SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE G.R. No. 170425
COMMISSION,
NATIONAL
BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION
and DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,
Petitioner, Present:
VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,
- versus - PERALTA,
ABAD,
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
RIZZA G. MENDOZA,
CARLITO LEE,
GRESHIELA G.
COMPENDIO, RAUL
RIVERA, REY
BELTRAN, REX
ALMOJUELA, LINDA P.
CAPALUNGAN,
HILDA R. RONQUILLO,
MA. LODA
CALMA, TERESITA P.
ALMOJUELA,
RUFINA ABAD and
AMADOR A. Promulgated:
PASTRANA,
Respondent. April 23, 2012
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD,
J.:
This case is about the institution of an action for
prohibition and injunction filed by the affected party in one court, seeking to
enjoin the use of evidence seized under a search warrant issued by another
court.
The
Facts and the Case
On
March 26, 2001 the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) applied with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 63, for the issuance of a
search warrant covering documents and articles found at the offices of Amador
Pastrana and Rufina Abad at 1908, 88 Corporate Center, Valero Street, Makati
City. The NBI alleged that these
documents and articles were being used to a) violate Republic Act 8799, also
known as the Securities Regulation Code (SRC), and b) commit estafa under
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.[1] The court granted the application.
Acting on the search warrant, NBI
and Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) agents searched the offices mentioned and
seized the described documents and articles from them. Shortly after, the SEC filed a criminal
complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) against respondents Rizza
Mendoza, Carlito Lee, Ma. Greshiela Compendio, Raul Rivera, Rey Beltran, Rex
Almojuela, Linda Capalungan, Hilda Ronquillo, Ma. Loda Calma, and Teresita
Almojuela (
On
July 11, 2001 Mendoza, et al. filed a petition for prohibition and injunction with application
for temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction against the
NBI and the SEC before the RTC of Muntinlupa.[3] They alleged that, three months after the
search and seizure, the NBI and the SEC had not turned over the seized articles
to the Makati RTC that issued the search warrant.[4] This omission, they said, violated Section 1,
Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure,[5]
which required the officers who conducted the seizure to immediately turn over the
seized items to the issuing court.
The Muntinlupa petition sought to
prevent the SEC and the NBI from using the seized articles in prosecuting
Mendoza, et al. and the DOJ from
proceeding with the preliminary investigation of their case, using the same.[6] They feared that the seized articles may have already
been tampered with, altered, or augmented by those responsible for seizing them.[7] Essentially,
Opposing
the petition, the SEC, the NBI, and the DOJ (the three agencies) averred that injunction
may not be issued to protect contingent rights or enjoin criminal prosecution. They pointed out that
Simultaneous with the action
before the Muntinlupa RTC, on July 11, 2001 two of the respondents who did not
join that action, Pastrana and Abad, filed with the Makati RTC a motion to
quash the subject search warrant for having been issued in connection with several
offenses when the Rules of Criminal Procedure[9]
require its issuance for only one specific offense.
On July 19, 2001 the Muntinlupa
RTC issued a TRO against the three agencies,[10] enjoining
them from using the seized articles in proceeding against
On August 23, 2001 the three
agencies moved for reconsideration of the Muntinlupa RTCs orders granting the
intervention and the preliminary injunction. They also moved on September 13, 2001 to
dismiss the action. On January 15, 2002 that court issued an omnibus order, denying
their motions for reconsideration and to dismiss.[13] This prompted the three agencies to file a
petition for certiorari and
prohibition with the CA, seeking to annul the Muntinlupa RTCs orders of August
8, 2001, August 9, 2001, and January 15, 2002.[14]
During
the pendency of the case before the CA, however, or on May 10, 2002 the Makati
RTC rendered a decision nullifying the search warrant it issued and declaring the
documents and articles seized under it inadmissible in evidence. The Makati RTC also directed the SEC and the
NBI to return the seized items to respondents Pastrana and Abad.[15]
For some reason, the CA did not mention
the Makati RTC order and did not dismiss the petition before it on ground of
mootness. On March 24, 2004 it rendered
judgment, denied the three agencies petition, and affirmed the orders of the
Muntinlupa RTC. The CA ruled, among
other things, that
Issue
Presented
The
issues raised in this petition have essentially been rendered moot and academic
by the Makati RTCs decision, which quashed the search warrant it issued and
declared the items seized under it inadmissible in evidence. Still, one issuewhether or not the CA erred
in holding that the Muntinlupa RTC has jurisdiction to entertain Mendoza, et al.s injunction actionneeds to be
resolved in the interest of setting the matter aright and providing a lesson
for the future.
