Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation and Petron Corporation vs. Romars International Gases Corporation
G.R. No. 189669, February 16, 2015
FACTS:
Respondent Romars International Gases Corporation, not an authorized distributor or reseller of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation and Petron Corporation products was found to distribute and/or sell LPG products using the same containers of Petron and Shell. These containers were refilled at respondent’s premises located in San Juan, Baao, Camarines Sur. The petitioners requested the NBI to investigate said activities of respondent. The NBI investigation report confirmed that respondent was engaged is said activities and distributing the gas cylinders in different places, one of them a store called “Edrich Enterprises” located at 272 National Highway, San Nicolas, Iriga City.
The NBI, in behalf of Petron and Shell, filed with the Regional Trial Court of Naga City (RTC-Naga), two separate Applications for Search Warrant for Violation of Section 155.1, in relation to Section 170 of R.A. No. 8293 against respondent and/or its occupants. The RTC-Naga City issued an Order granting said Applications and two Search Warrants which were served by the NBI on the same day at the respondent’s premises and articles or items described in the warrants were seized.
Respondent filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrants on the ground that: (a) there was no probable cause; (b) there had been a lapse of four weeks from the date of the test-buy to the date of the search and seizure operations; (c) most of the cylinders seized were not owned by respondent but by a third person; and (d) Edrich Enterprises is an authorized outlet of Gasul and Marsflame. RTC-Naga denied the Motion to Quash.
On its Motion for Reconsideration, it raised for the first time, the issue of the impropriety of filing the Application for Search Warrant at the RTC-Naga City when the alleged crime was committed in a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC-Iriga City. It pointed out that the application filed with the RTC-Naga failed to state any compelling reason to justify the filing of the same in a court which does not have territorial jurisdiction over the place of the commission of the crime, as required by Section 2 (b), Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner opposed the Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that it was already too late for respondent to raise the issue regarding the venue of the filing of the application for search warrant, as this would be in violation of the Omnibus Motion Rule.
RTC-Naga issued an Order granting respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration, thereby quashing the search warrants. The CA denied the appeal and the MR
Hence, petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not venue in an application for Search Warrant is jurisdictional.
2. Whether or not the newly raised issue of the defect in the application is an issue of jurisdiction which may be raised at any time.
HELD:
NBI failed to comply with Section 2(b), Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
The petitioner’s application for a search warrant was 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. Paragraph (b) of Section 2, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure mandates that, the application for search warrant should state the compelling reasons why the search warrants were being filed with the RTC-Naga instead of the RTC-Iriga City, considering that it is the latter court that has territorial jurisdiction over the place where the alleged crime was committed and also the place where the search warrant was enforced.
The omnibus motion rule is applicable to motions to quash search warrants
The omnibus motion rule embodied in Section 8, Rule 15, in relation to Section 1, Rule 9, demands that all available objections be included in a party’s motion, otherwise, said objections shall be deemed waived; and, the only grounds the court could take cognizance of, even if not pleaded in said motion are:
(a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(b) existence of another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; and
(c) bar by prior judgment or by statute of limitations.
In accordance with the omnibus motion rule, therefore, the trial court could only take cognizance of an issue that was not raised in the motion to quash if, (1) said issue was not available or existent when they filed the motion to quash the search warrant; or (2) the issue was one involving jurisdiction over the subject matter. Obviously, the issue of the defect in the application was available and existent at the time of filing of the motion to quash.
A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property and bring it before the court. A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process akin to a writ of discovery. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in its nature, and made necessary because of a public necessity.
Application for search warrants is not criminal in nature, thus, the rule that venue is jurisdictional does not apply thereto.
In American jurisdictions, from which we have taken our jural concept and provisions on search warrants, such warrant is definitively considered merely as a process, generally issued by a court in the exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction, and not a criminal action to be entertained by a court pursuant to its original jurisdiction. Clearly then, an application for a search warrant is not a criminal action.
The grant of the Motion to Quash was not proper
It was improper for the RTC-Naga to have taken into consideration an issue which respondent failed to raise in its motion to quash, as it did not involve a question of jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is clear that the RTC-Naga had jurisdiction to issue criminal processes such as a search warrant.
Myline Cordial 
Leave a comment