Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    What Is The Doctrine of ANCILLARY JURISDICTION

    Uploaded by

    Melvin Pernez
    The doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction allows a court to determine matters incidental to exercising its primary jurisdiction over a case. In Malaloan v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that a court trying a criminal case can issue a search warrant needed to obtain evidence, even if the search occurs outside the court's territorial jurisdiction, as this is incidental to the case before it. The Court provided guidelines for situations where a criminal case is filed in one court but a search warrant is issued by another, to prevent conflicts over jurisdiction and forum shopping.

    Copyright:

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

    What Is The Doctrine of ANCILLARY JURISDICTION

    Uploaded by

    Melvin Pernez
    18 views2 pages
    The doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction allows a court to determine matters incidental to exercising its primary jurisdiction over a case. In Malaloan v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that a court trying a criminal case can issue a search warrant needed to obtain evidence, even if the search occurs outside the court's territorial jurisdiction, as this is incidental to the case before it. The Court provided guidelines for situations where a criminal case is filed in one court but a search warrant is issued by another, to prevent conflicts over jurisdiction and forum shopping.

    Original Description:

    article

    Original Title

    What is the Doctrine of ANCILLARY JURISDICTION

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction allows a court to determine matters incidental to exercising its primary jurisdiction over a case. In Malaloan v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that a court trying a criminal case can issue a search warrant needed to obtain evidence, even if the search occurs outside the court's territorial jurisdiction, as this is incidental to the case before it. The Court provided guidelines for situations where a criminal case is filed in one court but a search warrant is issued by another, to prevent conflicts over jurisdiction and forum shopping.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    18 views2 pages

    What Is The Doctrine of ANCILLARY JURISDICTION

    Uploaded by

    Melvin Pernez
    The doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction allows a court to determine matters incidental to exercising its primary jurisdiction over a case. In Malaloan v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that a court trying a criminal case can issue a search warrant needed to obtain evidence, even if the search occurs outside the court's territorial jurisdiction, as this is incidental to the case before it. The Court provided guidelines for situations where a criminal case is filed in one court but a search warrant is issued by another, to prevent conflicts over jurisdiction and forum shopping.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    What is the Doctrine of ANCILLARY JURISDICTION?

    ANSWER: It is the power of the court to adjudicate and determine matters


    incidental to the exercise of its primary jurisdiction of an action.
    Under the “Ancillary Jurisdiction Doctrine” a court acquires jurisdiction of a
    case or controversy as an entirety and may, as incidental to the disposition
    of a matter before it, possess jurisdiction to decide other matters raised
    before it, although the court could not have taken cognizance of such other
    matters if it had been independently presented.
    MALALOAN v. COURT OF APPEALS ⚖️
    (G.R. No. 104879, May 6, 1994)
    Remedial Law – Ancillary Jurisdiction
    Political Law – Search Warrants
    In the case of MALALOAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, the Supreme Court
    was faced with the following issue: W/N a court may take cognizance of an
    application for a search warrant in connection with an offense committed
    outside its territorial boundary and, thereafter, issue the warrant to conduct
    a search on a place outside the court’s supposed territorial jurisdiction.
    In ruling in the affirmative, in cases where a criminal complaint has already
    been filed in a particular court and a search warrant is needed to secure
    evidence to be presented therein, the Supreme Court held that the court
    trying the criminal case may properly issue the warrant, upon proper
    application and due compliance with the requisites therefor, since such
    application would only be an incident in that case and which it can resolve
    in the exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction.
    In order to decide the possible conflicts of jurisdiction (or, more accurately,
    in the exercise of jurisdiction) where the criminal case is pending in one
    court and the search warrant is issued by another court for the seizure of
    personal property intended to be used as evidence in said criminal case,
    the Supreme Court laid down the following policy guidelines:
    1. The court wherein the criminal case is pending shall have primary
    jurisdiction to issue search warrants necessitated by and for purposes of
    said case. An application for a search warrant may be filed with another
    court only under extreme and compelling circumstances that the applicant
    must prove to the satisfaction of the latter court which may or may not give
    due course to the application depending on the validity of the justification
    offered for not filing the same in the court with primary jurisdiction
    thereover.
    2. When the latter court issues the search warrant, a motion to quash the
    same may be filed in and shall be resolved by said court, without prejudice
    to any proper recourse to the appropriate higher court by the party
    aggrieved by the resolution of the issuing court. All grounds and objections
    then available, existent or known shall be raised in the original or
    subsequent proceedings for the quashal of the warrant, otherwise they
    shall be deemed waived.
    3. Where no motion to quash the search warrant was filed in or resolved by
    the issuing court, the interested party may move in the court where the
    criminal case is pending for the suppression as evidence of the personal
    property seized under the warrant if the same is offered therein for said
    purpose. Since two separate courts with different participations are
    involved in this situation, a motion to quash a search warrant and a motion
    to suppress evidence are alternative and not cumulative remedies. In order
    to prevent forum shopping, a motion to quash shall consequently be
    governed by the omnibus motion rule, provided, however, that objections
    not available, existent or known during the proceedings for the quashal of
    the warrant may be raised in the hearing of the motion to suppress. The
    resolution of the court on the motion to suppress shall likewise be subject
    to any proper remedy in the appropriate higher court.
    4. Where the court which issued the search warrant denies the motion to
    quash the same and is not otherwise prevented from further proceeding
    thereon, all personal property seized under the warrant shall forthwith be
    transmitted by it to the court wherein the criminal case is pending, with the
    necessary safeguards and documentation therefor.
    5. These guidelines shall likewise be observed where the same criminal
    offense is charged in different informations or complaints and filed in two or
    more courts with concurrent original jurisdiction over the criminal action.
    Where the issue of which court will try the case shall have been resolved,
    such court shall be considered as vested with primary jurisdiction to act on
    applications for search warrants incident to the criminal case.

    You might also like