Case Digest (G.R. No. 158467)
Facts:
Spouses Joel and Marietta Marimla v. People of the Philippines and Hon. Omar T. Viola, G.R. No. 158467, October 16, 2009, Supreme Court First Division, Leonardo-De Castro, J., writing for the Court. Before the Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 seeking annulment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Angeles City, Branch 57, Orders dated September 6, 2002 and April 21, 2003 denying petitioners' Motion to Quash Search Warrant and to Suppress Evidence Illegally Seized.On February 15, 2002, Special Investigator Ray C. Lagasca of the NBI filed two applications for search warrants with the RTC of Manila seeking authority to search the Marimlas' house in Angeles City and a premises in Porac, Pampanga for violations of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act). The applications alleged personal knowledge and surveillance by SI Lagasca and witness Roland D. Fernandez, including a test buy, and sought to seize methamphetamine hydrochloride ("shabu"), marijuana and related paraphernalia.
Executive Judge Mario Guarina III examined SI Lagasca and Fernandez under oath and issued Search Warrant No. 02-2677 (Manila RTC) authorizing search and seizure within ten days. On February 19, 2002, NBI agents, in coordination with the PNP, executed the warrant at the Marimlas' house and seized cash (P15,200.00) and several packages of dried flowering tops and other items later identified as marijuana. An Information was filed on February 20, 2002 in the RTC of Angeles City, Branch 57, presided by Hon. Omar T. Viola, charging the petitioners.
On March 25, 2002, petitioners moved to quash the Manila-issued warrant and to suppress the seized evidence, arguing among others that the application was defective because it was not personally endorsed by NBI Director Reynaldo G. Wycoco but by Deputy Director Fermin Nasol, and that issuance by an RTC outside the place where the crime occurred violated Rule 126, Sec. 2 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. They submitted documentary evidence including the application for search warrant and the authorization letter purportedly signed on behalf of Director Wycoco.
The Office of the City Prosecutor and SI Lagasca opposed, invoking A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC (authorizing Executive Judges of Manila and Quezon City to act on specified agencies' search-warrant applications and to allow service outside territorial jurisdiction) and asserting Nasol was authorized to sign for Director Wycoco. In an Order dated September 6, 2002, Judge Viola denied the motion to quash for lack of merit, finding compliance with A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC and that the Deputy Director had authority to s...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Supreme Court err in exercising discretion to entertain the petition filed directly with it instead of dismissing it for failure to follow the hierarchy of courts?
- Did the RTC, in denying the Motion to Quash Search Warrant and the Motion for Reconsideration, commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by upholding the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)