Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28591)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28591)
Facts:
Eric C. Ong v. Hon. Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 132839, November 21, 2001, the Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.On July 4, 1995, Judge Ariston Rubio of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 17, Batac, Ilocos Norte issued Search Warrant No. 17 against private respondent Eric C. Ong; the PNP executed the warrant at Ong's house and seized several firearms, parts and ammunition, including five live 9-mm rounds. A criminal information arising from that search was later filed in RTC Branch 15, Laoag City.
On November 13, 1995 Ong filed before the issuing court (RTC Branch 17) a Motion to Recall the search warrant and to release the seized items. On November 14, 1995 he separately filed in the criminal court (RTC Branch 15) a Motion for Reinvestigation and suspension of proceedings; Branch 15 granted the latter and directed the Provincial Prosecutor to reinvestigate within 30 days.
On April 16, 1996 Judge Rubio issued the resolution granting the Motion to Recall and ordering return of the seized items; he denied the Provincial Prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration on June 18, 1996. The prosecution, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals seeking to annul both the April 16 resolution and the June 18 order. In its October 29, 1997 decision (CA-G.R. No. S.P. 43397) the Court of Appeals granted the petition, set aside the issuing court’s recall and held that the court trying the criminal case has jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the search warrant, citing People v. Bans. The CA denied reconsideration in a February 27, 1998 resolution. The present petition to the Supreme Court assails the CA decision; petitioner raises two assignments of error contesting the CA’s reliance on Bans rather than on People v. Woolcock and alleging that his constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure were subordinated to procedural concerns.
Issues:
- Which court has jurisdiction to rule on a motion questioning the legality of a search warrant — the court that issued the warrant or the court trying the criminal case?
- Did the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the issuing court’s recall of the warrant violate petitioner’s constitutional rights against illegal search and seizure?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)