People v.

CA
G.R. No. 126379, June 26, 1998
Narvasa, C.J.
Facts:
S/Insp PNP James Brillantes applied for search warrant before Branch 261, RTC of
Quezon City against Mr. Azfar Hussain, who had allegedly in his possession firearms and
explosives at Abigail Variety Store, Apt. 1207 Area F, Bagong Buhay Avenue, Sapang Palay,
San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. However, the search was not at Abigail Store but at Apartment
No.1 adjacent to Abigail Store. It resulted to the arrest of 4 Pakistani nationals and seizure of
their personal belongings, papers and effects such as wallet, watches, shoes, jackets, t-shirts,
belts, sunglasses, bas and cash P1, 500 and $3,550. Included allegedly are dynamite stick, 2
plastic of explosives, pistols, chemical ingredients for explosives and ammunitions. The private
respondents filed to Quash the Search Warrant and Evidence Inadmissible by the following
contentions: That the residence of the accused is at Apt.1, not in Abigail Store; that there is no
Abigail Variety Store, Apt.1207, only Apartment Nos, 1,2,3 and 4. The respondent Judge
Cassanova issued its order granting the Motion to Quash the Search Warrant under the following
observations: The place searched was different from the place mentioned in the Warrant; the
search was not in the presence of the occupants, or any family member, the occupants were
handcuffed in the living room at that time; the articles seized was not bought to court within 48
hours, the return was done after 3 days.
The Solicitor General seeks the reversal of these findings. The Solicitor Generals Office
opines that where a search warrant has been issued by the court other than the one trying the
main criminal case, the proper recourse of persons wishing to quash the warrant is to assail it
before the issuing court and not before that in which the criminal case involving the subject of
the warrant is afterwards filed. The search warrant was issued by RTC Quezon City, and the
return was made to said court. On the other hand, the criminal action in connection with the
explosives subject was filed in RTC Bulacan.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the order of the presiding judge in a criminal case has the right to rule on the
validity of search warrant?
2. Whether or not the search warrant valid?
Held:
1. Yes. The presiding Judge in the criminal case has the right to rule on the search warrant
and to exclude evidence unlawfully obtained. When a search warrant is issued by one court and
the criminal action based on the results of the search is afterwards commenced in another court,
it is not the rule that a motion to quash the warrant (or retrieved seized things) may be filed only
with the issuing court — these motion may be filed for the first time in either the issuing court or
where the criminal action is pending.
In the case at bar, RTC Bulacan has jurisdiction on deciding the Motion to Quash the
warrant, since no such motion was ever filed to RTC QC, it was only after the criminal action
had been commenced in the Bulacan RTC that the motion to quash and to suppress evidence was
submitted to the latter. The case thus falls within guideline No. 3 in accordance with which the
latter court must be deemed to have acted within its competence.
“Where no motion to quash the search warrant was filed in or resolved by the issuing court, the
interested party may move in the court where the criminal case is pending for the suppression as
evidence of the personal property seized under the warrant if the same is offered therein for said
purpose. Since two separate courts with different participations are involved in this situation, a
motion to quash a search warrant and a motion to suppress evidence are alternative and not
cumulative remedies. In order to prevent forum shopping, a motion to quash shall consequently
be governed by the omnibus motion rule, provided however, that objections not available,
existent or known during the proceedings for the quashal of the warrant may be raised in the
hearing of the motion to suppress. The resolution of the court on the motion to suppress shall
likewise be subject to any proper remedy in the appropriate higher court.”
In other words, the Judge in the criminal case acted within its jurisdiction.
2. No. The search warrant was not valid. The discrepancy appears to have resulted from
the officers own faulty depiction of the premises to be searched. For in their application and in
the affidavit, they wrote down a description of the place to be searched, which is exactly what
the Judge reproduced in the search warrant: premises located at Abigail Variety Store Apt 1207,
Area-F, Bagong Buhay Avenue, Sapang Palay, San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan. And the scope of
the search was made more particular and more restrictive by the Judges admonition in the
warrant that the search be limited only to the premises herein described