasay Road, the two wayfarers, together with two other companions, announced a hold-up. Percival Tan was instructed to proceed atop the Magallanes

interchange where the other passengers were divested of their personal belongings, including the jacket of passenger Rene Araneta. Thereafter, the robbers alighted at the Shell Gas Station near the Magallanes Commercial Center after which Percival Tan and his passengers went to Fort Bonifacio to report the crime. A CAPCOM team was forthwith formed to track down the culprits. Victim Rene Araneta who went with the responding police officers, upon seeing four persons, one of whom was wearing his stolen jacket, walking casually towards Fort Bonifacio, told the police authorities to accost said persons. After the CAPCOM officers introduced themselves, the four men scampered to different directions but three of them, namely, Tirso Acol, Pio Boses, and Albert Blanco, were apprehended. Tirso Acol and Pio Boses were each found in possession of an unlicensed .38 caliber revolver with bullets. After the arrest, the three men were brought to Fort Bonifacio and were identified by Percival Tan and the passengers who ganged up on the accused.

Issue: 1 WON the warrantless arrest is valid.2 WON the warrantless search is valid.

Held: 1 Yes. The warrantless arrest is valid.

Section 5(b) of Rule 113 serves as an exception to the requisite warrant prior to arrest: When an offense has just been committed, and he has personal knowledge based on the facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.In the case at bar, the police team was formed and dispatched to look for the persons responsible for the

crime on account of the information related by Percival Tan and Rene Araneta that they had just been robbed.

2 Since accused-appellant's arrest was lawful, it follows that the search made incidental thereto was valid.

Moreover, the unlicensed firearms were found when the police team apprehended the accused for the robbery and not for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.

MALALOAN V. COURT OF APPEAL232 SCRA 249

Associate Justice Regalado; May 6, 1994

Facts: On March 22, 1990, 1st Lt. Absalon V. Salboro of the CAPCOM Northern Sector (now Central Sector) filed with the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City an application for search warrant. The search warrant was sought for in connection with an alleged violation of P.D. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions) perpetrated at No. 25 Newport St., corner Marlboro St., Fairview, Quezon City. On March 23, 1990, respondent RTC Judge of Kalookan City issued Search Warrant No. 95-90. On the same day, at around 2:30 p.m., members of the CAPCOM, armed with subject search warrant, proceeded to the situs of the offense alluded to, where a labor seminar of the Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and Research (EILER) was then taking place. According to CAPCOM's "Inventory of Property Seized," firearms, explosive materials and subversive documents, among others, were seized and taken during the search. And all the sixty-one (61) persons found within the premises searched were brought to Camp Karingal,

Quezon City but most of them were later released, with the exception of the herein petitioners, EILER Instructors, who were indicated for violation of P.D. 1866 in Criminal Case No. Q-90-11757 before Branch 88 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, presided over by respondent Judge Tirso D.C. Velasco.On July 10, 1990, petitioners presented a "Motion for Consolidation, Quashal of Search Warrant and For the Suppression of All Illegally Acquired Evidence" before the Quezon City court; and a "Supplemental Motion to the Motion for Consolidation, Quashal of Search Warrant and Exclusion of Evidence Illegally Obtained.On September 21, 1990, the respondent Quezon City Judge issued the challenged order, consolidating subject cases but denying the prayer for the quashal of the search warrant under attack, the validity of which warrant was upheld; opining that the same falls under the category of Writs and Processes, within the contemplation of paragraph 3(b) of the Interim Rules and Guidelines, and can be served not only within the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing court but anywhere in the judicial region of the issuing court (National Capital Judicial Region).Respondent Court of Appeals rendered judgment, in effect affirming that of the trial court, by denying due course to the petition for certiorari and lifting the temporary restraining order it had issued on November 29, 1990 in connection therewith. This judgment of respondent court is now impugned in and sought to be reversed through the present recourse before this Court.

Issue: WON a court may take cognizance of an application for a search warrant in connection with an offense committed outside its territorial boundary and, thereafter, issue the warrant to conduct a search on a

place outside the court's supposed territorial jurisdiction.

Held: Yes. A court may take cognizance of an application for a search warrant in connection with an offense committed outside its territorial boundary and, thereafter, issue the warrant to conduct a search on a place outside the court's supposed territorial jurisdiction.

