03) MALALOAN v CA (Reg Versoza)
GR No. 104879, May 6, 1994
Nature of Action: Violation of PD 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and
Ammunitions) in furtherance of Rebellion
Mode of Appeal: PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
Petitioners: Malaloan and Luarez
Respondents: Judge Fineza (RTC-Kalookan) Judge Velasco (RTC-QC)
Background Facts: A search warrant was issued by RTC Kalookan in connection
with petitioners alleged violations of PD 1866 perpetuated at Quezon City.
Petitioners averred that the application for the search warrant in RTC Kalookan
was improperly filed, instead it should be applied in RTC QC, which has territorial
jurisdiction over the criminal actions involved. The SC ruled that RTC Kalookan’s
issuance of the search warrants was proper. ALSO read notes sa last part
Doctrine/s:
A search warrant is merely a judicial process designed by the Rules to respond only to an
incident in the main case, if one has already been instituted, or in anticipation thereof. In the
latter contingency, as in the case at bar, it would involve some judicial clairvoyance to require
observance of the rules as to where a criminal case may eventually be filed where, in the first
place, no such action having as yet been instituted, it may ultimately be filed in a territorial
jurisdiction other than that wherein the illegal articles sought to be seized are then located.
Facts:
1. On 22 March 1990, Lt. Salboro of CAPCOM filed with the RTC of
KALOOKAN CITY an application for search warrant sought for an alleged
violation of PD 1866 otherwise known as “Illegal Possession of Firearms
and Ammunitions” perpetrated at No. 25 Newport St. corner Marlboro St.,
Fairview, QUEZON CITY. (take note! Search warrant was procured from
RTC-Kalookan but crim case was instituted at RTC QC)
2. Respondent RTC of KALOOKAN judge Fineza issued the search warrant
on 23 March 1990 at 2:30PM.
3. Members of the CAPCOM, armed with the subject warrant, proceeded to
the situs of the offense alluded to, where a labor seminar of EILER was
then taking place.
4. According to CAPCOM’s Inventory of Property Seized, firearms, explosive
materials and subversive documents, among others were seized and taken
during the search.
5. 61 persons were found within the premises searched were brought to
Camp Karingal, QC but most of them were later released, with the
exception of petitioners Malaloan and Luarez and EILER instructors, who
were indicted for violation of PD 1866 before the RTC of QC presided by
respondent Judge Velasco.
6. Petitioners presented a “Motion for Consolidation, Quashal of Search
Warrant and Exclusion of Evidence Illegally Obtained”
7. Respondent RTC-QC Judge Velasco issued the challenged order,
consolidating subject cases but denied the prayer for the Quashal of the
Search Warrant, upholding the validity of the search warrant.;
opinionthat the same falls within the category of Writs and Processes,
within the contemplation of par 3(b) of the Interim Ruled and Guidelines,
and can be served not only within the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing
court but anywhere in the judicial region of the issuing court (National
Capital Judicial Region).
8. Petitioners filed an MR – Denied
9. Petitioners filed a certiorari before the CA
10. CA - Affirmed the RTC-QC judgment, denying due course to the petition
for certiorari and lifting the TRO it had issued therewith.
11. Petitioners now allege before the SC that The application for the search
warrant, it is claimed, was accordingly 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 to do so.
12. Petitioners used Circular No. 13, Circular No. 19 and Administrative
Order No. 3 to justify their contention that a search warrant must be
applied in RTC - Quezon City if the illegal articles sought are in Quezon
City.
*A. M. NO. 99-20-09-SC
JANUARY 25, 2000
RESOLUTION CLARIFYING GUIDELINES ON THE APPLICATION FOR
AND ENFORCEABILITY OF SEARCH WARRANTS
In the interest of an effective administration of justice and pursuant to the powers vested in the Supreme
Court by the Constitution, the following are authorized to act on all applications for search warrants
involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms:
The Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of Regional Trial Courts, Manila and Quezon
City, filed by the Philippine National Police (PNP), the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), The
Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOC-TF) and the Reaction Against Crime Task Force
(REACT-TF) with the Regional Trial Courts of Manila and Quezon City.
