Title
Spouses Marimla vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 158467
Decision Date
Oct 16, 2009
NBI agents executed a search warrant issued by Manila RTC for a Pampanga residence, seizing drugs and cash; petitioners challenged warrant's validity, but SC upheld it under A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC.
search warrant
illegal drugs
validly issued

Case Summary (G.R. No. 158467)

Factual Background

The applications for search warrants alleged that SI Lagasca’s request was based on his personal knowledge and that of witness Roland D. Fernandez, obtained through surveillance operations and a test buy conducted at petitioners’ house. The applications sought authority to seize an undetermined amount of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”), marijuana, weighing scale, plastic sachets, tooters, burner, rolling papers, and drug paraphernalia, all alleged to be hidden or kept in the described premises.

Executive Judge Mario Guarina III examined SI Lagasca and Fernandez in writing and under oath in the form of searching questions and answers. He found that, based on the facts personally known to SI Lagasca and Fernandez, petitioners had in their possession and control inside their house in Angeles City an undetermined amount of methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) and marijuana. Acting on these findings, Judge Guarina III issued Search Warrant No. 02-2677, directing peace officers to conduct an immediate search at any time of day or night, within ten days from issuance, of the premises described in the warrant, and to seize and bring to court the properties subject of the offense for lawful disposition.

Pursuant to the warrant, NBI agents from the Anti-Organized Crime Division—SI Lagasca, Primitivo M. Najera, Jr., Jesusa D. Jamasali, Horten Hernaez, and Ritche N. Oblanca—together with the Angeles City PNP searched petitioners’ house on February 19, 2002, at around 5:00 in the morning. The operation produced seizure of cash in the amount of P15,200.00 and several items consisting of dried flowering tops and other drug-related packaging, each marked and identified as part of the evidence brought to court.

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 the RTC of Angeles City, Branch 57, presided over by respondent Judge Omar T. Viola.

Motion to Quash and Arguments on Record

Petitioners filed on March 25, 2002 a Motion to Quash Search Warrant and to Suppress Evidence Illegally Seized. They asserted four main grounds: first, that the application was filed outside the territorial jurisdiction and judicial region of the court where the alleged crime was committed; second, that the issuing court gravely abused discretion by issuing a warrant outside its territorial jurisdiction; third, that the warrant was void ab initio; and fourth, that the illegally seized evidence was inadmissible.

To support their motion, petitioners moved to admit documentary evidence, including the application for Search Warrant No. 02-2677, an authorization letter dated February 12, 2002 signed under the name of NBI Director Reynaldo G. Wycoco, the NBI identification card of Agent Victor Emmanuel G. Lansang bearing the signature of Director Wycoco, and A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC (Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure). Petitioners claimed that the warrant issuance was defective because the application was allegedly not personally endorsed by Director Wycoco. They further claimed that the signature appearing on the authorization letter differed from that in the identification card, and thus allegedly was not the true and genuine signature of Director Wycoco.

In opposition, the Office of the City Prosecutor, Angeles City argued that the questioned search warrant was governed not by Section 2 of Rule 126 but by A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC, which authorized executive judges and vice executive judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City to act on search warrant applications involving dangerous drugs, among others, filed by the NBI, and to allow service outside the territorial jurisdiction of those courts.

SI Lagasca also filed his opposition. He asserted that Judge Guarina III issued the search warrant pursuant to Administrative Order No. 20-97, and that it was NBI Deputy Director Fermin Nasol who signed the authorization letter on behalf of Director Wycoco, authorizing the filing of the search warrant applications covering petitioners’ premises in Angeles City and Pampanga.

RTC Orders Denying the Motion and Motion for Reconsideration

In an Order dated September 6, 2002, respondent Judge Omar T. Viola denied the motion to quash and suppress evidence. The RTC held that the search warrant issued by Judge Guarina III was in order because A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC allowed executive judges and vice executive judges to issue warrants that may be served outside the territorial jurisdiction in cases where the applications were filed and, among others, by the NBI. The RTC further ruled that the authority to apply was personally signed by Deputy Director Nasol, who was authorized to sign for and in behalf of NBI Director Wycoco. The RTC found compliance with the law governing issuance of authority to apply for the search warrant.

Respondent court later denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in an Order dated April 21, 2003. It characterized petitioners’ reconsideration arguments as reiterations of points already considered in the motion to quash. The RTC also ruled that the deputy director had authority to sign for and in behalf of the NBI director requesting issuance of the search warrant, and it treated such signing as a permissible delegation of a ministerial act, viewing the deputy director as the director’s alter ego. It further stated that there was no showing that the NBI director had recalled or amended the authorization document.

Petition before the Supreme Court and Procedural Objection

Petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via certiorari, assigning grave abuse of discretion in issuing the challenged orders. They argued that the search warrant issuance violated A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC and Section 2 of Rule 126.

Before addressing the merits, the Office of the Solicitor General prayed for dismissal based on the hierarchy of courts doctrine. The OSG contended that, although petitions for certiorari may be taken with concurrent jurisdiction between the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, the petitioners should have filed with the Court of Appeals, absent compelling reasons to bypass it. The Court nevertheless opted to take cognizance of the petition because the controversy involved the interpretation and application of Supreme Court rules promulgated under the Court’s rule-making power.

Issues Centered on Search Warrant Enforceability and the Authority to Endorse

The Supreme Court identified the pivotal question as whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied the motion to quash and suppress, and likewise when it denied reconsideration.

The parties’ arguments focused on the combined effect of A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC and Section 2, Rule 126. Petitioners insisted that the application was defective for lack of personal endorsement by the NBI director, asserting that the authorization letter was allegedly signed by Deputy Director Nasol without proper substantiation of authority. They also argued that enforcement in Angeles City, through a warrant issued outside the territorial jurisdiction of RTC Manila, violated the later procedural rule, since they maintained that A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC had ceased to be effective when the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure took effect.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on the Motion to Quash and Suppress

The Court rejected petitioners’ position and upheld the RTC orders. It first ruled on the endorsement defect alleged by petitioners. The Court held that A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC did not prohibit heads of agencies such as the NBI from delegating the ministerial duty of endorsing an application for search warrants to assistant heads. The Court relied on Section 31, Chapter 6, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, which provides that assistant heads and other subordinates may perform duties specified by superiors, as long as such delegation was not inconsistent with law. Applying this statutory authority, the Court concluded that Director Wycoco’s act of delegating endorsement to Deputy Director Nasol was allowed by law, and Nasol’s endorsement therefore had the same force and effect as an endorsement issued by Director Wycoco himself. The Court further declared that the RTC’s finding that Deputy Director Nasol possessed authority to sign for and in behalf of Director Wycoco was unassailable.

On the claim that the warrant was void ab initio, the Court likewise found no merit. It held that A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC provided that the guidelines on enforceability of search warrants therein would continue until further orders from the Court, and it treated those guidelines as reiterated in later issuances. It also pointed to A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, which expressly stated that the guidelines for executive judges in special criminal cases involving dangerous drugs would operate as an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126.

The Court therefore concluded that there was no irregularity or grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Omar T.

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms