Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 158467 October 16, 2009
SPOUSES JOEL N! MR"ETT MR"ML, Petitioners,
vs.
PEOPLE O# T$E P$"L"PP"NES N! $ON. OMR T. %"OL, RTC J&'(e, )r*+c,
57, +(e-e. C/t0, Respondents.
D ! I S I O N
LEONR!O1!E CSTRO, J.:
"efore the !ourt is a petition for certiorari under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt. It see%s
to annul the Order
&
dated Septe'ber #, ())( of the Re*ional Trial !ourt +RT!, of
-n*eles !it., "ranch $/, den.in* petitioner spouses 0oel and Marietta Mari'la1s
Motion to 2uash Search 3arrant and to Suppress vidence Ille*all. Sei4ed, and the
Order
(
dated -pril (&, ())5 den.in* the Motion for Reconsideration thereof.
The facts, as culled fro' the records, are as follo6s7
On Februar. &$, ())(, Special Investi*ator +SI, Ra. !. 8a*asca of the N"I -nti9
Or*ani4ed !ri'e Division filed t6o +(, applications for search 6arrant 6ith the RT! of
Manila see%in* per'ission to search7 +&, petitioners1 house located on RD Re.es St.,
"r*.. Sta. Trinidad, -n*eles !it.
5
and +(, the pre'ises on Maria -:uino St., Puro% V,
"r*.. Sta. !ru4, Porac, Pa'pan*a,
;
both for Violation of Section &#, -rticle III of
Republic -ct +R.-., No. #;($, as a'ended. The said applications unifor'l. alle*ed
that SI 8a*asca1s re:uest for the issuance of the search 6arrants 6as founded on his
personal %no6led*e as 6ell as that of 6itness Roland D. Fernande4 +Fernande4,,
obtained after a series of surveillance operations and a test bu. 'ade at petitioners1
house. The purpose of the application for search 6arrants 6as to sei4e the follo6in*
articles<ite's7
=ndeter'ined a'ount of Metha'pheta'ine >.drochloride, popularl. %no6n as
?S>-"=,? ?M-RI0=-N-,? 6ei*hin* scale, plastic sachets, tooters, burner, rollin*
papers, and paraphernalia, all of 6hich articles<ite's are bein* used or intended to be
used in Violation of Republic -ct #;($ as a'ended, and are hidden or bein* %ept in
said house<pre'ises.
$
@ecutive 0ud*e Mario AuariBa III +0ud*e AuariBa III, e@a'ined in 6ritin* and under
oath SI 8a*asca and Fernande4, in the for' of searchin* :uestions and ans6ers, and
found that based on facts personall. %no6n to SI 8a*asca and Fernande4, petitioners
had in their possession and control, inside their house located on RD Re.es St., "r*..
Sta. Trinidad, -n*eles !it., an undeter'ined a'ount of 'etha'pheta'ine
h.drochloride %no6n as shabu and 'ariCuana. Pursuant these findin*s, 0ud*e AuariBa
III issued a search 6arrant doc%eted as Search 3arrant No. )(9(#//, 6hich
co''anded an. peace officer ?to 'a%e i''ediate search, at an. ti'e of the da. or
ni*ht, not be.ond &) da.s fro' date hereof, of the pre'ises above9'entioned and
forth6ith sei4e and ta%e possession of the properties subCect of the offense and brin*
to his court said properties to be dealt 6ith as the la6 directs.?
#
On the stren*th of this 6arrant, 'e'bers of the N"I -nti9Or*ani4ed !ri'e Division,
na'el., SI 8a*asca, Pri'itivo M. NaCera, 0r., 0esusa D. 0a'asali, >orten >ernae4, and
Ritche N. Oblanca, in coordination 6ith the Philippine National Police of -n*eles !it.,
searched petitioners1 house on Februar. &D, ())( at around $7)) in the 'ornin*.
/
The.
6ere able to sei4e cash in the a'ount of P&$,()).))
E
and the follo6in* ite's7
&. One +&, bric% of dried flo6erin* tops 6rapped in a pac%in* tape 'ar%ed
?R!89&9(#//,? +net 6ei*ht 9 D&$./ *ra's,F
(. One +&, s'all bric% of dried flo6erin* tape 6rapped in a ne6sprint 'ar%ed
?R!89(9(#//? +net 6ei*ht 9 ;D&.$ *ra's,F
5. Dried flo6erin* tops separatel. contained in si@teen +&#, transparent plastic
ba*s, alto*ether 6rapped in a ne6sprint 'ar%ed ?R!8959(#//? +net 6ei*ht 9
&(/.D *ra's,F and
;. Dried flo6erin* tops separatel. contained in nine +D, plastic tea ba*s,
alto*ether placed in a .ello6 plastic ba* 'ar%ed ?R!89;9(#//? +net 6ei*ht 9
&E.(/5# *ra's,.
D
On Februar. (), ())(, an Infor'ation
&)
for Violation of Section E, -rticle II of R.-. No.
#;($, as a'ended b. R.-. No. /#$D, 6as filed a*ainst petitioners before the RT! of
-n*eles !it., "ranch $/, presided b. herein respondent 0ud*e O'ar T. Viola.
On March ($, ())(, petitioners filed a Motion to 2uash Search 3arrant and to
Suppress vidence Ille*all. Sei4ed
&&
on the follo6in* *rounds7 +&, the application for
search 6arrant 6as filed outside the territorial Curisdiction and Cudicial re*ion of the
court 6here the alle*ed cri'e 6as co''ittedF +(, the court 6hich issued the
:uestioned search 6arrant co''itted *rave abuse of discretion 6hen it issued the
sa'e because under the la6 it cannot issue a search 6arrant outside its territorial
CurisdictionF +5, the :uestioned search 6arrant is void ab initioF and +;, the evidence
ille*all. sei4ed b. virtue of the :uestioned search 6arrant is therefore inad'issible in
evidence.
In support of the above 'otion, petitioners filed a Motion to -d'it Docu'entar.
vidence,
&(
as%in* the court to ad'it the follo6in* docu'ents7 +&, application for
Search 3arrant No. )(9(#//F +(, authori4ation letter dated Februar. &(, ())( 6ith the
si*nature of N"I Director Re.naldo A. 3.coco +Director 3.coco,F +5, N"I ID No. $5/)
1
of -*ent Victor ''anuel A. 8ansan* 6ith the Si*nature of Director 3.cocoF and +;,
-d'inistrative Matter +-.M., No. ))9$9)59S! +Re7 Proposed Revised Rules of !ri'inal
Procedure GRules &&)9&(/, Revised Rules of !ourtH,. Petitioners clai' that the
issuance of Search 3arrant No. )(9(#// 6as ?defective considerin* the application
6as not personall. endorsed b. GDir.H 3.coco,? and that the latter1s si*nature in the
authori4ation letter is different fro' that as appearin* in the identification card, and
therefore it is ?not the true and *enuine si*nature of GDir.H 3.coco.?
&5
In its !o''ent<Opposition to the Motion to 2uash,
&;
the Office of the !it. Prosecutor,
-n*eles !it. clai's that the :uestioned search 6arrant does not fall 6ithin the
covera*e of Sec. ( of Rule &(# of the Revised Rules on !ri'inal Procedure, but under
-.M. No. DD9&)9)D9S!,
&$
6hich authori4es the @ecutive 0ud*es and Vice @ecutive
0ud*es of the RT!s of Manila and 2ue4on !it. to act on all applications for search
6arrants involvin* dan*erous dru*s, a'on* others, filed b. the N"I, and provides that
said 6arrants 'a. be served in places outside the territorial Curisdiction of the RT!s of
Manila and 2ue4on !it..
On -u*ust &;, ())D, SI 8a*asca filed his Opposition and<or -ns6er to the Motion to
2uash Search 3arrant and to Suppress vidence Ille*all. Sei4ed.
&#
>e avers that
0ud*e AuariBa III issued Search 3arrant No. )(9(#// b. virtue of -d'inistrative Order
No. ()9D/
&/
issued on Februar. &(, &DD/. >e also clai's that it 6as N"I Deput.
Director for Special Investi*ation Fer'in Nasol 6ho si*ned the authori4ation letter in
behalf of Director 3.coco, for hi' to appl. for a search 6arrant in the house<pre'ises
of petitioners on RD Re.es St., "r*.. Sta. Trinidad, -n*eles !it. and Maria -:uino St.,
Puro% V, "r*.. Sta. !ru4, Porac, Pa'pan*a for violation of R.-. No. #;($.1avvphi1
In an Order
&E
dated Septe'ber #, ())(, 0ud*e O'ar T. Viola denied petitioners1 Motion
to 2uash Search 3arrant and to Suppress vidence Ille*all. Sei4ed for lac% of 'erit,
ratiocinatin* as follo6s7
The public prosecutor 6as able to point out that the search 6arrant issued b. 0ud*e
Mario AuariBa III, the @ecutive 0ud*e of the Manila Re*ional Trial !ourt, is in order
considerin* that -M DD9&)9)D9S! allo6s or authori4es e@ecutive Cud*es and vice
e@ecutive Cud*es of the Re*ional Trial !ourt of Manila and 2ue4on !it. to issue
6arrants 6hich 'a. be served in places outside their territorial Curisdiction in cases
6here the sa'e 6as filed and, a'on* others, b. the N"I.
The N"I also 6as able to e@plain that the authorit. to appl. search 6arrant 6as
personall. si*ned b. Deput. Director for Special Investi*ation Fer'in Nasol 6ho is
authori4ed to si*n and that he 6as dele*ated the authorit. to si*n for and in behalf of
the N"I Director on docu'ents of this li%e. Deput. Director Fer'in Nasol havin* that
authorit. to si*n for and in behalf of the N"I Director, Re.naldo 3.coco, there is,
therefore, co'pliance 6ith the la6 re*ardin* the issuance of authorit. to appl. search
6arrant.
3>RFOR, in vie6 of the revelation, the !ourt has no other recourse but to a*ree
6ith the vie6s of the prosecution as 6ell as the N"I. -nd this bein* so, the !ourt finds
not enou*h *round to :uash the search 6arrant issued a*ainst Spouses 0oel and
Marietta Maril'a.
The 'otion filed b. the' and their supple'ent, is therefore denied, for lac% of 'erit.
SO ORDRD.
&D
On Septe'ber (5, ())(, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration
()
on the *round
that the denial of their Motion to 2uash Search 3arrant and to Suppress vidence
Ille*all. Sei4ed is not in accordance 6ith the la6 and e@istin* Curisprudence. The.
clai' that no evidence 6as presented b. Deput. Director Nasol that he 6as authori4ed
to si*n for and in behalf of Director 3.coco.
Said Motion for Reconsideration 6as li%e6ise denied b. respondent court on the
*round that the issues raised therein 6ere 'ere reiterations of petitioners1 ar*u'ents
that had alread. been considered and passed upon in the Motion to 2uash Search
3arrant and to Suppress vidence Ille*all. Sei4ed. Respondent court added7
To elaborate, this !ourt believes and is of the opinion that the Deput. Director of the
N"I possesses the authorit. to si*n for and in behalf of the N"I Director re:uestin* for
the issuance of a search 6arrant and nothin* in the -d'inistrative Matter DD9&)9)D
prohibits the dele*ation of such 'inisterial act to the Deput. Director 6ho is an alter
e*o of the N"I Director. It is also :uite clear that the N"I Director approved said
authori4ation for SI Ra. 8a*asca to appl. for a search 6arrant because said docu'ent
6as never recalled or a'ended b. the Office of the "ureau Director up to the present.
The !ourt is also of the vie6 that -.M. DD9&)9)D is still valid, bindin* and le*al b. virtue
of the fact that not even the Supre'e !ourt +sic, did not 'a%e an. pronounce'ent I
6ithdra6in* and or declarin* the sa'e ineffective, hence, until such order is issued,
this !ourt 'ust interpret and rule for its continued validit. and applicabilit..
(&
>ence, this petition.
Petitioners clai' that the search 6arrant 6as issued in violation of -.M. No. DD9&)9)D9
S! and Section ( of Rule &(# of the Revised Rules on !ri'inal Procedure.
The pivotal issue to be resolved in this petition is 6hether or not the respondent court
acted 6ith *rave abuse of discretion a'ountin* to lac% or in e@cess of Curisdiction in
issuin* the assailed Orders dated Septe'ber #, ())( and -pril (&, ())5, den.in*
petitioners1 Motion to 2uash Search 3arrant and to Suppress vidence Ille*all.
Sei4ed and their Motion for Reconsideration, respectivel..
-t the onset, the Office of the Solicitor Aeneral +OSA, pra.s for the dis'issal of this
petition on the *round that the filin* of the said petition directl. 6ith this !ourt runs
afoul of the doctrine of hierarch. of courts. The OSA ar*ues that 6hile this !ourt has
concurrent Curisdiction 6ith the !ourt of -ppeals +!-, over petitions for certiorari, this
2
petition should have been filed 6ith the !-. The OSA contends that the petitioners
have not sho6n an. co'pellin* reason to Custif. the filin* of the petition directl. 6ith
this !ourt.
The *eneral rule is that a part. is 'andated to follo6 the hierarch. of courts. >o6ever,
in e@ceptional cases, the !ourt, for co'pellin* reasons or if 6arranted b. the nature of
the issues raised, 'a. ta%e co*ni4ance of petitions filed directl. before it.
((
In this
case, the !ourt opts to ta%e co*ni4ance of the petition, as it involves the application of
the rules pro'ul*ated b. this !ourt in the e@ercise of its rule9'a%in* po6er under the
!onstitution.
(5

-t the heart of the present controvers. are -.M. No. DD9&)9)D9S!, !larif.in* the
Auidelines on the -pplication for the nforceabilit. of Search 3arrants, 6hich 6as
enacted on 0anuar. ($, ()))F and -.M. No. ))9$9)59S!, the Revised Rules on
!ri'inal Procedure, 6hich too% effect on Dece'ber &, ())), specificall., Section (,
Rule &(# thereof. 3e :uote the pertinent portions of the t6o issuances belo67
-d'inistrative Matter No. DD9&)9)D9S!
Resolution !larif.in* the Auidelines on the -pplication for the nforceabilit. of Search
3arrants
In the interest of an effective ad'inistration of Custice and pursuant to the po6ers
vested in the Supre'e !ourt b. the !onstitution, the follo6in* are authori4ed to act on
all applications for search 6arrants involvin* heinous cri'es, ille*al *a'blin*,
dan*erous dru*s and ille*al possession of firear's.
The @ecutive 0ud*e and Vice @ecutive 0ud*es of Re*ional Trial !ourts, Manila and
2ue4on !it. filed b. the Philippine National Police +PNP,, the National "ureau of
Investi*ation +N"I,, the Presidential -nti9Or*ani4ed !ri'e Tas% Force +P-O!9TF, and
the Reaction -*ainst !ri'e Tas% Force +R-!T9TF, 6ith the Re*ional Trial !ourts of
Manila and 2ue4on !it..
The applications shall be personall. endorsed b. the >eads of the said a*encies, for
the search of places to be particularl. described therein, and the sei4ure of propert. of
thin*s as prescribed in the Rules of !ourt, and to issue the 6arrants of arrest, if
Custified, 6hich 'a. be served in places outside the territorial Curisdiction of said courts.
The authori4ed Cud*es shall %eep a special doc%et boo% listin* the details of the
applications and the result of the searches and sei4ures 'ade pursuant to the
6arrants issued.
This Resolution is effective i''ediatel. and shall continue until further orders fro' this
!ourt and shall be an e@e'ption to the provisions of !ircular No. &5 dated & October
&DE$ and !ircular No. &D dated ; -u*ust &DE/. @ @ @
-.M. No. ))9$9)59S!
Revised Rules on !ri'inal Procedure
Rule &(#
S-R!> -ND SIJ=R
Sec. (. !ourt 6here application for search 6arrant shall be filed. K -n application for
search 6arrant shall be filed 6ith the follo6in*7
+a, -n. court 6ithin 6hose territorial Curisdiction a cri'e 6as co''itted.
+b, For co'pellin* reasons stated in the application, an. court 6ithin the
Cudicial re*ion 6here the cri'e 6as co''itted if the place of the co''ission
of the cri'e is %no6n, or an. court 6ithin the Cudicial re*ion 6here the 6arrant
shall be enforced.
>o6ever, if the cri'inal action has alread. been filed, the application shall onl. be
'ade in the court 6here the cri'inal action is pendin*.
Fro' the above, it 'a. be seen that -.M. No. DD9&)9)D9S! authori4es the @ecutive
0ud*e and Vice @ecutive 0ud*es of the RT!s of Manila and 2ue4on !it. to act on all
applications for search 6arrants involvin* heinous cri'es, ille*al *a'blin*, dan*erous
dru*s and ille*al possession of firear's on application filed b. the PNP, N"I, P-O!9
TF, and R-!T9TF. On the other hand, Rule &(# of the Revised Rules on !ri'inal
Procedure provides that the application for search 6arrant shall be filed 6ith7 +a, an.
court 6ithin 6hose territorial Curisdiction a cri'e 6as co''itted, and +b, for co'pellin*
reasons, an. court 6ithin the Cudicial re*ion 6here the cri'e 6as co''itted if the
place of the co''ission of the cri'e is %no6n, or an. court 6ithin the Cudicial re*ion
6here the 6arrant shall be enforced.
Petitioners contend that the application for search 6arrant 6as defective. The. aver
that the application for search 6arrant filed b. SI 8a*asca 6as not personall. endorsed
b. the N"I >ead, Director 3.coco, but instead endorsed onl. b. Deput. Director
Nasol and that 6hile SI 8a*asca declared that Deput. Director Nasol 6as
co''issioned to si*n the authori4ation letter in behalf of Director 3.coco, the sa'e
6as not dul. substantiated. Petitioners conclude that the absence of the si*nature of
Director 3.coco 6as a fatal defect that rendered the application on the :uestioned
search 6arrant void per se, and the issued search 6arrant null and void ?because the
sprin* cannot rise above its source.?
(;
3e disa*ree. Nothin* in -.M. No. DD9&)9)D9S! prohibits the heads of the PNP, N"I,
P-O!9TF and R-!T9TF fro' dele*atin* their 'inisterial dut. of endorsin* the
application for search 6arrant to their assistant heads. =nder Section 5&, !hapter #,
"oo% IV of the -d'inistrative !ode of &DE/, an assistant head or other subordinate in
ever. bureau 'a. perfor' such duties as 'a. be specified b. their superior or head,
as lon* as it is not inconsistent 6ith la6. The said provision reads7
3
!hapter # K PO3RS -ND D=TIS OF >-DS OF "=R-=S -ND OFFI!S
Sec. 5&. Duties of -ssistant >eads and Subordinates. K +&, -ssistant heads and other
subordinates in ever. bureau or office shall perfor' such duties as 'a. be re:uired b.
la6 or re*ulations, or as 'a. be specified b. their superiors not other6ise inconsistent
6ith la6.
+(, The head of bureau or office 'a., in the interest of econo'., desi*nate
the assistant head to act as chief of an. division or unit 6ithin the
or*ani4ation, in addition to his duties, 6ithout additional co'pensation, and
+5, In the absence of special restriction prescribed b. la6, nothin* shall
prevent a subordinate officer or e'plo.ee fro' bein* assi*ned additional
duties b. proper authorit., 6hen not inconsistent 6ith the perfor'ance of the
duties i'posed b. la6.
Director 3.coco1s act of dele*atin* his tas% of endorsin* the application for search
6arrant to Deput. Director Nasol is allo6ed b. the above :uoted provision of la6
unless it is sho6n to be inconsistent 6ith an. la6. Thus, Deput. Director Nasol1s
endorse'ent had the sa'e force and effect as an endorse'ent issued b. Director
3.coco hi'self. The findin* of the RT! in the :uestioned Orders that Deput. Director
Nasol possessed the authorit. to si*n for and in behalf of Director 3.coco is
unassailable.
