This blog post seeks to study the effects of the recently issued A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC (effective 1 August 2021) on Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, insofar as the venue of search warrant applications and the extent of enforceability of a search warrant are concerned.
Malaloan v. Court of Appeals (1994)
In Malaloan v. Court of Appeals, e.b., 232 SCRA 249 (1994), at issue was whether or not a court may (1) take cognizance of an application for a search warrant in connection with an offense committed outside its territorial boundary and, thereafter, (2) issue the warrant to conduct a search on a place outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction.
In the said case, an application for a search warrant was applied for in the RTC of Kalookan City in connection with a violation of P.D. 1886 committed in Quezon City and which warrant was sought to be enforced in Quezon City.
In respect of the first issue, the Court ruled in the affirmative. It held that a search warrant merely constitutes process akin to discovery and not a criminal action to be entertained by a court pursuant to its original jurisdiction; thus, it is not correct to say that only the court which has jurisdiction over the criminal case can issue the search warrant.
Regarding the second issue, the Court also ruled in the affirmative. The Court stated that no law or rule bars the implementation of a search warrant beyond the issuing court’s territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that a search warrant is not among those specified writs under Section 3(a) of the Interim Rules which are enforceable only within the judicial region. Rather, being a judicial process, it falls under Section 3(b) and is thus enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
A.M. No. 99-20-09-SC (25 January 2000)
A.M. No. 99-20-09-SC, issued on 25 January 2000, provides that applications for search warrants involving dangerous drugs, heinous crimes, illegal gambling, and illegal possession of firearms may be filed with the Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judge of the RTCs of Manila & Quezon City by the PNP, NBI, PAOC-TF (Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force), and REACT-TF (Reaction against Crimes Task Force). The search warrant is enforceable outside the territorial jurisdiction of Manila and Quezon City. The application shall be personally endorsed by the heads of said agencies.
A.M. No. 99-20-09-SC provides for an expedited procedure for the enumerated crimes therein. Instead of awaiting raffle, the applications are to be forthwith acted upon by the executive judge or vice executive judge. The provision that the search warrant is enforceable outside the territorial jurisdiction of Manila and Quezon City is in accord with the Malaloan holding.
Section 2, Rule 126, Rules of Criminal Procedure (as amended on 1 December 2000)
The sweeping tenor of Malaloan was tempered, at least insofar as the venue of a search warrant application is concerned, by Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended on 1 December 2000, which reads as follows:
“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. (n)”
Section 2 of Rule 126 provides that an application for a search warrant cannot be filed with just any court. The primary venue for the application is the court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed. The section provides for secondary venues in case of compelling reasons stated in the application: any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed, or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.
Nonetheless, Section 2 of Rule 126 left untouched the holding in Malaloan that a search warrant is enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. Nor did Section 2 of Rule 126 amend the special rule in A.M. No. 99-20-09-SC. Insofar as the crimes mentioned in A.M. No. 99-20-09-SC are concerned, the application may be filed with the executive judges or vice executive judges of Manila and Q.C. even if the crime was not committed in Manila and Q.C. and even if the warrant is not sought to be enforced in Manila and Q.C. This was the subject of a 2018 bar exam question in remedial law where an application for a search warrant was filed by the NBI Director with the executive judge of the RTC of Manila and the search was sought to be enforced in Sta. Rosa, Laguna.
Chapter 5, Section 12 of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC (15 February 2004)
Chapter 5, Section 12 of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC provides as follows:
“SEC. 12. Issuance of search warrants in special criminal cases by the Regional Trial Courts of Manila and Quezon City.– The Executive Judges and, whenever they are on official leave of absence or are not physically present in the station, the Vice-Executive Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City shall have authority to act on applications filed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF), for search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, and other relevant laws that may hereafter be enacted by Congress, and included herein by the Supreme Court.
“The applications shall be personally endorsed by the heads of such agencies and shall particularly describe therein the places to be searched and/or the property or things to be seized as prescribed in the Rules of Court.
“The Executive Judges and Vice-Executive Judges concerned shall issue the warrants, if justified, which may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said courts. The Executive Judges and the authorized Judges shall keep a special docket book listing names of Judges to whom the applications are assigned, the details of the applications and the results of the searches and seizures made pursuant to the warrants issued.
“This Section shall be an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.”
The SC added to the list of the enumerated crimes violations of the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti-Money Laundering Act, and the Tariff and Customs Code.
The provision states “[t]his Section shall be an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.” Since Section 2 of Rule 126 deals with the venue of a search warrant application, what Section 12 of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC means is that the application for a search warrant can be filed with the executive judge or vice executive judge of the Manila or Q.C. RTC, even if the crime was not committed therein and even if the warrant is sought to be enforced outside the territorial jurisdiction or the judicial region of Manila or Q.C. RTC.
