UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Law 122 – Constitutional Law 2

E2024 Professor Loanzon

Laud v. People
G.R. No. 199032 – November 19, 2014
First division | Per curiam

Article/s Invoked:
Sec. 2, Art. III, Const. - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Case Summary:
PNP applied for a warrant to search the Laud Compound caves for the remains of 6 people, who were victims
of the Davao Death Squad. Petitioner argued that it was illegally-seized evidence. Court ruled that the search
warrant was valid and human remains can be the subject of things to be searched.

FACTS OF THE CASE

• July 10, 2009 – PNP applied for a warrant with the RTC – Manila to search 3 caves located inside the
Laud Compound in Davao City. Allegedly, remains of “Davao Death Squad” victims may be found
there. Ernesto Avasola testified that he personally witnessed the killing of 6 persons in December 2005
and was part of the group that buried the victims.
o Judge Peralta, as Vice Executive Judge of the Manila – RTC, found probable cause for the
issuance of the warrant.
o July 15, 2009 - The CIDG enforced the warrant with members of SOCO. The search yielded
positive results of human remains.
• July 20, 2009 – Retired SPO04 Laud filed an Urgent Motion to Quash and to Suppress Illegally Seized
Evidence based on the following:
1. Judge Peralta had no authority to act on the application for a search warrant. When
administrative penalties were imposed against him by the Court, he was automatically
divested of his position as Vice Executive Judge;
2. RTC – Manila had no jurisdiction to issue the warrant that was enforced in Davao City;
3. Human remains are not a proper subject of a search warrant;
4. Police officers must follow the procedure for exhumation of human remains;
5. There was a lack of probable cause, yet the warrant was still issued;
6. There was a violation of the rule against forum shopping; and
7. There was a violation of the rule requiring one specific offense and the proper specification
of the place to be searched and articles to be seized.
• July 23, 2009 – RTC granted Laud’s motion without discussing the particular reasons for granting it.
o December 8, 2009 – RTC denied the respondent’s MFR, saying that respondent failed to show
compelling reason to justify the issuance of a search warrant by the RTC which was to be
implemented in Davao City in violation of Sec. 2, Rule 126 of the ROC.
▪ RTC further stated that the existence of probable cause was doubtful since the alleged
offense happened almost 4 years before the search warrant application was filed.
▪ The PNP also violated the rule against forum shopping, as the same application was
filed in a previous application before RTC – Davao, which had been denied.
• April 25, 2011 – CA granted respondent’s petition for certiorari, annulling the RTC Orders for having
been made with grave abuse of discretion.
o Applications involving a heinous crime are exceptions to the compelling reasons requirement
under Sec. 2, Rule 126 of the ROC, provided that the application is filed by the PNP, NBI,
PAOC-TF, or the REACT-TF, with the endorsement of its head before RTC – Manila or QC,
and the warrant be issued by the Executive Judge or Vice Executive Judge of either court.
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Law 122 – Constitutional Law 2
E2024 Professor Loanzon
o Probable cause was established since witness Avasola deposed and testified that he peronally
witnessed the murders. RTC failed to consider the fear and reluctance of the witness to get
involved in a criminal case, which justified the delay of a search warrant.
o Physical evidence of a protruding human bone in plain view in one of the caves and the
eyewitness account concur and point to the reasonable conclusion that murder was committed
and the remains were located in the Laud Compound.
o Stated that there was no violation on the rule of forum shopping, as the prior application filed
before RTC – Davao was based on facts and circumstances different from the application filed
in RTC – Manila.
• October 17, 2011 – Laud moved for reconsideration but was denied; hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S & RATIO/S

1. W/N the administrative penalties imposed on Judge Peralta invalidated the search warrant—NO.
• While the imposition of an administrative penalty of at least a reprimand shall automatically operate
to divest one of the position of an Executive Judge or Vice Executive Judge, abstraction of such
authority would not result in the invalidity of the search warrant. The issuance may be considered to
have been made as a de facto officer whose acts would remain valid.
o The de facto doctrine is for the protection of the public and individuals who get involved in the
official acts of persons discharging the duties of an office without being lawful officers. It is
premised on the reality that third persons cannot always investigate the right of one assuming
to hold an important office and have a right to assume that officials apparently qualified and in
office are legally such.
o Elements: a) there must be a de jure office; b) there must be color of right or general
acquiescence by the public; and c) there must be actual physical possession of the office in
good faith.
• The foregoing elements are present in this case. There is a de jure office of a 2nd Vice Executive Judge;
Judge Peralta had a colorable right to the said office as he was duly appointed to such position and was
only divested of the same by a supervening legal technicality; there was general acquiescence by the
public since the search warrant application was regularly endorsed to the sala of Judge Peralta under
his apparent authority; and Judge Peralta’s actual physical possession of the said office is presumed to
be in good faith.
• Judge Peralta may also be considered to have acted as a de facto officer when he issued the search
warrant, hence it is treated as valid as if it was issued by a de jure officer suffering no administrative
impediment.

