#2

Laud v. People,
G.R. No. 199032 | 19 November 2014

DOCTRINE:

Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC states the requirements for the issuance of search
warrants in special criminal cases by the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City. These special criminal
cases pertain to those “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,
as amended, and other relevant laws that may hereafter be enacted by Congress, and included
herein by the Supreme Court.” Search warrant applications for such cases may be filed by “the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Anti-Crime
Task Force (ACTAF),” and “personally endorsed by the heads of such agencies.” As in ordinary
search warrant applications, they “shall particularly describe therein the places to be searched
and/or the property or things to be seized as prescribed in the Rules of Court.” “The Executive
Judges [of these RTCs] and, whenever they are on official leave of absence or are not physically
present in the station, the Vice-Executive Judges” are authorized to act on such applications and
“shall issue the warrants, if justified, which may be served in places outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the said courts.

FACTS:
On July 10, 2009, the Philippine National Police (PNP), through Police Senior
Superintendent Roberto B. Fajardo, applied with RTC Manila Branch 50 for a warrant to search
three (3) caves located inside the Laud Compound in Purok 3, Barangay Ma-a, Davao City, where
the alleged remains of the victims summarily executed by the so-called “Davao Death Squad” may
be found. In support of the application, a certain Ernesto Avasola (Avasola) was presented to the
RTC and there testified that he personally witnessed the killing of six (6) persons in December
2005, and was, in fact, part of the group who buried the victims. Judge William Simon P. Peralta,
acting as Vice Executive Judge of the Manila-RTC, found probable cause for the issuance of a
search warrant, and thus, issued Search Warrant No. 09-14407 which was later enforced by the
elements of the PNP-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, in coordination with the
members of the Scene of the Crime Operatives on July 15, 2009. The search of the Laud
Compound caves yielded positive results for the presence of human remains. On July 20, 2009,
herein petitioner, retired SPO4 Bienvenido Laud (Laud), filed an Urgent Motion to Quash and to
Suppress Illegally Seized Evidence on the following grounds: (a) Judge Peralta had no authority to
act on the application for a search warrant since he had been automatically divested of his
position as Vice Executive Judge when several administrative penalties were imposed against him
by the Court; (b)  the Manila-RTC had no jurisdiction to issue Search Warrant No. 09-14407 which
was to be enforced in Davao City; (c) the human remains sought to be seized are not a proper
subject of a search warrant; (d) the police officers are mandated to follow the prescribed
procedure for exhumation of human remains; (e) the search warrant was issued despite lack of
probable cause; (f) the rule against forum shopping was violated; and (g) there was a violation of
the rule requiring one specific offense and the proper specification of the place to be searched
and the articles to be seized.

RTC Manila granted the motion of Laud. Respondent People filed a Motion for
Reconsideration which was denied in an Order dated December 8, 2009. Hence, the petition for
certiorari before the CA. The CA granted the People’s petition and annulled the Orders of Manila
RTC. It held that the requirements for the issuance of a search warrant were satisfied, pointing out
that an application involving a heinous crime, such as Murder, is an exception to the compelling
reasons requirements; that probable cause was established because of Avesola’s testimony; and
that there was no forum shopping since the applications filed before RTC Manila and RTC Davao
were both based on different facts and circumstances. Laud filed for an MoR but it was denied.
Thus, the present petition.

ISSUES:
(a) Whether or not the administrative penalties imposed on Judge Peralta invalidated Search
Warrant No. 09-14407;

(b) Whether or not the Manila-RTC had jurisdiction to issue the said warrant despite non-
compliance with the compelling reasons requirement under Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court;
(c) Whether or not the requirements of probable cause and particular description were complied
with and the one-specific-offense rule under Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court was
violated; and

(d) Whether or not the applicant for the search warrant violated the rule against forum shopping.

HELD:

(a) NO. In the case of Funa v. Agra, the Court defined a de facto officer and explained that his
acts are just as valid for all purposes as those of a de jure officer, in so far as the public or third
persons who are interested therein are concerned. Accordingly, “a de facto officer is one who
derives his appointment from one having colorable authority to appoint, if the office is an
appointive office, and whose appointment is valid on its face. He may also be one who is in
possession of an office, and is discharging [his] duties under color of authority, by which is meant
authority derived from an appointment, however irregular or informal, so that the incumbent is not
a mere volunteer. Consequently, the acts of the de facto officer are just as valid for all purposes
as those of a de jure officer, in so far as the public or third persons who are interested therein are
concerned.” In order for the de facto doctrine to apply, all of the following elements must concur:
(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.