Rationale: 1 A search warrant is but a judicial process,

not a criminal action. No legal provision, statutory or reglementary, expressly or impliedly provides a jurisdictional or territorial limit on its area of enforceability.

No law or rule imposes such a limitation on search warrants, in the same manner that no such restriction is provided for warrants of arrest. When the law or rules would provide conditions, qualifications or restrictions, they so state. The arguments of the petitioners are not inferable by necessary implication from the statutory provisions which are presumed to be complete and expressive of the intendment of the framers, a contrary interpretation on whatever pretext should not be countenanced. A bit of legal history on this contestation will be helpful. The jurisdictional rule heretofore was that writs and processes of the so-called inferior courts could be enforced outside the province only with the approval of the former court of first instance. 21 Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act, the enforcement of such writs and processes no longer needs the approval of the regional trial court. 22 On the other hand, while, formerly, writs and processes of the then courts of first instance were enforceable throughout the Philippines,

23 under the Interim or Transitional Rules and Guidelines, certain specified writs issued by a regional trial court are now enforceable only within its judicial region.

2 Practical consideration.This is but a necessary and inevitable

consequence of the nature and purpose of a search warrant. The Court cannot be blind to the fact that it is extremely difficult, as it undeniably is, to detect or elicit information regarding the existence and location of illegally possessed or prohibited articles. The Court is accordingly convinced that it should not make the requisites for the apprehension of the culprits and the confiscation of such illicit items, once detected, more onerous if not impossible by imposing further niceties of procedure or substantive rules of jurisdiction through decisional dicta. For that matter, we are unaware of any instance wherein a search warrant was struck down on objections based on territorial jurisdiction. We do not believe that the enforcement of a search warrant issued by a court outside the territorial jurisdiction wherein the place to be searched is located would create a constitutional question. Nor are we swayed by the professed apprehension that the law enforcement authorities may resort to what could be a permutation of forum shopping, by filing an application for the warrant with a "friendly" court. It need merely be recalled that a search warrant is only a process, not an action. Furthermore, the constitutional mandate is translated into specifically enumerated safeguards in Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure for the issuance of a search warrant, 26 and all these have to be observed regardless of whatever court in whichever region is importuned for or actually issues a

search warrant. Said requirements, together with the ten-day lifetime of the warrant would discourage resort to a court in another judicial region, not only because of the distance but also the contingencies of travel and the danger involved, unless there are really compelling reasons for the authorities to do so. Besides, it does seem odd that such constitutional protests have not been made against warrants of arrest which are enforceable indefinitely and anywhere although they involve, not only property and privacy, but persons and liberty.

On the other hand, it is a matter of judicial knowledge that the authorities have to contend now and then with local and national criminal syndicates of considerable power and influence, political or financial in nature, and so pervasive as to render foolhardy any attempt to obtain a search warrant in the very locale under their sphere of control. Nor should we overlook the fact that to do so will necessitate the transportation of applicant's witnesses to and their examination in said places, with the attendant risk, danger and expense. Also, a further well-founded precaution, obviously born of experience and verifiable data, is articulated by the court a quo, as quoted by respondent court: This court is of the further belief that the possible leakage of information which is of utmost importance in the issuance of a search warrant is secured (against) where the issuing magistrate within the region does not hold court sessions in the city or municipality, within the region, where the place to be searched is located.The foregoing situations may also have obtained and were taken into account in the foreign judicial pronouncement that, in the absence of statutory restrictions, a justice of the peace in one district of the

county may issue a search warrant to be served in another district of the county and made returnable before the justice of still another district or another court having jurisdiction to deal with the matters involved. In the present state of our law on the matter, we find no such statutory restrictions both with respect to the court which can issue the search warrant and the enforcement thereof anywhere in the Philippines.

3 The Supreme Court lay down the following policy guidelines:

1. The court wherein the criminal case is pending shall have primary jurisdiction to issue search warrants necessitated by and for purposes of said case. An application for a search warrant may be filed with another court only under extreme and compelling circumstances that the applicant must prove to the satisfaction of the latter court which may or may not give due course to the application depending on the validity of the justification offered for not filing the same in the court with primary jurisdiction thereover.

2. When the latter court issues the search warrant, a motion to quash the same may be filed in and shall be resolved by said court, without prejudice to any proper recourse to the appropriate higher court by the party aggrieved by the resolution of the issuing court. All grounds and objections then available, existent or known shall be raised in the original or subsequent proceedings for the quashal of the warrant, otherwise they shall be deemed waived.