The
Courts Ruling
The CA held that the proceedings
before the Makati RTC and the Muntinlupa RTC are separate and distinct. The object of the motion to quash search
warrant, here filed by respondents Pastrana and Abad with the Makati RTC, the
issuing court, was to test the validity of its issuance, given that the warrant
was made to cover several offenses rather than just one as the rules provide.[18] On the other hand, the object of the
Muntinlupa injunction case is to prevent the three agencies from using the
seized articles in any criminal proceeding against
But Section 14 of Rule 126 is
clear. Questions concerning both 1) the
issuance of the search warrant and 2) the suppression of evidence seized under it
are matters that can be raised only with the issuing court if, as in the
present case, no criminal action has in the meantime been filed in court. Thus:
Section 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence; where to file. A motion to quash a search warrant and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and acted upon only by the court where the action has been instituted. If no criminal action has been instituted, the motion may be filed in and resolved by the court that issued the search warrant. However, if such court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in another court, the motion shall be resolved by the latter court. (Emphasis supplied)
Although passed off as a petition
for injunction, the action that
It might be pointed out of course
that since Mendoza, et al. were not
parties to the issuance of the search warrant, they had no standing to question
the same or seek the suppression of evidence taken under it. Consequently, since they had reasons for
questioning government use of the seized items against them, they had the right
to bring the injunction action before the Muntinlupa RTC where they
resided.
But the rules do not require
[A] search warrant proceeding is, in no sense, a criminal action or the commencement of a prosecution. The proceeding is not one against any person, but is solely for the discovery and to get possession of personal property. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in nature, and made necessary because of public necessity. It resembles in some respect with what is commonly known as John Doe proceedings. While an application for a search warrant is entitled like a criminal action, it does not make it such an action.
A
search warrant is a legal process which has been likened to a writ of discovery
employed by the State to procure relevant evidence of crime. It is in the nature of a criminal
process, restricted to cases of public prosecutions. A search warrant is a
police weapon, issued under the police power. A search warrant must issue in
the name of the State, namely, the People of the
A search warrant
has no relation to a civil process. It is not a process for adjudicating civil
rights or maintaining mere private rights. It
concerns the public at large as distinguished from the ordinary civil action
involving the rights of private persons. It
may only be applied for in the furtherance of public prosecution.[21]
Clearly, although the search
warrant in this case did not target the residence or offices of
Parenthetically, it appears from its
investigation report that the SEC kept the seized documents and articles for
months rather than immediately turn them over to the Makati RTC.[22] Justifying its action, the SEC said that it still
needed to study the seized items.[23] Evidently, it wanted to use them to build up a
case against the respondents, unmindful of its duty to first turn them over to
the court. Clearly, SECs arbitrary
action compromised the integrity of the seized documents and articles.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES the decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 24, 2004
and its resolution dated November 10, 2005 in CA-G.R. SP 70212 and ORDERS the dismissal of the action for
prohibition and injunction that respondents Rizza Mendoza, Carlito Lee, Ma.
Greshiela Compendio, Raul Rivera, Rey Beltran, Rex Almojuela, Linda Capalungan,
Hilda Ronquillo, Ma. Loda Calma, Teresita Almojuela, Rufina Abad and Amador
Pastrana filed with the
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M.
PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1]
Rollo, pp. 38, 54.
[2]
[3]
[4]
Records, pp. 7-9.
[5] Sec. 1. Search warrant defined. - A search warrant is
an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the
[6]
Rollo, p. 38.
[7]
Records, p. 9.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
Rollo, p. 39.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
Records, pp. 1005-1014.
[16]
Rollo, p. 41.
[17]
[18] Sec. 4, Rule
126. Requisites for issuing search
warrant. 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 witness he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the
Philippines. (3a)
[19] Sec. 12, Rule 126. Delivery
of property and inventory thereof to court; return and proceedings thereon.
(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who
issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under
oath. x x x
[20]
500 Phil. 342 (2005).
[21]
[22]
Records, p. 48.
[23]