Case Digest (G.R. No. 126379)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 126379)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, Judge Caesar Casanova, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 80, Malolos, Bulacan, Azfar Hussain, Mohammad Saged, Mujahid Khan, Mohammad Aslam, and Mehmood Ali, G.R. No. 126379, June 26, 1998, the Supreme Court Third Division, Narvasa, C.J., writing for the Court.The case arose from an application for a search warrant filed on December 14, 1995 by police officers (led by P/Sr. Insp. Roger James Brillantes) before Branch 216 of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, seeking authority to search “Abigail Variety Store Apt. 1207, Area F, Bagong Buhay Ave., Sapang Palay, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.” Search Warrant No. 1068 (95) was issued on December 15, 1995. When the warrant was executed, the police actually searched and arrested four Pakistani nationals in Apartment No. 1—an apartment immediately behind and adjacent to the Abigail Variety Store—and seized personal effects, assorted weapons and explosives, and cash (including several sums in U.S. dollars, some of which were not mentioned in the warrant). A return was made three days later, on December 19, 1995, which did not disclose certain personal belongings and cash; some sums (e.g., US$5,175.00) were subsequently returned to the respondents by court order.
After arraignment on January 22, 1996 the accused pleaded not guilty and filed an “Extremely Urgent Motion (To Quash Search Warrant and to Declare Evidence Obtained Inadmissible)” dated January 15, 1996. An ocular inspection was conducted and findings (reduced to an order dated January 30, 1996) described the physical layout: Abigail Variety Store and four separate apartment units (numbered 1–4) in the same structure, each with separate doors and no internal connecting doors; Apartment No. 1 was separate from and not part of Abigail Variety Store. On February 9, 1996, Judge Caesar Casanova of Branch 80, Regional Trial Court, Malolos, Bulacan, granted the motion to quash Search Warrant No. 1068 (95), declared the seized items inadmissible, and ordered turnover of US$5,750.00 to the Court for release to the lawful owner, noting that the amount was not mentioned in the warrant. The trial court denied the People's motion for reconsideration in an order dated May 28, 1996.
The Solicitor General, representing the People, filed a special civil action for certiorari in the Court of Appeals seeking nullification of Judge Casanova's orders. The Fourteenth Division of the Court of Appeals dismissed the People’s petition for certiorari in a decision promulgated September 11, 1996, principally on grounds that (a) the place actually searched (Apartment No. 1) was different from the place described in the warrant (Abigail Variety Store Apt. 1207); (b) an ocular inspection supported the trial court’s factual findings; (c) the search was not conducted in the presence of lawful occupants; (d) the return was tardy; and (e) the presiding judge in the criminal case properly exercised authority to rule on the warrant under controlling precedents (e.g., Nolasco v. Pano). The Solicitor General then brought the present Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals decision.
Issues:
- May the trial court in which the criminal case is pending (Branch 80, RTC, Bulacan) entertain and rule on a motion to quash a search warrant issued by another court (Branch 216, RTC, Quezon City)?
- Did Search Warrant No. 1068 (95) particularly describe the place to be searched so as to validly authorize the search of Apartment No. 1 behind Abigail Variety Store?
- If the warrant was invalid as to the place searched, are the items seized inadmissible and subject to suppression?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)