3. Where no motion to quash the search warrant was filed in or resolved by the issuing court, the interested party may move in the court where the criminal case is pending for the suppression as evidence of the

personal property seized under the warrant if the same is offered therein for said purpose. Since two separate courts with different participations are involved in this situation, a motion to quash a search warrant and a motion to suppress evidence are alternative and not cumulative remedies. In order to prevent forum shopping, a motion to quash shall consequently be governed by the omnibus motion rule, provided, however, that objections not available, existent or known during the proceedings for the quashal of the warrant may be raised in the hearing of the motion to suppress. The resolution of the court on the motion to suppress shall likewise be subject to any proper remedy in the appropriate higher court.

4. Where the court which issued the search warrant denies the motion to quash the same and is not otherwise prevented from further proceeding thereon, all personal property seized under the warrant shall forthwith be transmitted by it to the court wherein the criminal case is pending, with the necessary safeguards and documentation therefor.

5. These guidelines shall likewise be observed where the same criminal offense is charged in different informations or complaints and filed in two or more courts with concurrent original jurisdiction over the criminal action. Where the issue of which court will try the case shall have been resolved, such court shall be considered as vested with primary jurisdiction to act on applications for search warrants incident to the criminal case.

SEPARATE OPINION

DAVIDE [concurring and dissenting]The majority opinion enunciates these two principles:

1. Before the criminal action is filed with the appropriate court, a court which has no territorial jurisdiction over the crime may validly entertain an application for and thereafter issue a search warrant in connection with the commission of such crime; and

2. After the filing of the criminal action, the court with which it was filed has primary jurisdiction to issue search warrants necessitated by and for purposes of said case; however, under extreme and compelling circumstances, another court may issue a search warrant in connection with said case.

I am unable to agree with the first and with the exception to the second.The absence of any express statutory provision prohibiting a court from issuing a search warrant in connection with a crime committed outside its territorial jurisdiction should not be construed as a grant of blanket authority to any court of justice in the country to issue a search warrant in connection with a crime committed outside its territorial jurisdiction. The majority view suggests or implies that a municipal trial court in Tawi-Tawi, Basilan, or Batanes can validly entertain an application for a search warrant and issue one in connection with a crime committed in Manila. Elsewise stated, all courts in the Philippines, including the municipal trial courts, can validly issue a search warrant in connection with a crime committed anywhere in the Philippines. Simply put, all courts of justice in the Philippines have, for purposes of issuing a search warrant, jurisdiction over the entire archipelago.

I cannot subscribe to this view since, in the first place, a search warrant is but an incident to a main case and involves the exercise of an ancillary jurisdiction therefore, the authority to issue it must necessarily be co-extensive with the court's territorial jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would be to add an exception to the statutory provisions defining the territorial jurisdiction of the various courts of the country, which would amount to judicial legislation. The territorial jurisdiction of the courts is determined by law, and a reading of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 discloses that the territorial jurisdiction of regional trial courts, metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts and municipal circuit trial courts are confined to specific territories. In the second place, the majority view may legitimize abuses that would result in the violation the civil rights of an accused or the infliction upon him of undue and unwarranted burdens and inconvenience as when, for instance, an accused who is a resident of Basco, Batanes, has to file a motion to quash a search warrant issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila in connection with an offense he allegedly committed in Itbayat, Batanes.

Nor can Stonehill vs. Diokno (20 SCRA 383) be an authoritative confirmation of the unlimited or unrestricted power of any court to issue search warrants in connection with crimes committed outside its territorial jurisdiction. While it may be true that the forty-two search warrants involved therein were issued by several Judges — specifically Judges (a) Amado Roan of the City Court of Manila, (b) Roman Cansino of the City Court of Manila, (c) Hermogenes Caluag of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City Branch), (d) Eulogio Mencias of the Court of First Instance of

Rizal (Pasig Branch), and (e) Damian Jimenez of the City Court of Quezon City (Footnote 2, page 387) — there is no definite showing that the forty-two search warrants were for the searches and seizures of properties outside the territorial jurisdiction of their respective courts. The warrants were issued against the petitioners and corporations of which they were officers and some of the corporations enumerated in Footnote 7 have addresses in Manila and Makati. (pp. 388-89). Rizal (which includes Makati) and Quezon City both belonged to the Seventh Judicial District. That nobody challenged on jurisdictional ground the issuance of these search warrants is no argument in favor of the unlimited power of a court to issue search warrants.

