Case Summary (G.R. No. 158467)
Factual Background
SI Ray C. Lagasca filed two applications for search warrants on February 15, 2002, alleging personal knowledge and information from a witness (Roland D. Fernandez) obtained from surveillance and a test buy. The applications sought authority to search the Marimlas’ RD Reyes Street residence in Angeles City and another Premises in Porac, Pampanga, for violation of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs). Judge Mario Guariña III of the RTC‑Manila examined SI Lagasca and Fernandez under oath and issued Search Warrant No. 02‑2677 authorizing a search to be executed within ten days, at any time of day or night.
Execution of Warrant and Items Seized
On February 19, 2002 at about 5:00 a.m., NBI agents, coordinated with the PNP of Angeles City, executed the warrant at petitioners’ house. Seized items included cash (P15,200.00) and multiple quantities of dried flowering tops (described in several marked packages with net weights provided), believed to be prohibited drugs or drug proceeds. An Information for violation of R.A. No. 6425 (as amended) was filed on February 20, 2002 in the RTC of Angeles City, Branch 57.
Motions to Quash and Suppress — Grounds Advanced by Petitioners
On March 25, 2002 petitioners moved to quash the search warrant and suppress the seized evidence on grounds that: (1) the application for the warrant was filed outside the territorial jurisdiction and judicial region of the issuing court; (2) the issuing court lacked authority to issue warrants outside its territorial jurisdiction and thus committed grave abuse of discretion; (3) the warrant was void ab initio; and (4) therefore the seized evidence was inadmissible. Petitioners also challenged the authenticity and legal effect of the authorization/endorsement, contending the application was not personally endorsed by NBI Director Wycoco but by Deputy Director Nasol and asserting differences in signatures.
Prosecution and NBI Position
The Office of the City Prosecutor and the NBI defended the warrant’s validity. The prosecutor invoked A.M. No. 99‑10‑09‑SC to justify issuance by an Executive Judge of the RTC‑Manila and service of the warrant outside that court’s territorial jurisdiction in cases filed by the NBI. SI Lagasca and the NBI averred that Deputy Director Nasol was authorized to sign the authorization letter on behalf of Director Wycoco and that issuance complied with Administrative Order No. 20‑97 and the Supreme Court’s authorizations.
RTC Orders Denying Quash and Reconsideration — Reasoning
Judge Omar T. Viola of the RTC‑Angeles denied the Motion to Quash on September 6, 2002 and denied reconsideration on April 21, 2003. The RTC accepted that A.M. No. 99‑10‑09‑SC authorized Executive Judges of Manila to act on NBI search warrant applications and that such warrants may be served outside territorial jurisdiction. The RTC also found that Deputy Director Nasol was authorized to sign for Director Wycoco and that nothing in A.M. No. 99‑10‑09‑SC prohibited delegation of the ministerial endorsement to an alter ego of the Director. The court further held that A.M. No. 99‑10‑09‑SC remained valid and binding until specifically withdrawn by the Supreme Court.
Petition for Certiorari and Jurisdictional Objection by OSG
Petitioners filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition assailing the RTC orders. The Office of the Solicitor General moved for dismissal on procedural grounds, arguing the petition should have been filed with the Court of Appeals in view of the hierarchy of courts since this Court shares concurrent certiorari jurisdiction with the CA. The Supreme Court nonetheless took cognizance of the petition because it involved the application and interpretation of rules issued by the Court under its constitutional rule‑making power.
Legal Issues Presented
The petition framed two principal questions: (1) whether the issuance and enforcement of Search Warrant No. 02‑2677 violated A.M. No. 99‑10‑09‑SC and Section 2, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (A.M. No. 00‑5‑03‑SC); and (2) whether the lack of Director Wycoco’s personal signature on the endorsement rendered the application and the resulting warrant void ab initio.
Analysis — Delegation of Endorsement Authority
The Court held that A.M. No. 99‑10‑09‑SC does not prohibit the head of an agency from delegating the ministerial task of endorsing a search warrant application to an assistant or deputy. The Administrative Code (Section 31, Chapter 6, Book IV) permits assistant heads or subordinates to perform duties specified by their superior, provided those duties are not inconsistent with law. Consequently, Deputy Director Nasol’s endorsement carried the same legal force as if Director Wycoco had personally signed, and the RTC’s factual finding as to Nasol’s authority was unassailable on certiorari.
Analysis — Applicability of A.M
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 158467)
Case Citation and Forum
- Reported as 619 Phil. 56, First Division, G.R. No. 158467, decided October 16, 2009.
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed directly before the Supreme Court.
- Petitioners: Spouses Joel and Marietta Marimla.
- Respondents: People of the Philippines and Hon. Omar T. Viola, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 57, Angeles City.
- Decision authored by Justice Leonardo-De Castro; Nachura, Brion, Peralta and Bersamin, JJ., concurred. Additional and acting members noted by Special Orders listed in the opinion.
