Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    The Issuing Court Had No Jurisdiction: Issues

    Uploaded by

    Isay Yason
    1) The search warrant issued for the accused's residence in Laguna was void because it was issued by a court without territorial jurisdiction over the offense, which occurred in Laguna, not San Pablo City. 2) Because the search warrant was void, the search conducted was illegal and any evidence obtained from it is inadmissible in court. 3) The search warrant was also void for lack of probable cause, as the alleged test buy used to determine probable cause occurred after the warrant was issued. Therefore, the defendant should move to quash the evidence obtained from the illegal search.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    The Issuing Court Had No Jurisdiction: Issues

    Uploaded by

    Isay Yason
    33 views4 pages
    1) The search warrant issued for the accused's residence in Laguna was void because it was issued by a court without territorial jurisdiction over the offense, which occurred in Laguna, not San Pablo City. 2) Because the search warrant was void, the search conducted was illegal and any evidence obtained from it is inadmissible in court. 3) The search warrant was also void for lack of probable cause, as the alleged test buy used to determine probable cause occurred after the warrant was issued. Therefore, the defendant should move to quash the evidence obtained from the illegal search.

    Original Description:

    .

    Original Title

    Untitled Document 4

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The search warrant issued for the accused's residence in Laguna was void because it was issued by a court without territorial jurisdiction over the offense, which occurred in Laguna, not San Pablo City. 2) Because the search warrant was void, the search conducted was illegal and any evidence obtained from it is inadmissible in court. 3) The search warrant was also void for lack of probable cause, as the alleged test buy used to determine probable cause occurred after the warrant was issued. Therefore, the defendant should move to quash the evidence obtained from the illegal search.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    33 views4 pages

    The Issuing Court Had No Jurisdiction: Issues

    Uploaded by

    Isay Yason
    1) The search warrant issued for the accused's residence in Laguna was void because it was issued by a court without territorial jurisdiction over the offense, which occurred in Laguna, not San Pablo City. 2) Because the search warrant was void, the search conducted was illegal and any evidence obtained from it is inadmissible in court. 3) The search warrant was also void for lack of probable cause, as the alleged test buy used to determine probable cause occurred after the warrant was issued. Therefore, the defendant should move to quash the evidence obtained from the illegal search.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    Advanced Legal Writing – Office Legal Memorandum

    Atty. Rolly Francis Peoro


    FORONDA, Constante Emmanuel III S.
    11691581

    ISSUES

    Can a court issue a search warrant for a place outside of its territorial jurisdiction? Will
    the evidence obtained from said place be admissible in court?

    BRIEF ANSWER

    No. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provides that a search warrant may only be issued by
    a court that has territorial jurisdiction over the offense. It is a fundamental rule that in order for a
    court to acquire territorial jurisdiction over a criminal case, the offense or any one of the
    essential elements of the crime must have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of
    the court. Hence it follows, that the evidence obtained out of the void search warrant shall be
    inadmissible in court.

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Edna was charged with violating R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Anti-Dangerous
    Drugs Act of 2002. Sometime around 3:00 in the morning of July 9, 2016, a group of armed
    men went to the residence of the accused in Sta. Cruz, Laguna. The group of men were
    apparently police officers as they proceeded to serve a search warrant over the accused’s
    residence. The search warrant was issued and signed by the presiding judge of San Pablo City,
    dated July 1, 2016. Out of this search, the authorities were able to obtain three (3) plastic sachets
    which were found to contain Methamphetamine, otherwise known as ​shabu​. The said 3 sachets
    were allegedly found inside a backpack, which was hanged on the wall.

    ANALYSIS

    The issuing court had no jurisdiction

    Rule 126, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure provides that an application
    for search warrant shall be filed with the following:

    a.​ A
    ​ ny court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.

    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.

    The law is clear. A search warrant may only be issued by a court if it has territorial
    jurisdiction over the offense. In order for the said court to acquire jurisdiction over the offense,
    the offense itself or any one of the essential elements must have been committed within the
    territorial jurisdiction of the court.