2. W/N RTC – Manila had jurisdiction to issue the warrant despite non-compliance with the compelling
reasons requirement—YES.
• Special criminal cases,1 which include heinous crimes, may be filed by the PNP2 and must be
personally endorsed by the head of the agency. The search warrant must particularly describe the
places to be searched and the property or things to be seized. The application must be made to RTC –
Manila or QC, which may be acted upon by either the Executive or Vice Executive Judges of these
courts, if justified, which may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of said courts.
o A search warrant application involving a special criminal case excludes it from the compelling
reason requirement under Sec. 2, Rule 126 of the ROC.3

3. W/N the requirements of probable cause and particular description were complied with—YES.
• In order to protect the people’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures, Sec. 2 of Art. III
provides that no search warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath of affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
o Existence of probable cause in this case is evident from the first-hand account of Avasola who
stated that he personally witnessed the commission of the crime and was part of the group that
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Law 122 – Constitutional Law 2
E2024 Professor Loanzon
buried the victims. The facts and circumstances established from this testimony sufficiently
show the likelihood that the crime of murder was committed.
o The Court found that the quantum of proof to establish the existence of probable cause4 had
been met. That a “considerable length of time” had passed after the crime does not negate the
veracity of the applicant’s claims or the witness testimony. As CA said, the delay may be
attributed to the witness’s fear and reluctance to get involved in a criminal case. The Court
decided that the supposed delay in the application does not dilute the probable cause finding
made.
• Similarly, the Court concluded that there was compliance with the constitutional requirement that there
be a particular description of “the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”5 The
search warrant particularly describes the place to be searched (the 3 caves located inside the Laud
Compound) and even included an explicit reference to the sketch contained in the application. These
are sufficient enough for the officers to ascertain and identify the place to be searched.
o The things to be searched were also particularly described, namely, the remains of the 6 victims
who were killed and buried in the premises.
o “Personal property” in the context of Sec. 3, Rule 126 of the ROC6 refers to the thing’s
mobility, not its capacity to be owned or alienated by a particular person. Art. 416 of the Civil
Code states that in general, all things which can be transported from place to place are deemed
to be personal property. Considering that human remains can generally be transported from
place to place, and considering further that they qualify under the phrase “subject of the
offense” given that they prove the crime’s corpus delicti, it follows that they may be valid
subjects of a search warrant.
o The term “human remains” is not all-embracing to subvert the particular description
requirement. The description points to no other than the things that bear a direct relation to the
offense of murder; the description is also perceived to be specific as the circumstances
ordinarily allow, given that the buried bodies would have naturally decomposed over time.

4. W/N the one-specific-offense rule was violated—NO.

• Sec. 4 of Rule 126 of the ROC7 states that a search warrant shall not be issued except upon probable
cause in connection with one specific offense. This was intended to prevent the issuance of scattershot
warrants, or those which are issued for more than one specific offense (Stonehill v. Diokno). However,
a search warrant the covers several counts of a certain specific offense does not violate the one-
specific-offense rule (Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. CA).
• In the present case, the search warrant was issued only for one specific offense—Murder, for 6
counts—so it cannot be said that Sec. 4 was violated.

5. W/N the PNP violated the rule against forum-shopping—NO.

• Forum shopping is when a litigant repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same
essential facts and circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or
already resolved adversely by some other court to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable
decision if not in one court, then in another.
• Forum shopping was not committed in this case, since there are various points of divergence attending
the search warrant application before RTC – Manila and RTC – Davao.
o The witnesses presented were different.
o The application filed in Manila was in connection with murder, while the one in Davao did not
specify any crime.
o The places to be search were different—for Manila, it sought the search of the Laud Compound
caves, while in Davao it was for a particular area in the Laud Gold Cup Firing Range.
• There being no identity of facts and circumstances between the two applications, the rule against forum
shopping was not violated.
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Law 122 – Constitutional Law 2
E2024 Professor Loanzon
RULING
Petition DENIED. Court affirms the CA ruling which upheld the validity of the search warrant.

NOTES
1 Special criminal cases involve heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and

ammunitions, as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Intellectual
Property Code, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, and other
relevant laws that may hereafter be enacted by Congress, and included herein by the Supreme Court.
2
Aside from the PNP, it may also be filed by the NBI, the Anti-Crime Task Force.
3 SEC. 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. — An application for search warrant shall
be filed with the following:

a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.

b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial region where the crime
was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial
region where the warrant shall be enforced.

However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be made in the court where
the criminal action is pending. (Emphasis supplied)
4 Probable cause for a search warrant is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discrete and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects
sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. A finding of probable cause
needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that
it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than bare suspicion; it requires less than
evidence which would justify conviction. The existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion
of the judge conducting the examination. However, the findings of the judge should not disregard the facts
before him nor run counter to the clear dictates of reason. (Santos v. Pryce Gases, Inc.)
5A description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. Any
designation or description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on
inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement.
6SEC. 3. Personal property to be seized. — A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of
personal property:
(a) Subject of the offense;
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.

7 SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable
cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.