B. I have serious misgivings on the exception to the second principle where another court may, because of extreme and compelling circumstances, issue a search warrant in connection with a criminal case pending in an appropriate court. To illustrate this exception, the Municipal Trial Court of Argao, Cebu, may validly issue a warrant for the search of a house in Davao City and the seizure of any property therein that may have been used in committing an offense in Manila already the subject of an information filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. I submit that the exception violates the settled principle that even in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the first court which acquires jurisdiction over the case acquires it to the exclusion of the other. (People vs. Fernando, 23 SCRA 867, 870 [1968]). This being so, it is with more reason that a court which does not have concurrent jurisdiction with the first which had taken cognizance of the case does not also have the authority to issue writs or processes, including search warrants, in

connection with the pending case. Moreover, since the issuance of a search warrant is an incident to a main case or is an exercise of the ancillary jurisdiction of a court, the court where the main case is filed has exclusive jurisdiction over all incidents thereto and in the issuance of all writs and processes in connection therewith. Furthermore, instead of serving the ends of justice, the exception may provide room for unwarranted abuse of the judicial process, wreak judicial havoc and procedural complexities which effective law enforcement apparently cannot justify. I cannot conceive of any extreme and compelling circumstance which the court that first acquired jurisdiction over the case cannot adequately meet within its broad powers and authority.

In the light of the foregoing, and after re-examining my original view in this case, I respectfully submit that:

1. Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed may validly entertain an application for and issue a search warrant in connection with said crime. However, in the National Capital Judicial Region, Administrative Circulars No. 13 of 1 October 1985, and No. 19 of 4 August 1987 must be observed.

2. After the criminal complaint or information is filed with the appropriate court, search warrants in connection with the crime charged may only be issued by said court.

NOLASCO V. CRUZ PAÑOFacts:

Prior to August 6, 1984, petitioner AGUILAR-ROQUE was one of the accused of Rebellion. At 11:30 A.M. on August 6th, AGUILAR-ROQUE and NOLASCO were arrested by a Constabulary Security Group (CSG) at the intersection of Mayon Street and P. Margall Street, Quezon City. The stated time is an allegation of petitioners, not denied by respondents.On August 6th, at around 9:00 A.M., Lt. Col. Virgilio G. Saldajeno of the CSG, applied for a Search Warrant from respondent Hon. Ernani Cruz Paño to be served at No. 239-B Mayon Street, Quezon City, determined to be the leased residence of AGUILAR-ROQUE, after almost a month of "round the clock surveillance" of the premises as a "suspected underground house of the CPP/NPA."

The Search Warrant (No. 80-84) describes the personalities to be seized as follows: Documents, papers and other records of the Communist Party of the Phihppines/New Peoples Army and/or the National Democratic Front, such as Minutes of the Party Meetings, Plans of these groups, Programs, List of possible supporters, subversive books and instructions, manuals not otherwise available to the public, and support money from foreign or local sources.” The searching party seized 428 documents and written materials, and additionally a portable typewriter, and 2 wooden boxes, making 431 items in all.On December 12th, petitioners filed a Motion to Suppress in the SUBVERSIVE DOCUMENTS CASE, praying that such of the 431 items belonging to them be returned to them. It was claimed that the proceedings under the Search Warrant were unlawful.

Issue: WON the search warrant is valid.

Held: The search warrant is not valid.1. The foregoing Search Warrant authorizes the seizure of personal properties vaguely described and not particularized. It is an all- embracing description which includes everything conceivable regarding the Communist Party of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front. It does not specify what the subversive books and instructions are; what the manuals not otherwise available to the public contain to make them subversive or to enable them to be used for the crime of rebellion. There is absent a definite guideline to the searching team as to what items might be lawfully seized thus giving the officers of the law discretion regarding what articles they should seize as, in fact, taken also were a portable typewriter and 2 wooden boxes. It is thus in the nature of a general warrant and infringes on the constitutional mandate requiring particular description of the things to be seized.

