Q: Should an application for a search warrant be always

filed with a court within whose territorial jurisdiction the

crime of money laundering was committed?
A: No. In case of search warrant involving 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, the Executive judges and whenever they are on
official leave of absence or are not physically present in the
station, the Vice-Judges of RTCs of Manila and Quezon City
shall have the authority to act on the application filed by the
NBI, PNP and the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF), Presidential
Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOC-TF), and the Reaction
Against Crime Task Force (REACT-TF).
(Administrative Matter No. 99-10-09-SC; Sps. Marimla v.
People, G.R. No. 158467, 16 Oct. 2009)

Q: Under the Rules on Evidence, (SEC. 24(E), RULE 130) A

public officer cannot be examined during or after his or
her tenure as to communications made to him or her in
official confidence, when the court finds that the public
interest would suffer by the disclosure. Does this apply to
money laundering situations?
A: No. One of the exceptions is Institutions covered by the law
and its officers and employees who communicate a suspicious
transaction to the Anti-Money Laundering Council. (Sec. 6 of
R.A. No. 9194 amending Sec. 9 of R.A. No. 9160)