Relief Sought and Orders Challenged
- Petition seeks annulment of:
- Order dated September 6, 2002 of the RTC of Angeles City, Branch 57, denying petitioners’ Motion to Quash Search Warrant and to Suppress Evidence Illegally Seized; and
- Order dated April 21, 2003 denying the Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing denial.
- Central contention: grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by respondent judge in denying the motions.
Factual Background (as culled from records)
- On February 15, 2002, Special Investigator (SI) Ray C. Lagasca of the NBI Anti-Organized Crime Division filed two applications for search warrant with the RTC of Manila seeking permission to search:
- Petitioners’ house located on RD Reyes St., Brgy. Sta. Trinidad, Angeles City; and
- Premises on Maria Aquino St., Purok V, Brgy. Sta. Cruz, Porac, Pampanga.
- Applications alleged SI Lagasca’s personal knowledge and information from witness Roland D. Fernandez, obtained after surveillance operations and a test buy at petitioners’ house.
- Purpose of applications: to seize undetermined amount of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”), marijuana, weighing scale, plastic sachets, tooters, burner, rolling papers and paraphernalia used or intended for violation of R.A. No. 6425 as amended.
- Executive Judge Mario Guariña III examined SI Lagasca and Fernandez under oath via written searching questions and answers; concluded they personally knew facts showing possession and control of shabu and marijuana in petitioners’ house.
- Judge Guariña III issued Search Warrant No. 02-2677 commanding any peace officer to make immediate search at any time day or night, not beyond 10 days, and to seize and bring properties to court.
- Execution of warrant: NBI Anti-Organized Crime Division members coordinated with Angeles City PNP searched petitioners’ house on February 19, 2002 at around 5:00 a.m.
- Seized items and cash (as reported):
- Cash amounting to P15,200.00 (believed proceeds from earlier sale of prohibited drugs).
- One brick of dried flowering tops wrapped in packing tape marked “RCL-1-2677” (net weight 915.7 g).
- One small brick of dried flowering wrapped in newsprint marked “RCL-2-2677” (net weight 491.5 g).
- Dried flowering tops in sixteen transparent plastic bags, wrapped in newsprint marked “RCL-3-2677” (net weight 127.9 g).
- Dried flowering tops in nine plastic tea bags in a yellow plastic bag marked “RCL-4-2677” (net weight 18.2736 g).
Criminal Proceedings Initiated
- On February 20, 2002, an Information for Violation of Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425 (as amended by R.A. No. 7659) was filed against petitioners before RTC Angeles City, Branch 57, presided by Judge Omar T. Viola.
Petitioners’ Pre-Trial Motions and Grounds
- March 25, 2002: Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant and to Suppress Evidence Illegally Seized, asserting:
- Application for search warrant was filed outside the territorial jurisdiction and judicial region of the court where the alleged crime was committed.
- The court issuing the search warrant committed grave abuse of discretion because it cannot issue a search warrant outside its territorial jurisdiction under law.
- The questioned search warrant is void ab initio.
- Consequently, the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant is inadmissible.
- Petitioners filed a Motion to Admit Documentary Evidence to support the motion, seeking admission of:
- Application for Search Warrant No. 02-2677;
- Authorization letter dated February 12, 2002 with the signature of NBI Director Reynaldo G. Wycoco;
- NBI ID No. 5370 of Agent Victor Emmanuel G. Lansang with Director Wycoco’s signature;
- Administrative Matter No. 00-5-03-SC (Proposed Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules 110-127).
- Petitioners specifically alleged that issuance of Search Warrant No. 02-2677 was defective because:
- Application was not personally endorsed by Director Wycoco;
- Signature on the authorization letter differs from the signature on the identification card and is thus not genuine;
- Absence of Director Wycoco’s signature was a fatal defect rendering the application and warrant void.
Prosecution and NBI Responses
- Office of the City Prosecutor, Angeles City (in Comment/Opposition):
- Argued the questioned search warrant falls under A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC, which authorizes Executive Judges and Vice Executive Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City to act on applications for search warrants filed by NBI and that such warrants may be served outside their territorial jurisdiction.
- SI Ray C. Lagasca’s Opposition/Answer (filed August 14, 2009):
- Avowed that Judge Guariña III issued the warrant by virtue of Administrative Order No. 20-97 (issued February 12, 1997).
- Claimed NBI Deputy Director for Special Investigation Fermin Nasol signed the authorization letter on behalf of Director Wycoco, delegating authority for the application to proceed.
RTC Orders and Reasoning
- September 6, 2002 Order (Judge Omar T. Viola) denying Motion to Quash and to Suppress:
- Held that A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC authorizes Executive Judges of RTC Manila to issue warrants in cases filed by NBI which may be served outside territorial jurisdiction.
- Accepted prosecution’s explanation that Deputy Director Nasol was authorized to sign for Director Wycoco and that such delegation sufficed.
- Concluded no sufficient ground to quash search warrant; petitioners’ motion denied for lack of merit.
- September 23, 2002 Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners:
- Argued denial was not in accord with law and jurisprudence; contended Deputy Director Nasol did not present evidence that he was authorized to sign for Director Wycoco.
- April 21, 2003 Order denying Motion for Recons