PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM V. ROMARS INTERNATIONAL G.R. No. 189669 February 16, 21! Ve"ue Ve"ue #$ %ur#$&#'(#o"a) FA*TS+ Petiti Petitioner onerss receiv received ed inform informati ation on that respond respondent ent was sellin selling, g, offeri offering ng for sale, sale, or distributing liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) by illegally refilling the steel cylinders manufactured by and bearing the duly registered trademark and device of respondent Petron. Petron then obtain obtained ed the servic services es of a parale paralegal gal invest investiga igatio tion n team team who went to respon respondent dents s premise premisess located in !an "uan, #aao, $amarines !ur, bringing along four empty cylinders of !hellane, Gasul, %otal %otal and !uperkalan !uperkalan and asked that the same same be refilled. &espondents employees then refilled said empty cylinders at respondents refilling station. Petitioners then requested the '# to further further investigat investigatee this matter. matter. %hey witnessed trucks coming coming from respondents respondents refilling refilling facility loaded with Gasul, !hellane and arsflame cylinders, which then deposit said cylinders in different places, one of them a store called * +drich +nterprises. %hus, the '#, in behalf of Petron and !hell, filed with the Re#o"a) Re#o"a) Tr#a) Tr#a) *our( o- Naa *#(y RT*/Naa0 , two separate -pplications for !earch arrant. %he &%$/'aga $ity issued an 0rder granting said -pplications and !earch arrant 'os. 1221/13 and 1221/14 were issued. 0n the same day, the '# served the warrants at the respondents premises premises in an orderly and peaceful manner, and articles or items described in the warrants were sei5ed. 0n 'ovember 6, 1221, respondent respondent filed a otion otion to 7uash !earch arrant arrants, s, where the only grounds cited were8 (a) there was no probable cause9 (b) there had been a lapse of four weeks from the date of the test/buy to the date of the search and sei5ure operations9 (c) most of the cylinders sei5ed were not owned by respondent but by a third person9 and (d) +drich +nterprise +nterprisess is an authori5ed outlet outlet of Gasul and arsflame. arsflame. n an 0rder dated :ebruary :ebruary 1;, 122<, the &%$/'aga denied the otion to 7uash. =owever, on arch 13, 122<, respondents new counsel filed an -ppearance with otion for &econsiderati &econsideration. on. t was only in said motion motion where respondent raised raised for the first time, the issue of the impropriety of filing the -pplication for !earch arrant at the &%$/'aga $ity when the alleged crime was committed in a place within the territorial >urisdiction of the &%$/riga $ity. $ity. &espondent &espondent pointed out that the application application filed with the &%$/'aga &%$/'aga failed to state any compelling reason to >ustify the filing of the same in a court which does not have territorial >urisdiction over the place of the commission of the crime, as required by !ection 1 (b), &ule ;1? of the &evised &ules of $riminal Procedure. n an 0rder dated "uly 14, 122<, the &%$/'aga issued an 0rder granting respondents otion for &econsideration, thereby quashing the !earch arrants. Petitioner then appealed to the $-, but the appellate court, in its @ecision dated arch ;<, 122A, affirmed the &%$ 0rder quashing the search warrants. Petitioners motion for reconsideration of the $- @ecision was denied per &esolution dated !eptember ;6, 122A. ISSUES+ ;. hether hether venue in an applica application tion for for search search warrant warrant is >urisdic >urisdictional tionalBB / '0 1. hether hether the issue issue of lack of >urisdict >urisdiction ion may be waived waived and may even be raised raised for the first first time time on appealB / '0
Prepared by8 @ominic Loren &. -gatep
;
HEL+ !+$. 1. $ourt where applications for search warrant shall be filed. / -n application for search warrant shall be filed with the following8 cralawred (a) -ny court within whose territorial >urisdiction a crime was committed.
(b) :or compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the >udicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known, or any court within the >udicial region where the warrant shall be enforced. =owever, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending. =owever, the $- gravely erred in equating the proceedings for applications for search warrants with criminal actions themselves. Proceedings for said applications are not criminal in nature and, thus, the rule that venue is >urisdictional does not apply thereto. +vidently, the issue of whether the application should have been filed in &%$/riga $ity or &%$/'aga, is not one involving >urisdiction because, as stated in the afore/quoted case, the power to issue a special criminal process is inherent in all courts. Cnfortunately, the foregoing reasoning of the $-, is inceptionally flawed, because as pronounced by the $ourt in alaloan v. $ourt of -ppeals, and reiterated in the more recent orldwide eb $orporation v. People of the Philippines, to wit8 an application for a search warrant is a *special criminal process, rather than a criminal action. %he basic flaw in this reasoning is in erroneously equating the application for and the obtention of a search warrant with the institution and prosecution of a criminal action in a trial court. t would thus categori5e what is only a special criminal process, the power to issue which is inherent in all courts. oreover, the $ourt must again emphasi5e its previous admonition in !pouses -nunciacion v. #ocanegra,that8 e likewise cannot approve the trial courts act of entertaining supplemental motions D D D which raise grounds that are already deemed waived. %o do so would encourage lawyers and litigants to file piecemeal ob>ections to a complaint in order to delay or frustrate the prosecution of the plaintiffs cause of action.
Prepared by8 @ominic Loren &. -gatep
1
