Marimla v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Special Investigator (SI) Ray C. Lagasca of the NBI Anti-Organized Crime Division filed two applications for search warrants with the RTC of Manila seeking to search petitioners' house in Angeles City and premises in Porac, Pampanga, for violations of Section 16, Article III of R.A. No. 6425, as amended. The applications were based on SI Lagasca's personal knowledge and that of witness Roland D. Fernandez, obtained from surveillance and a test buy. The items sought to be seized included undetermined amounts of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride ('shabu'), marijuana, weighing scales, plastic sachets, and paraphernalia. Executive Judge Mario Guariña III of the RTC of Manila examined SI Lagasca and Fernandez under oath and found probable cause, issuing Search Warrant No. 02-2677. On February 19, 2002, NBI agents, armed with the warrant, searched petitioners' house and seized cash amounting to ₱15,200.00 and several bricks and plastic bags of dried flowering tops, weighing approximately 1.4 kg. Procedural History: 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. Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant and to Suppress Evidence Illegally Seized, arguing that the application was filed outside the territorial jurisdiction, that the issuing court committed grave abuse of discretion, that the warrant was void ab initio, and that the seized evidence was inadmissible. They also questioned the authenticity of the endorsement by NBI Director Reynaldo G. Wycoco. The Office of the City Prosecutor argued that A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC allowed Executive Judges of Manila and Quezon City to issue warrants served outside their territorial jurisdiction. SI Lagasca countered that Deputy Director Fermin Nasol signed the authorization letter in behalf of Director Wycoco, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 20-97. The RTC, in an Order dated September 6, 2002, denied the motion, citing A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC and the authority of Deputy Director Nasol. Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration was denied on April 21, 2003, for reiterating previously considered arguments. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC's Orders denying their motion to quash and motion for reconsideration, claiming the search warrant was issued in violation of A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC and Section 2, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioners’ Motion to Quash Search Warrant and to Suppress Evidence Illegally Seized. Whether the search warrant issued by the RTC of Manila was void ab initio due to being issued outside its territorial jurisdiction and allegedly lacking proper endorsement. Whether the endorsement of the application for search warrant by the NBI Deputy Director, in behalf of the NBI Director, was valid.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The Orders dated September 6, 2002 and April 21, 2003, issued by respondent Judge Omar T. Viola of the RTC of Angeles City, Branch 57, are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of alleged grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no irregularity or abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent RTC judge in denying the motion to quash. The judge correctly applied the relevant administrative issuances and legal provisions concerning the issuance and service of search warrants. The judge's reasoning that Deputy Director Nasol had the authority to sign and that A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC was still valid and applicable was found to be sound. Consequently, the RTC's denial of the motion to quash and the subsequent motion for reconsideration was upheld. On the issue of territorial jurisdiction and the validity of the search warrant: The Court held that A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC, which allows Executive Judges and Vice Executive Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City to act on applications for search warrants involving dangerous drugs filed by the NBI, and to have these warrants served outside their territorial jurisdiction, was applicable. This administrative matter was explicitly stated to be an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The Court further noted that the guidelines in A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC were reiterated in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, reinforcing its validity and applicability. Therefore, the issuance of the search warrant by the Executive Judge of Manila, even for service in Angeles City, was in accordance with the rules. On the issue of proper endorsement of the application: The Court disagreed with the petitioners' assertion that the application for search warrant was fatally defective due to the absence of the NBI Director's personal signature. It found that Section 31, Chapter 6, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987 permits assistant heads or subordinates to perform duties specified by their superiors, provided they are not inconsistent with law. The Court reasoned that the act of delegating the ministerial duty of endorsing the application for a search warrant to a Deputy Director was permissible. Thus, the endorsement by Deputy Director Fermin Nasol, in behalf of Director Reynaldo G. Wycoco, had the same force and effect as if it were issued by Director Wycoco himself. The RTC's finding that Deputy Director Nasol possessed the authority to sign was deemed unassailable.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of a search warrant by an Executive Judge of the RTC of Manila, even if to be served outside its territorial jurisdiction, is valid when filed by the NBI and falls under the exceptions provided by A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC and its subsequent reiterations, and the endorsement of the application by a Deputy Director of the NBI, in behalf of the Director, is permissible under Section 31, Chapter 6, Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987.