Elizalde Malaloan and Marlon Luarez, Petitioners

---vs---
Court of Appeals; Hon. Antonio Fineza, RTC Caloocan Judge; Hon. Tirso Velasco, RTC QC
Judge; PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents
Distinguish from Warrant of Arrest

FACTS:
1. CAPCOM filed with RTC-Caloocan an application for search warrant, in connection with
an alleged violation of PD1866 (illegal possession of firearms) perpetrated at QC. Hon.
Fineza issued the warrant.
2. A labor seminar of the Ecimenical Inst. For Labor Education (EILER) was taking place at
the time of the search, and 61 members were found and brought to Camp Karingal in QC.
Most of them were eventually let go except for herein Petitioners who were EILER
Instructors. They were then charged with violation of PD1866 before RTC QC presided
by Hon. Velasco.
3. Petitioners filed a motion before RTC QC for consolidation and quashal of search warrant
and suppression of illegally acquired evidence. RTC QC granted consolidation and denied
the quashal. CA upheld RTC
4. Hence, this petition

ISSUE: W/N a court may grant a search warrant for offenses committed outside its territorial
jurisdiction (YES, Petition is DENIED)

HELD:
Petitioners argue that the application for the search warrant was filed in a court of improper
venue and since venue in criminal actions involves the territorial jurisdiction of the court, such
warrant is void for having been issued by a court without jurisdiction.

SC disagrees. A warrant such as a warrant of arrest and a search warrant is only a special criminal
process, the power to issue which is inherent in all courts. As opposed to criminal action,
jurisdiction of which is in specific courts. Here, the action is instituted at RTC QC where the
offense was committed.

SC notes that it would be difficult to impose upon the law enforcement authorities to unerringly
determine where they should apply for a search warrant considering the uncertainties and
possibilities as to the ultimate venue of the case. Looking at R110 S15, only criminal actions were
given the restriction of territorial jurisdiction. The omission of the same restriction on special
criminal processes is deliberate and intended.

If the case has already been filed before a court, then it is that court who must issue the warrant,
subject to certain exceptions such as when no judge is present (see warrant of arrest)
SC lays down the following guidelines in issuing search warrants (Verbatim ko na ilagay since
important lahat):

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.