Quash Search Warrant-angelita Olaso.docx

Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT 7th Judicial Region Loay, Bohol

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff,

Crim. Case No. For: Violation of Sections 11 and 12, R. A. No. 9165

-versusPEDRO PENASO y LIM, ANGELITA OLASO y PENASO and AILEEN OLASO, Accused. x---------------------------------------x

MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT COMES NOW, the ACCUSED, through the undersigned Public Attorney, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully moves for the quashal of Search Warrant No. 2018-15 issued by the Regional Trial Court Branch 51, Loay, Bohol on and dated August 13, 2018 based on the following considerations: 1. Search warrant no. 2018-15 was applied for and issued by Honorable Presiding Judge Jennifer L. ChavezMarcos of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 51 situated in Carmen, Bohol after finding probable cause that a crime subject of the said search warrant was committed; The search warrant is seriously defective for being insufficient in form and substance. 2. The search warrant is seriously defective for the reason that the abovenamed judge issued the said search warrant without examining personally through searching questions and answers the applicant PSI ERAÑO SANCHEZ REGIDOR, SPO1 RITO F. MAKINANO, and PO2 GERMIAS B. PLATINO;

1

3. From the wordings of the search warrant, it cannot be determined how the judge profounded the questions in order to determine personally from the applicant and his witness, if any, the probable cause of the alleged commission of the crime. The first paragraph of the search warrant merely states: “IT APPEARS to the satisfaction of the undersigned after examining under oath the witnesses PSI ERAÑO SANCHEZ REGIDOR, SPO1 RITO F. MAKINANO, and PO2 GERMIAS B. PLATINO, that there is probable cause to believe that a VIOLATION OF SECTION 11 & 12 ARTICLE II OF R.A. 9165 has been committed or about to be committed xxx.”; 4. The insufficiency of the statement required by law in a search warrant casts serious doubt as to the personal determination by the judge of the probable cause that the alleged crime has been committed and how the applicant and his witness, if any, were examined. Section 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court states: “A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge xxx.” (Emphasis ours). The omission of the word “personally” as well as the nature of examination by the judge is very serious and fatal to the issuance of the search warrant. It must be stated clearly in the search warrant how the judge examined the applicant and his witness; 5. In the case at bar, there is no clear showing that the examination was done personally and whether it was in a form of searching questions and answers. Thus, such ambiguity must be strictly construed against the state authorities who would be enforcing the search warrant and be resolved in favor of the accused;

The RTC Branch 51, Carmen, Bohol that issued the search warrant has no territorial jurisdiction over the place where the alleged crime was committed. 6. While the Judge who issued the subject search warrant is appointed or designated in the MCTC of Marihatag, Surigao del Sur, the alleged crime subject of the said search warrant was committed in Purok 1, Barangay Zone III, Municipality of Lanuza, Surigao del Sur. This is evidenced by

2

a copy of search warrant no. 2018-15 that is already part of the records of the case; 7. Section 2, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides thus: “SEC. 2. Court where applications for search warrant shall be filed. – An application for search warrant shall be filed with the following: (a) Any court within whose jurisdiction a crime was committed.

territorial

(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.”

8. As can be gleaned from the above-stated provision of the Rule, the application of search warrant no. 2018-15 is misplaced and the Regional Trial Court of Carmen, Bohol issued the said search warrant beyond its territorial jurisdiction; The authority to issue search warrant must necessarily be co-extensive with the court's territorial jurisdiction. The territorial jurisdiction of the courts is determined by law, and a reading of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 discloses that the territorial jurisdiction of regional trial courts, metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts and municipal circuit trial courts are confined to specific territories. (Malaloan v. CA, G.R. No. 104879, May 6, 1994, Justice Davide’s opinion); 9.