2. Notwithstanding the irregular issuance of the Search Warrant and although, ordinarily, the articles seized under an invalid search warrant should be returned, they cannot be ordered returned in the case at bar to AGUILAR-ROQUE. Some searches may be made without a warrant. Thus, Section 12, Rule 126, Rules of Court, explicitly provides: Section 12. Search without warrant of person arrested.—A person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense.The provision is declaratory in the sense that it is confined to the search, without a search warrant, of a person who had been arrested. It is also a general rule that, as an incident of an arrest, the place or premises

where the arrest was made can also be search without a search warrant.Considering that AGUILAR-ROQUE has been charged with Rebellion, which is a crime against public order; that the warrant for her arrest has not been served for a considerable period of time; that she was arrested within the general vicinity of her dwelling; and that the search of her dwelling was made within a half hour of her arrest, we are of the opinion that in her respect, the search at No. 239-B Mayon Street, Quezon City, did not need a search warrant; this, for possible effective results in the interest of public order.WHEREFORE, while Search Warrant No. 80-84 issued on August 6, 1984 by respondent Executive Judge Ernani Cruz Paño is hereby annulled and set aside, and the Temporary Restraining Order enjoining respondent from introducing evidence obtained pursuant to the Search Warrant in the Subversive Documents case hereby made permanent, the, personalities seized may be retained by the Constabulary Security Group for possible introduction as evidence in Criminal Case No. SMC-1-1, pending before Special Military commission No. 1, without prejudice to petitioner Mila Aguilar-Roque objecting to their relevance and asking said Commission to return to her any and all irrelevant documents and articles.

SEPARATE OPINIONSCUEVAS [concurring and dissenting]I fully agree with the pronouncement in the majority opinion nullifying Search warrant No. 80-84 issued by the Hon. Ernani Cruz Paño Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City which was served at 239B Mayon St., Quezon City It does not specify with requisite particularity the things, objects or

properties that may be seized hereunder. Being in the nature of a general warrant, it violates the constitutional mandate that the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized, 'must be particularly described.

I, however, regret being unable to concur with the dictum justifying the said search on the basis of Sec. 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court which provides: SEC. 12. Search without warrant of person arrested.—A person charged with an offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense.The lawful arrest being the sole justification for the validity of the warrantless search under the aforequoted provision (Sec. 12, Rule 126) the same must be limited to and circumscribed by, the subject, time, and place of said arrest. As to subject, the warrantless search is sanctioned only with respect to the person of the suspect, and things that may be seized from him are limited to "dangerous weapons" or "anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense.With respect to the time and place of the warrantless search allowed by law, it must be contemporaneous with the lawful arrest. Stated otherwise, to be valid, the search must have been conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately thereafter and only at the place where the suspect was arrested.In the instant case, petitioners were arrested at the intersection of Mayon St. and P. Margall St. at 11:30 A.M. of August 6. 1976. The search, on the other hand, was conducted after the arrest, that was at around 12:00 noon of the same day or "late that same day (as respondents claim in their "COMMENT") at the

residence of petitioner AGUILAR-ROQUE in 239B Mayn� St., Quezon City. How far or how many kilometers is that place from the place where petitioner was arrested do not appear shown by the record. But what appears undisputed is that the search was made in a place other than the place of arrest and, not on the occasion of nor immediately after the arrest. It cannot be said, therefore, that such a search was incidental to the arrest of the petitioners. Not being an incident of a lawful arrest, the search of the premises at 239B Mayon St., Quezon City WITHOUT A VALID SEARCH WARRANT is ILLEGAL and violative of the constitutional rights of the respondent. The things and properties seized on the occasion of said illegal search are therefore INADMISSIBLE in evidence under the exclusionary rule. However, not all the things so seized can be ordered returned to their owners. Objects and properties the possession of which is prohibited by law, cannot be returned to their owners notwithstanding the illegality of their seizure.

ALVAREZ Alvarez case, 18 the applicant stated that his purpose for applying for a search warrant was that: "It had been reported to me by a person whom I consider to be reliable that there are being kept in said premises books, documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by him in connection with his activities as a money lender, challenging usurious rate of interests, in violation of law."