A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC (eff. 1 August 2021)
Section 2, Rule 3 of A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC (effective 1 August 2021) provides as follows:
“SECTION 2. Search Warrants in Special Criminal Cases by Executive Judges of Regional Trial Courts. – Except for the jurisdiction of the Special Commercial Courts to issue search warrants involving intellectual property rights violations, the Executive Judges and, whenever they are on official leave of absence or are not physically present in the station, the Vice-Executive Judges of the Regional Trial Courts shall have authority to act on applications for search warrants to be implemented within their judicial regions, filed by the National Bureau of Investigation, the Philippine National Police, the Anti-Crime Task Force, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Bureau of Customs, for search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions, as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act, and other relevant laws that may later be enacted by Congress and included in these Rules by the Supreme Court.
“The applications shall be personally endorsed by the heads of such agencies and shall particularly describe the places to be searched and/or the properties or things to be seized as prescribed in the Rules of Court. They shall also state the compelling reasons for filing the application with these courts. The Executive Judges and Vice-Executive Judges concerned shall issue the warrants, if justified, which may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction but within the judicial regions of these courts.
“The Executive Judges and the authorized Judges shall keep a special docket book listing names of Judges to whom the applications are assigned, the details of the applications, and the results of the searches and seizures made pursuant to the warrants issued.
“This shall be an exception to Rule 126, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. [Underscoring supplied]”
Like A.M. No. 99-20-09-SC and A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC provides for an expedited procedure for the enumerated crimes therein insofar as search warrant applications filed with the executive judge, or in case they are on official leave of absence or not physically present in their station, the vice executive judge of the RTC are concerned. However, A.M. No. 21-06-8-SC differs markedly from the previous A.Ms in two aspects: First. Insofar as the venue is concerned, it can be filed only with the executive judge or vice executive judge of an RTC within the judicial region where the writ is sought to be enforced. Second. Necessarily, the writ can be enforced only within the judicial region of the issuing RTC. This distinguishes it from the search warrant under the previous A.Ms which are enforceable nationwide.
The passage of A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC was impelled by perceived abuses of the expedited search warrant procedure authorizing the Manila or Q.C. RTC executive judges to issue search warrants enforceable beyond their territorial jurisdiction or judicial region even if the subject crime was not committed in Manila or Q.C.
Section 2, Rule 3 of A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC provides that “[t]his shall be an exception to Rule 126, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.” This is somewhat of a cryptic statement. Since Section 2, Rule 126 deals with venue or where to file the application, a fair reading is that an expedited application under A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC can be filed with the executive judge or vice executive judge, rather than the court itself as provided under Section 2, Rule 126, thus allowing the application to be acted upon in a more expeditious manner. It cannot be taken to mean that the enforceability limitation in A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC is likewise applicable to Section 2 of Rule 126. Insofar as the Rules of Criminal Procedure are concerned, A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC has a supplementary, rather than an amendatory, nature.
Thus, a search warrant application can be validly filed with the RTC of Manila, where the theft was committed, for the seizure of the stolen goods which were taken to Baguio City.
Even insofar as the enumerated crimes in A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC are concerned, a law enforcement officer may choose to file the application under the “non-expedited” procedure under Section 2 of Rule 126, in which case the search warrant is enforceable nationwide. For instance, a search warrant application may be filed with the RTC of Manila for a crime of murder committed in Manila and which warrant seeks to seize the murder weapon located in Batangas City.
Search warrants in IPR cases
Section 2, Rule 10 of the 2020 Revised Rules of Procedure for Intellectual Property Cases provides as follows:
“SEC. 2. Special Commercial Court with authority to issue search warrants enforceable nationwide. – Special Commercial Courts in the City of Manila, Quezon City, Makati City, Pasig City, Baguio City, Iloilo City, Cebu City, Cagayan de Oro City, and Davao City shall have authority to act on applications for the issuance of search warrants involving violations covered by Section 1 of Rule 10, which search warrants shall be enforceable nationwide. Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, the Special Commercial Courts in the judicial regions where the violation of intellectual property rights occurred shall have concurrent jurisdiction to issue search warrants. [Emphasis supplied]”
A search warrant application involving IPR cases may be filed with the Special Commercial Courts in Manila, Quezon City, Makati City, Pasig City, Baguio City, Iloilo City, Cebu City, Cagayan de Oro City, and Davao City, regardless of whether the IPR violation was committed therein or whether the warrant is sought to be enforced within their territorial jurisdiction or within their judicial region. The search warrant that may be issued is enforceable nationwide.
For SCCs other than the above cities, a search warrant application for an IPR violation may be filed with an SCC in the judicial region where the IPR violation occurred. While the second sentence of Section 2, Rule 10, is not altogether clear, it appears that the search warrant issued by the SCC thereunder is also enforceable nationwide.