Search warrant; when, where, how to quash. - G.R. No. 170425

G.R. No. 170425

"x x x.

The Court’s 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 Mendoza, et al. considering the SEC and the NBI’s failure to immediately turn over the seized articles to the court that issued the warrant as the rules require.[19]

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 Mendoza, et al. filed with the Muntinlupa RTC, the object of which is to prohibit the three agencies from using the items seized under the search warrant, is actually an action to suppress their use as evidence.  Consequently, Mendoza, et al. should have filed it with the Makati RTC that issued such warrant.

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 Mendoza, et al. to be parties to the search warrant proceeding for them to be able to file a motion to suppress.  It is not correct to say that only the parties to the application for search warrant can question its issuance or seek suppression of evidence seized under it.  The proceeding for the issuance of a search warrant does not partake of an action where a party complains of a violation of his right by another.  The Court clearly explained in United Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip,[20] the nature of a search warrant proceeding.

[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 Philippines.

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 Mendoza, et al., they were entitled to file with the Makati RTC a motion to suppress the use of the seized items as evidence against them for failure of the SEC and the NBI to immediately turn these over to the issuing court.  The issuing court is the right forum for such motion given that no criminal action had as yet been filed againstMendoza, et al. in some other court. 

         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, SEC’s arbitrary action compromised the integrity of the seized documents and articles.

x x x."