PRUDENTE V. DAYRIT180 SCRA 69

Facts: On 31 October 1987, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw, Chief of the Intelligence Special Action Division (ISAD) of the Western Police District (WPD) filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 33, presided over by respondent Judge Abelardo Dayrit, an application for the issuance of a search warrant for VIOLATION OF PD NO. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc. In his application for search warrant, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw alleged, among others, as follows:1. That he has been informed and has good and sufficient reasons to believe that NEMESIO PRUDENTE who may be found at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Anonas St. Sta. Mesa, Sampaloc, Manila, has in his control or possession firearms, explosives hand grenades and ammunition which are illegally possessed or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense which the said NEMESIO PRUDENTE is keeping and concealing at the following premises of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, to wit:a. Offices of the Department of Military Science and Tactics at the ground floor and other rooms at the ground floor;b. Office of the President, Dr. Nemesio Prudente at PUP, Second Floor and other rooms at the second floor;

2. That the undersigned has verified the report and found it to be a fact, and therefore, believes that a Search Warrant should be issued to enable the undersigned or any agent of the law to take possession and bring to this Honorable Court the following described properties:

a. M 16 Armalites with ammunitions;b. .38 and .45 Caliber handguns and pistols;c. explosives and handgrenades; and,d. assorted weapons with ammunitions.

In support of the application for issuance of search warrant, P/Lt. Florenio C. Angeles, OIC of the Intelligence Section of (ISAD) executed a "Deposition of Witness" dated 31 October 1987: Some parts read:

Q: How do you know that said property is subject of the offense of violation of Pres. Decree No. 1866 or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense?A: Sir, as a result of our continuous surveillance conducted for several days, we gathered information from verified sources that the holder of said firearms and explosives as well as ammunitions aren't licensed to possess said firearms and ammunition. Further, the premises is a school and the holders of these firearms are not students who were not supposed to possess firearms, explosives and ammunition.

In his affidavit, dated 2 November 1987, Ricardo Abando y Yusay, a member of the searching team, alleged that he found in the drawer of a cabinet inside the wash room of Dr. Prudente's office a bulging brown envelope with three (3) live fragmentation hand grenades separately wrapped with old newspapers, classified by P/Sgt. J.L. Cruz as follows (a) one (1) pc.—M33 Fragmentation hand grenade (live); (b) one (11) pc.—M26 Fragmentation hand grenade (live); and (c) one (1) pc.—PRB—423 Fragmentation hand grenade (live).

On 6 November 1987, petitioner moved to quash the search warrant. He claimed that (1) The complainant's lone witness, Lt. Florenio C. Angeles, had no personal knowledge of the facts which formed the basis for the issuance of the search warrant; (2) The search warrant failed to charge one specific offense.

Issue:1. WON the search warrant was based on probable

cause.2. WON the search warrant is in connection with

one specific offense in not stating the specific section of P.D. 1866.

Held: 1. No, the search warrant was not based on

probable cause; hence, it is not valid.The "probable cause" for a valid search warrant, has been defined "as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched." This probable cause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay.

In his application for search warrant, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw stated that "he has been informed" that Nemesio Prudente "has in his control and possession" the firearms and explosives described therein, and that he "has verified the report and found it to be a fact." On the other hand, in his supporting deposition, P/Lt. Florenio C. Angeles declared that, as a result of

their continuous surveillance for several days, they "gathered informations from verified sources" that the holders of the said fire arms and explosives are not licensed to possess them. In other words, the applicant and his witness had no personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances which became the basis for issuing the questioned search warrant, but acquired knowledge thereof only through information from other sources or persons.

2. The search warrant satisfies the requirement that it should be issued in connection with one specific offense.

In the present case, however, the application for search warrant was captioned: "For Violation of PD No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc.). While the said decree punishes several offenses, the alleged violation in this case was, qualified by the phrase "illegal possession of firearms, etc." As explained by respondent Judge, the term "etc." referred to ammunitions and explosives. In other words, the search warrant was issued for the specific offense of illegal possession of firearms and explosives. Hence, the failure of the search warrant to mention the particular provision of PD No. 1866 that was violated is not of such a gravity as to call for its invalidation on this score. Besides, while illegal possession of firearms is penalized under Section 1 of PD No. 1866 and illegal possession of explosives is penalized under Section 3 thereof, it cannot be overlooked that said decree is a codification of the various laws on illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives; such illegal possession of items destructive of life and property are related offenses or belong to the same species, as to be subsumed within the category of illegal possession of firearms, etc. under P.D. No. 1866.