RETIRED SP04 BIENVENIDO LAUD, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts: on July 10, 2009, the PNP through Police Senior Superintendent Roberto Fajardo, applied with RTC-
Manila, Branch 50 for a warrant to search the 3 cave located in Laud Compound in Purok3, Brgy. Maa, Davao
City, where the alleged remain of 6 people of the so called Davao Death Squad may be found. In support with the
application is the testimonies of Ernesto Avasola stating that he personally witness the killing of the 6 persons in
December 2005, and further he provides that he is part of the group who buried the remains of the victims.

Judge William Simon Peralta-acting V-Executive Judge of RTC Branch 50 found probable cause and
issued a search warrant and thus issued a search warrant #9-14407 which was enforced by the PNP-CIDG on July
10, 2009. The search yielded positive for the presence of the remains.

July 20, 2009 petitioner files an Urgent motion to Quash and to Suppress Illegaly Siezed Evidence on the
following grounds:

a) Judge Peralta has no authority to act on the application of search warrant since he was divested in his
position as V-E and when Admin. Penalties where impost against him.
b) Manila RTC has no jurisdiction to enforce sear warrant in Davao.
c) Human remain sought to be search are not a proper subject of Search warrant
d) Police officer are mandated to follow prescribe procedure in exhumation of human remains.
e) Search warrant was issued without Probable Cause
f) Rules on Furom Shopping where violated
g) Violation of the rule requiring specific offense and proper specification of place to be search

RTC granted the motion of Laud on July 23, 2009, The People of the Philippines file a MR but was denied
on Dec.8, 2009. According to the RTC; (a) People failed to justify the issuance of WA in RTC manila; (b) the
alleged offense happened 4 year ago, thus probable cause is doubtful; (c)PNP, violated the rules on FUROM
SHOPPING. THEREAFTER, the POP files an appeal in CA.

CA granted the application of POP and reverses the decision of the RTC for having tainted with grave
abuse of discretion. CA provides the following;

A) Issuance of Search Warrant were satisfied, application involving Heinous Crime is an exemption to the
compelling Requirement in RESOLUTION CLARIFYING GUIDELINES ON THE
APPLICATION FOR
AND ENFORCEABILITY OF SEARCH WARRANTS provided that the application is filed by
PNP,NBI, Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOC-TF) or the Reaction Against Crime
Task Force (REACT-TF),27 with the endorsement of its head.

B) There was a probable cause since the witness Avasola was actually part of the group who buried
C) There was no furom shopping, because prior application of search warrant in Davao RTC was based on
fact and circumstance different from those filed in Manila-RTC.

Laud moved for reconsideration but the court affirmed the decision of CA.

Issue: 1. WON the Administrative penalties imposed upon Judge Peralta invalidated the Warrant of Arrest.

2. WON RTC-Manila has jurisdiction to issue the Search Warrant.

3. WON requirement of PROBABLE CAUSE were complied.

4. WON the applicant (PNP) violated the rules on Forum Shopping.

HELD:

1. The court agree that the imposition of administrative penalty will divest the authority of vice-
executive judge, but it is not a ground to invalidate a search warrant. Judge Peralta when he was
divested a an E-VJ acted as a defacto officer when he issue the search warrant, and thus the act
of a defacto officer is considered as valid in so far as to the public and to 3rd person.

Four (4) element of De facto Doctrine

 a) there must be a de jureoffice;(b) there must be color of right or general acquiescence by the
public; (c) there must be actual physical possession of the office in good faith.

2. Yes, it has jurisdiction. Since the case involves special criminal case because this involves
Heinous Crime as mention in Section 12 Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8- 02-SC, (GUIDELINES
ON THE SELECTION AND DESIGNATION OF EXECUTIVE JUDGES AND DEFINING
THEIR POWERS, PREROGATIVES AND DUTIES) the rule on search warrant applications
before the Manila and Quezon City RTCs for the above-mentioned special criminal cases shall
be an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court which provides that;

SEC. 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 isknown, or any court within the judicial region where the
warrant shall be enforced.

3. (a) The constitutional requirement of issuing search warrant was complied because there was a
probable cause because AVELOSA stated that he personally witness the commission of the
afore-stated crime and in fact part of the group who buried. As provided Probable cause for a
search warrant is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discrete and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects
sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.

(b) Also, the Court similarly concludes that there was compliance with the constitutional
requirement that there be a particular description of "the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized. Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court states:

SEC. 3.Personal property to be seized. – A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of
personal property:
(1) Subject of the offense;
(2) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or

(3) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.

(c) the Court finds no violation of the one-specific-offense rule under Section 4, Rule 126 of the
Rules of Court as above-cited which, to note, was intended to prevent the issuance of scattershot
warrants, or those which are issued for more than one specific offense

Requisite for issuing search warrant;

C.1 Probable cause supported the issuance of such warrant

C.2 Such probable cause had been determined personally by a judge

C.3 Judge personally examined the complainant and his witnesses

C.4 The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.

4. Forum shopping cannot be said to have been committed in this case considering the various
points of divergence attending the search warrant application before the Manila-RTC and that
before the Davao-RTC.
4.1 the witness are different in each application
4.2 the places to be search are differentin Manila- Laud Compound caves, while in Davao-
Laud Gold Cup Firing Range.

There is forum shopping when a litigant repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts,
simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and
circumstances, and all raising substantially the same issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by
some other court to increase his chances of obtaining a favorable decision if not in one court, then in another.