Petitioners also assert that the :uestioned Search 3arrant 6as void ab initio. The.
'aintain that -.M. No. DD9&)9)D9S!, 6hich 6as enacted on 0anuar. ($, ())), 6as no
lon*er in effect 6hen the application for search 6arrant 6as filed on Februar. &$,
())(. The. ar*ue that the Revised Rules on !ri'inal Procedure, 6hich too% effect on
Dece'ber &, ())), should have been applied, bein* the later la6. >ence, the
enforce'ent of the search 6arrant in -n*eles !it., 6hich 6as outside the territorial
Curisdiction of RT! Manila, 6as in violation of the la6.
The petitioners1 contention lac%s 'erit.
-.M. No. DD9&)9)D9S! provides that the *uidelines on the enforceabilit. of search
6arrants provided therein shall continue until further orders fro' this !ourt. In fact, the
*uidelines in -.M. No. DD9&)9)D9S! are reiterated in -.M. No. )59E9)(9S! entitled
Auidelines On The Selection -nd Desi*nation Of @ecutive 0ud*es -nd Definin* Their
Po6ers, Prero*atives -nd Duties, 6hich e@plicitl. stated that the *uidelines in the
issuance of search 6arrants in special cri'inal cases b. the RT!s of Manila and
2ue4on !it. shall be an e@ception to Section ( of Rule &(# of the Rules of !ourt, to
6it7
($

!hapter V. Specific Po6ers, Prero*atives and Duties of @ecutive 0ud*es in 0udicial
Supervision
Sec. &(. Issuance of search 6arrants in special cri'inal cases b. the Re*ional Trial
!ourts of Manila and 2ue4on !it.. K The @ecutive 0ud*es and, 6henever the. are on
official leave of absence or are not ph.sicall. present in the station, the Vice9@ecutive
0ud*es of the RT!s of Manila and 2ue4on !it. shall have authorit. to act on
applications filed b. the National "ureau of Investi*ation +N"I,, the Philippine National
Police +PNP, and the -nti9!ri'e Tas% Force +-!T-F,, for search 6arrants involvin*
heinous cri'es, ille*al *a'blin*, ille*al possession of firear's and a''unitions as
6ell as violations of the !o'prehensive Dan*erous Dru*s -ct of ())(, the Intellectual
Propert. !ode, the -nti9Mone. 8aunderin* -ct of ())&, the Tariff and !usto's !ode,
as a'ended, and other relevant la6s that 'a. hereafter be enacted b. !on*ress, and
included herein b. the Supre'e !ourt.
The applications shall be personall. endorsed b. the heads of such a*encies and shall
particularl. describe therein the places to be searched and<or the propert. or thin*s to
be sei4ed as prescribed in the Rules of !ourt. The @ecutive 0ud*es and Vice9
@ecutive 0ud*es concerned shall issue the 6arrants, if Custified, 6hich 'a. be served
in places outside the territorial Curisdiction of the said courts.
The @ecutive 0ud*es and the authori4ed 0ud*es shall %eep a special doc%et boo%
listin* na'es of 0ud*es to 6ho' the applications are assi*ned, the details of the
applications and the results of the searches and sei4ures 'ade pursuant to the
6arrants issued.
This Section shall be an e@ception to Section ( of Rule &(# of the Rules of !ourt.
+italics ours,
In su', 6e cannot find an. irre*ularit. or abuse of discretion on the part of 0ud*e
O'ar T. Viola for den.in* petitioners1 Motion to 2uash Search 3arrant and to
Suppress vidence Ille*all. Sei4ed. On the contrar., 0ud*e AuariBa III had co'plied
6ith the procedural and substantive re:uire'ents for issuin* the :uestioned search
6arrant.
3>RFOR, the petition for certiorari is hereb. DISMISSD. The Orders dated
Septe'ber #, ())( and -pril (&, ())5, both issued b. respondent 0ud*e O'ar T. Viola
of the RT! of -n*eles !it., "ranch $/, are hereb. -FFIRMD.
SO ORDRD.
4