In the case at bar, while the Court does agree that the imposition of said administrative
penalties did operate to divest Judge Peralta’s authority to act as Vice-Executive Judge, it must be
qualified that the abstraction of such authority would not, by and of itself, result in the invalidity of
Search Warrant No. 09-14407 considering that Judge Peralta may be considered to have made
the issuance as a de facto officer whose acts would, nonetheless, remain valid. In this case, the
de facto doctrine applies as all the elements are present. Undoubtedly, there is a de jure office of
a 2nd Vice-Executive Judge. Judge Peralta also had a colorable right to the said office as he was
duly appointed to such position and was only divested of the same because of administrative
penalties. It may be said that there was general acquiescence by the public since the search
warrant application was regularly endorsed to the sala of Judge Peralta by the Office of the Clerk
of Court of the Manila-RTC under his apparent authority as 2 nd Vice Executive Judge. Finally,
Judge Peralta’s actual physical possession of the said office is presumed to be in good faith, as
the contrary was not established. Thus, the search warrant was valid.

(b) YES. Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC states the requirements for the issuance
of search warrants in special criminal cases by the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City. These
special criminal cases pertain to those “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, as amended, and other relevant laws that may hereafter be enacted by
Congress, and included herein by the Supreme Court.” Search warrant applications for such
cases may be filed by “the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Philippine National
Police (PNP) and the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF),” and “personally endorsed by the heads of
such agencies.” As in ordinary search warrant applications, they “shall particularly describe
therein the places to be searched and/or the property or things to be seized as prescribed in the
Rules of Court.” “The Executive Judges [of these RTCs] and, whenever they are on official leave
of absence or are not physically present in the station, the Vice-Executive Judges” are authorized
to act on such applications and “shall issue the warrants, if justified, which may be served in
places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said courts.

In the case at bar, the Court observed that the above-stated requirements were complied
with in the case. The search warrant application was filed before the Manila-RTC by the PNP and
was endorsed by its head, PNP Chief Jesus Ame Versosa, particularly describing the place to be
searched and the things to be seized in connection with the heinous crime of Murder. Finding
probable cause therefore, Judge Peralta, in his capacity as 2 nd Vice-Executive Judge, issued
Search Warrant No. 09-14407 which, as the rules state, may be served in places outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the said RTC. The fact that a search warrant is being applied for in
connection with a special criminal case as above-classified already presumes the existence of a
compelling reason; hence, any statement to this effect would be superfluous and therefore should
be dispensed with. Thus, there is nothing defective in the issuance of the search warrant.

(c) YES!!!

Re Probable Cause

Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court states that a search warrant shall not be issued
except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense. In this case, the existence of
probable cause for the issuance of Search Warrant No. 09-14407 is evident from the first-hand
account of Avasola who, in his deposition, stated that he personally witnessed the commission of
the afore-stated crime and was, in fact, part of the group that buried the victims. That a
“considerable length of time” attended the search warrant’s application from the crime’s
commission does not, by and of itself, negate the veracity of the applicant’s claims or the
testimony of the witness presented as the delay may be accounted for by the witness’s fear of
reprisal and reluctance to get involved in a criminal case.

Re Particular Description

The Court similarly concludes that Search Warrant No. 09-14407 evidently complies with
the foregoing standard since it particularly describes the place to be searched, namely, the three
(3) caves located inside the Laud Compound in Purok 3, Barangay Ma-a, Davao City. It even
made explicit reference to the sketch contained in the application.
 Moreover, the things to be seized were also particularly described, namely, the remains of
six (6) victims. The Court ruled that Laud’s argument that human remains “are not personal
property” deserves scant consideration. “Personal property” in the foregoing context actually
refers to the thing’s mobility, and not to its capacity to be owned or alienated by a particular
person. Article 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 under the above-cited criminal procedure provision.

Re One-Specific-Offense Rule

In the case of Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. CA, the Court settled that a search warrant that
covers several counts of a certain specific offense does not violate the one-specific-offense rule.
Hence, given that Search Warrant No. 09-14407 was issued only for one specific offense – that is,
of Murder, albeit for six (6) counts – it cannot be said that Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court had been violated.

(d) NO. There is forum shopping 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. In this case, there
was no forum shopping considering the various points of divergence attending the search warrant
application before the Manila-RTC and that before the Davao-RTC. For one, the witnesses
presented in each application were different. Likewise, the application filed in Manila was in
connection with Murder, while the one in Davao did not specify any crime. Finally, and more
importantly, the places to be searched were different.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.