— REMEDIAL LAW —

Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.

128096, January 20, 1999
SEPTEMBER 12, 2018

FACTS:

On 18 May 1995, 11 members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang, were killed along Commonwealth
Ave., QC by the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG) headed by Chief
Supt. Jewel Canson of PNP. One of the components of ABRITG is the Presidential Anti-Crime
Commission-Task Force Habagat (PACC-TFH) headed by petitioner Chief Supt. Panfilo Lacson.

SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes told the media that what happened was a summary execution (or a
rub out) and not a shoot-out between the Kuratong Baleleng gang members and the ABRITG.

Omb. Aniano Desierto formed a panel of investigators headed by the Deputy Omb. for Military
Affairs, Bienvenido Blancaflor, to investigate the incident. This panel found that the incident was
a legitimate police operation. However, a review board led by Overall Deputy Omb. Francisco
Villa recommended the indictment for multiple murder against 26 respondents, including
Lacson.

Lacson was among those charged as principal in information for murder before the
Sandiganbayan. All the accused filed separate motions questioning its jurisdiction.

Sandiganbayan ordered the cases transferred to the QC RTC which has original and exclusive
jurisdiction under RA 7975 (An Act to Strengthen the Functional and Structural Organization of
the Sandiganbayan, Amending for that Purpose PD 1606, as Amended), as none of the principal
accused has the rank of PNP Chief Supt. or higher (Lacson is NOT a PNP Chief Supt.)
The Office of the Special Prosecutor moved for a reconsideration. While it is pending, RA 8249
(An Act Further Defining thr Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, Amending for the Purpose PD
1606, as Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes) was enacted to law which
deletes the word “principal” from the phrase “principal accused”. Thus, the Sandiganbayan takes
cognizance again of the case.

Lacson now questions the constitutionality of Secs. 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 because the provisions
are: (a) introduced by the Congress in bad faith, (b) ex post facto legislation and (c) misleading
as to the law’s title. The OSG asserts otherwise.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not RA 8249 is constitutional. (YES)
2. Whether or not Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. (NO)

HELD:

1. RA 8249 is constitutional.

The Court mainly stresses that the provisions are CONSTITUTIONAL because: (a) there is
presumption of validity of laws and no showing that the Congress pinpointed solely the
petitioners which would amount to a violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause, (b)
using the doctrine in Calder v. Bull, the same is not an ex post facto legislation and lastly, (c)
law’s title is comprehensive enough to fit in the one-title-one-subject provision of the
Constitution.

2. Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction.

It’s QC RTC that has jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a court is defined by the Constitution or
statute. The elements of that definition must appear in the complaint or information so as to
ascertain which court has jurisdiction over a case. Hence the elementary rule that the jurisdiction
of a court is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information,and not by the
evidence presented by the parties at the trial.

The multiple murder charge falls under Section 4(b) of R.A. 8249, which requires that the
offense charged must be committed by the offender in relation to his office in order for the
Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction over it.

An offense is said to have been committed in relation to the office if it (the offense) is ‘intimately
connected’ with the office of the offender and perpetrated while he was in the performance of his
official functions.

While the information states that Lacson, et al committed the crime of murder in relation to their
public office, there is, however, no specific allegation of facts that the shooting of the victim by
the said principal accused was intimately related to the discharge of their official duties as police
officers. Likewise, the amended information does NOT indicate that the said accused arrested
and investigated the victim and then killed the latter while in their custody.

While there is the allegation in the amended information that the said accessories committed the
offense “in relation to office as officers and members of the (PNP),” the Court do not see the
intimate connection between the offense charged and the accused’s official functions. That
phrase is merely a conclusion between of law, not a factual averment that would show the close
intimacy between the offense charged and the discharge of the accused’s official duties.
What is controlling is the specific factual allegations in the information that would indicate the
close intimacy between the discharge of the accused’s official duties and the commission of the
offense charged, in order to qualify the crime as having been committed in relation to public
office.

People vs. C.A., 291 SCRA 400

Posted: April 13, 2017 in case digests, criminal procedure cases, Uncategorized
Tags: 291 SCRA 400, People vs. C.A.

Search warrants. Place to be searched. People vs. C.A., 291 SCRA 400

By: Randel Bejasa

G.R. No. 126379 June 26, 1998

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by Provincial Prosecutor FAUSTINO T.

CHIONG, petitioner,

COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE CAESAR CASANOVA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial

Court, Branch 80, Malolos, Bulacan, AZFAR HUSSAIN, MOHAMMAD SAGED,

MUJAHID KHAN, MOHAMMAD ASLAM, and MEHMOOD ALI, respondents.

FACTS:
 – A petition for certiorari has been filed to invalidate the order of Judge Casanova which quashed search warrant issued by Judge

Bacalla and declared inadmissible for any purpose the items seized under the warrant.