10. In the instant case, it is very clear that the search warrant was issued by the court without jurisdiction over the place where the alleged crime was committed. Hence, said search warrant was null and void; 11. And, even to say that paragraph (b) of Section 2, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Court is the one applicable in this case, still the application for the issuance of the search warrant is 3

insufficient for the reason that the application did not state the compelling reasons why the search warrant was applied for in Regional Trial Court Branch 51, Carmen, Bohol having no jurisdiction of the place or territory where the alleged crime has been committed, as it does not appear in the search warrant; 12. If the application for the search warrant was founded on paragraph (b), Section 2 of the Rule above, the Rule explicitly requires a compelling reason to be stated therein why the search warrant is applied in that court within the judicial region where the crime was committed, and, hence, it must appear in the search warrant as legal basis thereof. Where compliance therewith cannot be determined from the records of the application of the search warrant, as in this case, the search warrant is seriously defective, hence, null and void; 13. The wordings of the provision is of a mandatory nature, requiring a statement of compelling reasons if the application is filed in a court which does not have territorial jurisdiction over the place of commission of the crime. Since Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of persons to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and search warrants constitute a limitation on this right, then Section 2, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure should be construed strictly against state authorities who would be enforcing the search warrants. On this point, then, petitioner’s application for a search warrant was indeed insufficient for failing to comply with the requirement to state therein the compelling reasons why they had to file the application in a court that did not have territorial jurisdiction over the place where the alleged crime was committed. (PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION AND PETRON CORPORATION VS. ROMARS INTERNATIONAL GASES CORPORATION, G.R. No. 189669, February 16, 2015) (Emphasis supplied); 14. Therefore, the search warrant being void ab initio must be quashed; A search warrant shall be issued in connection with one specific offense. The search warrant here is a “scattershot warrant” which is unconstitutional. 4

15. The subject search warrant commanded any peace officer , “that there is probable cause to believe that a VIOLATION OF SECTION 11 & 12, ARTICLE II, R.A. 9165 has been committed or about to be committed and there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that AILEEN OLASO, ANGELITA OLASO y PENASO and PEDRO PENASO y LIM have in their possession and control Methamphetamine Hydrochloride locally known as “shabu” and its paraphernalia” This search warrant was issued for two offenses punishable under Republic Act (R. A.) No. 9165, namely: (a) possession of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride locally known as “shabu” penalized under Section 11, R. A. No. 9165; and, (b) possession of illegal drugs paraphernalia penalized under Section 12 of the same law. These two offenses being punishable under two different provisions of R. A. No. 9165 have penalties different and distinct from each other; 16. In Section 4, Rules 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, it is stated that: “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.” 17. As stated above, a search warrant must be issued in connection with one specific offense. On the contrary, the search warrant, in the case at bar, was issued for two offenses having different penalties which violates Sec. 4, Rule 126 above. The said search warrant is a “scatter-shot warrant” that is proscribed and unconstitutional, and, thus, null and void; 18. The things and objects allegedly seized from the house of herein accused PEDRO PENASO y LIM located in Purok 7, Sitio Punta, Barangay Tabajan, Guindulman, Bohol on September 30, 2015 by virtue of a general search warrant dated August 13, 2018 issued by the RTC Branch 51, Carmen, Bohol having no territorial jurisdiction over the place where the alleged crime had been committed were seized in violation of the accused’s right against unreasonable search and seizure, and 5

are, thus, fruits of a poisonous tree which are inadmissible as evidence against accused Angelita Olaso. Hence, under the law, the search warrant is void ab initio and must be quashed. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that Search Warrant No. 2018-15 be QUASHED and all objects seized under its purported authority be declared INADMISSIBLE under the exclusionary rule in Article III, Section 3(2) in relation to section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Tagbilaran City (for Loay), Bohol, Philippines. 03 April 2019. PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE Tagbilaran City District Office Hall of Justice, New Capitol Site Tagbilaran City By: DIANE CHRISTI M. GARCIA-CLARABAL Public Attorney Roll No. 70671 06/04/18 IBP No. 069934 01/18/19 MCLE Compliance No. VI-0010760 Valid Until: April 14, 2022

NOTICE OF HEARING THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Regional Trial Court Branch 50 Loay, Bohol THE HONORABLE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR Office of the Provincial Prosecutor Hall of Justice, Tagbilaran City Greetings: Please take notice that the foregoing Motion will be submitted for the Court’s consideration and resolution on May 07, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as matter and counsel may be heard.

6

COPY FURNISHED: THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT Regional Trial Court Branch 50 Loay, Bohol

THE HONORABLE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR Office of the Provincial Prosecutor Hall of Justice, Tagbilaran City

7