    All of the elements of the violation of the illegal drugs act took place in Brgy. Duhat, Sta.
    Cruz, Laguna. Hence, it should be followed that the court that has jurisdiction over the case, and
    consequently, the court that should have issued the search warrant, is the Regional Trial Court
    of Sta. Cruz. However, this was not the case. It was the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo,
    Laguna that issued the same. Hence, the search warrant must be considered void since the
    issuing court had no jurisdiction to issue the same.

    Evidence obtained are inadmissible

    This follows that since the search warrant was not validly obtained, the search was in the
    nature of an illegal search, which violates the accused’s right to privacy; a right that is
    guaranteed by the constitution.

    It was settled by the court that the rule is that where entry into the premises to be
    searched was gained by virtue of a void search warrant, prohibited articles seized in the course
    of the search are inadmissible against the accused.[1] In ​Roan v. Gonzales​[2] the prosecution
    sought to charge the accused with illegal possession of firearms on the basis of the items seized
    in a search through a warrant which the Court declared as void for lack of probable cause. In
    ruling against the admissibility of the items seized, the Court said prohibited articles may be
    seized but only as long as the search is valid. In this case, it was not because: 1) there was no
    valid search warrant; and 2) absent such a warrant, the right thereto was not validly waived by
    the petitioner. In short, the military officers who entered the petitioner’s premises had no right to
    be there and therefore had no right either to seize the pistol and bullets.

    This follows that any article seized from the accused’s house, specifically the illegal drugs, should not be
    admissible as evidence against the accused. The seizing officers had no right to be at the accused house, violating her
    constitutional right to privacy and against illegal searches and seizures.

    Search warrant was also void


    for lack of probable cause

    Assuming ​arguendo that the issuing court did in fact have jurisdiction to issue the said
    search warrant, it is peculiar that the search warrant was issued several days before the alleged
    test-buy operation, which was vital in the determination of the probable cause for the warrant,
    took place.
    Rule 126, Sections 4 and 5 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provide for the requisites
    for the issuance of a search warrant, to wit:

    SEC. 4. ​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.

    SEC. 5. ​Examination of complainant; record. ​The judge must, before


    issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and
    answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on
    facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements,
    together with the affidavits submitted.

    More simply stated, the requisites of a valid search warrant are: (1) probable cause is
    present; (2) such presence is determined personally by the judge; (3) the complainant and the
    witnesses he or she may produce are personally examined by the judge, in writing and under
    oath or affirmation; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on facts personally known to
    them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the person and place to be searched and the
    things to be seized.

    The search warrant was issued on July 1, 2016, the probable cause being the alleged
    test-buy from the accused. However, in the narration of facts by the arresting officers, it was
    said that the alleged test-buy was conducted on July 9, 2016, 8 days after the issuance of the
    search warrant. This points to the possibility that the issuing judge did not conduct a personal
    examination on the witnesses to create a belief that a crime was actually committed.

    In ​Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP) v. Asuncion​, the court


    declared the search warrant issued by the trial court as void in connection with the offense of
    illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives, on the ground, ​inter alia​, of failure
    to prove the requisite probable cause. The applicant and the witness presented for the issuance
    of the warrant were found to be without personal knowledge of the lack of license to possess
    firearms of the management of PICOP and its security agency. They likewise did not testify as
    to the absence of license and failed to attach to the application a no license certification from the
    Firearms and Explosives Office of the Philippine National Police.[3]

    In the present case, in the determination of probable cause and issuance of the search
    warrant, it cannot be said that the witnesses, the arresting officers, had personal knowledge of
    the acts committed, since at the time of the issuance of the warrant, the alleged test buy has not
    yet even taken place. Hence, the allegation of the witnesses were based merely on hearsay.

    CONCLUSION

    Given that the search warrant was void due to the lack of jurisdiction by the issuing court,
    as well as for lack of probable cause, it follows that the search conducted by the arresting
    officers was illegal and the articles seized therein should not be admissible in court for the
    prosecution of the accused.

    RECOMMENDATION

    Considering that the articles seized at the residence of the defendant were obtained
    illegally, it is therefore inadmissible as evidence in any court. Thus, defendant must move to
    quash the evidence of the prosecution.

    [1]​ Nala v. Barroso GR No. 153087 (2003)


    [2]​ Roan v. Gonzales GR No. 71410 (1986)
    [3]​ ​Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines (PICOP) v. Asuncion GR No. 122092 (1999)

    You might also like