– An application for a search warrant was made by S/Insp Brillantes against Mr. Azfar Hussain who had allegedly in his

possession firearms and explosives at Abigail Variety Store, Apt 1207 Area F. Bagon Buhay Avenue, Sarang Palay, San Jose Del

Monte, Bulacan.

– The following day Search Warrant No. 1068 was issued but was served not at Abigail Variety Store but at Apt. No. 1,

immediately adjacent to Abigail Variety Store resulting in the arrest of 4 Pakistani nationals and the seizure of a number of

different explosives and firearms.

ISSUE:

1. WON a search warrant was validly issued as regard the apartment in which private respondents were then actually residing, or

more explicitly, WON that particular apartment had been specifically described in the warrant.
2. HELD:
The ambiguity lies outside the instrument, arising from the absence of a meeting of minds as to the place to be
searched between the applicants for the warrant and the Judge issuing the same; and what was done was to
substitute for the place that the Judge had written down in the warrant, the premises that the executing officers
had in their mind. This should not have been done. It is neither fair nor licit to allow police officers to search a
place different from that stated in the warrant on the claim that the place actually searched — although not that
specified in the warrant — is exactly what they had in view when they applied for the warrant and had
demarcated in their supporting evidence. What is material in determining the validity of a search is the place
stated in the warrant itself, not what the applicants had in their thoughts, or had represented in the proofs they
submitted to the court issuing the warrant.
3. The place to be searched, as set out in the warrant, cannot be amplified or modified by the officers'
4.
5. own personal knowledge of the premises, or the evidence they adduced in support of their application for the
warrant. Such a change is proscribed by the Constitution which requires inter alia the search warrant to
particularly describe the place to be searched as well as the persons or things to be seized. It would concede to
police officers the power of choosing the place to be searched, even if it not be that delineated in the warrant. It
would open wide the door to abuse of the search process, and grant to officers executing a search warrant that
discretion which the Constitution has precisely removed from them. The particularization of the description of
the place to be searched may properly be done only by the Judge, and only in the warrant itself; it cannot be left
to the discretion of the police officers conducting the search.


PEOPLE VS. ARUTA [288 SCRA 626; G.R. NO. 120515; 13 APR
1998]
Friday, February 06, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: On Dec. 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant that a
certain “Aling Rosa” will be arriving from Baguio City with a large volume of
marijuana and assembled a team. The next day, at the Victory Liner Bus
terminal they waited for the bus coming from Baguio, when the informer
pointed out who “Aling Rosa” was, the team approached her and introduced
themselves as NARCOM agents. When Abello asked “aling Rosa” about the
contents of her bag, the latter handed it out to the police. They found dried
marijuana leaves packed in a plastic bag marked “cash katutak”.

Instead of presenting its evidence, the defense filed a demurrer to evidence

alleging the illegality of the search and seizure of the items. In her testimony,
the accused claimed that she had just come from Choice theatre where she
watched a movie “Balweg”. While about to cross the road an old woman asked
her for help in carrying a shoulder bag, when she was later on arrested by the
police. She has no knowledge of the identity of the old woman and the woman
was nowhere to be found. Also, no search warrant was presented.

The trial court convicted the accused in violation of the dangerous drugs of
1972

Issue: Whether or Not the police correctly searched and seized the drugs
from the accused.

Held: The following cases are specifically provided or allowed by law:

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12,

Rule 126 of the Rules of Court 8 and by prevailing jurisprudence

2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the elements of which are: (a) a prior
valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was
inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are;
(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and (d) "plain view" justified
mere seizure of evidence without further search;

3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the

vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its
transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion
amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity;

4. Consented warrantless search;

5. Customs search;

6. Stop and Frisk;

7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.

The essential requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied before a

warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted.

The accused cannot be said to be committing a crime, she was merely crossing
the street and was not acting suspiciously for the Narcom agents to conclude
that she was committing a crime. There was no legal basis to effect a
warrantless arrest of the accused’s bag, there was no probable cause and the
accused was not lawfully arrested.

The police had more than 24 hours to procure a search warrant and they did not
do so. The seized marijuana was illegal and inadmissible evidence.
RULE 113, RULES OF COURT

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private

person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person
to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without
a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and
shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.

RULE 126, RULES OF COURT

Section 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. — An

application for search warrant shall be filed with the following:

a) Any 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.

Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. — The officer, if

refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his
purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door or window of a
house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant or
liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained
therein.

Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and
proceedings thereon.

(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who
issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under
oath.
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing judge shall
ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, shall summon the person to
whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was
made. If the return has been made, the judge shall ascertain whether section
11 of this Rule has been complained with and shall require that the property
seized be delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof
has been complied with.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of
the log book on search warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return,
the result, and other actions of the judge.

A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.