“In granting the appeal, the Supreme Court…acquitted [the accused] because the evidence used to convict him was procured through an invalidly issued search warrant”
“A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court” (Section 1, Rule 126, Rules of Criminal Procedure).
Generally, “[a] search warrant application… [is] filed in the court where criminal proceedings have been instituted. If not yet instituted, the application should be filed in a court with territorial jurisdiction over the place of the crime’s commission or of the warrant’s implementation” (People v. Alagaban, G.R. 244842, January 16, 2023).
This requirement pertains to venue and not jurisdiction, “but [is] crucial in the proper issuance of a search warrant.”
However, “for compelling reasons… [as an exception, the application shall be filed in] any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed…, or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced” (Section 1, Rule 126).
“The exception to these venue rules… has been repeated[ly] misuse[d] due to a misinterpretation of the exception’s nature and parameters. While compelling reasons may justify a recourse to the exception, these reasons must be adequately substantiated to prove the application’s sufficiency” (G.R. 244842, Jan. 16, 2023).
In the case of People v. Alagaban, the latter was charged “with illegal possession of seven packets of methamphetamine hydrochloride (locally known as shabu), totaling 11.989 grams in weight” in Legaspi City.
His previous arrest was due to the enforcement of a search warrant issued by the Regional Trial Court of Ligao City.
After trial, Alagaban was found guilty of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165, or the illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Since the quantity of the shabu is more than 10 grams, he was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined P500,000.
In an appeal to the Court of Appeals, “he (Alagaban) assailed the search warrant’s validity and the integrity of the prosecution’s evidence.
According to Alagaban, “the warrant was invalidly issued by the Regional Trial Court of Ligao City, while it was implemented in Legazpi City.”
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s Decision and upheld Alagaban’s guilt.
It “also validated the search warrant by ruling that preventing an information leakage in dangerous drugs investigations is sufficient reason for filing the search warrant application with Ligao City’s Regional Trial Court instead of in Legazpi City” (op. cit.).
In the appeal to the Supreme Court, the issue identified was “whether accused-appellant… is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.”
In granting the appeal, “[t]his Court… acquitted [the accused] because the evidence used to convict him was procured through an invalidly issued search warrant.”
“[T]he Court of Appeals… recognized ‘fears of information leakage’ as a sufficiently compelling reason… even when these ‘fears’ were without proper substantiation.
“The search warrant application did not attach any evidence supporting these fears, other than the applicant’s statement that the filing was made in Ligao City ‘to prevent and/or preempt any leakage of information’”(G.R. 244842, Jan. 16, 2023).
“No connections were drawn between the accused-appellant and specific persons or groups in the area that could facilitate the leakage of sensitive information. Neither were other facts proving the ‘urgency, subject, time and place’ alleged” (op. cit.).
“Instead, the lower courts took the alleged possibility of information leakage as a realized fact in excusing the application’s filing under Rule 126, Section 2(b). This practice disregards the procedural safeguards… and runs afoul of the Constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure” (op. cit.).
“[T]he Constitutional safeguards against unreasonable search and seizure should be read together with the procedures for a search warrant’s issuance, [and] a judge’s determination of probable cause should thus include the examination of whether the “compelling reasons” cited in a search warrant application have adequate basis” (op. cit.).
“[B]are allegation[s] of possible information leakage should [not] automatically compel a court to issue a search warrant. There must be evidence on record substantiating these fears, as requirement for a valid finding of probable cause” (op. cit.).
“Again, the statement of compelling reasons required by Rule 126, Section 2(b) pertains to the application’s sufficiency, and not to the issuing court’s jurisdiction. Without adequate proof of these ‘compelling reasons,’ a court should declare a search warrant application insufficient, and thus, deny the search warrant’s issuance” (op. cit.).