The applications shall be personally endorsed by the Heads of the said agencies, for the search
of places to be particularly described therein, and the seizure of property or things as prescribed in the
Rules of Court, and to issue the warrants, if justified, which may be served in places outside the territorial
jurisdiction of said courts.
The authorized judges shall keep a special docket book listing the details of the applications and
the result of the searches and seizures made pursuant to the warrants issued.
This Resolution is effective immediately and shall continue until further orders from this Court
and shall be an exception to the provisions of Circular No. 13 dated 1 October 1985 and Circular No. 19
dated 4 August 1987.
This Resolution supersedes Administrative Order No. 20-97, issued on 12 February 1997, and
Administrative Order No. 46-97, issued on 19 March 1997.
The Court Administrator shall implement this Resolution.
Enacted this 25th day of January 2000.
CIRCULAR NO. 19 August 4, 1987
SUPREME COURT CIRCULARS AND ORDERS
TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
SUBJECT: AMENDED GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES ON APPLICATIONS FOR SEARCH WARRANTS FOR
ILLEGAL POSSESSIONS OF FIREARMS AND OTHER SERIOUS CRIMES FILED IN METRO MANILA COURTS
AND OTHER COURTS WITH MULTIPLE SALAS
This Court has received reports of delays while awaiting raffle, in acting an applications for search warrants in the campaign
against loose firearms and other serious crimes affecting peace and order. There is a need for prompt action on such
applications for search warrant. Accordingly, these amended guidelines in the issuance of a search warrant are issued:
 1. All applications for search warrants relating to violations of the Anti-Subversion Act, crimes against public
order as defined in the Revised Penal Code, as amended, illegal possession of firearms and/or ammunition and
violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, shall no longer be raffled and shall immediately
be taken cognizance of and acted upon by the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan
Trial Court, and Municipal Trial Court under whose jurisdiction the place to be searched is located.
xxx xxx
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 13
SUPREME COURT CIRCULARS AND ORDERS
TO: ALL EXECUTIVE JUDGES AND JUDGES OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
SUBJECT: GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURE IN THE ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANTS.
Under Administrative Order No. 6 of this Court, dated June 30, 1975, the Executive Judge derives his powers and
prerogatives through delegation thereof by this Court — some of which are to improve judicial services, in coordination
with court related government agencies, and to further provide leadership in the management of all courts within his area
of administrative supervision.
As a measure to better serve the public good and to facilitate the administration of justice, the Court is prescribing hereunder
the guidelines in the issuance of search warrants:
1. All applications for search warrants, if filed with the Executive Judge, shall be assigned, by raffle, to a judge
within his administrative area, under whose direction the search warrant shall be issued for the search and
seizure of personal property;
2. After the application has been raffled and distributed to a Branch, the judge who is assigned to conduct the
examination of the complainant and witnesses should immediately act on the same, considering that time
element and possible leakage of information are primary considerations in the issuance of search warrants and
seizure;
3. Raffling shall be strictly enforced, except only in cases where an application for search warrant may be filed
directly with any judge in whose jurisdiction the place to be searched is located, after office hours, or during
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, in which case the applicant is required to certify under oath the urgency
of the issuance thereof after office hours, or during Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays;
4. If, in the implementation of the search warrant, properties are seized thereunder and the corresponding case is
filed in court, said case shall be distributed by raffle conformably with Circular No. 7, dated September 23,
1974, of this Court, and thereupon tried and decided by the judge to whom it has been assigned, and not
necessarily by the judge who is issued the search warrant.
xxx xxx
Circular No 13 - had a number of requirements, principally a raffle of the
applications for search warrants, if they had been filed with the executive judge,
among the judges within his administrative area. Circular No. 19 eliminated, by
amendment, that required raffle and ordered instead that such applications should
immediately be “taken cognizance of and acted upon by the Executive Judges of the
Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, and Municipal Trial Court under
whose jurisdiction the place to be searched is located,” or by their substitutes
enumerated therein.
Circular No. 19 - intended to provide prompt action on applications for search
warrants and was never intended to confer exclusive jurisdiction on said executive
judges.
In short, these circulars were issued by the Court to meet a particular exigency,
that is, as emergency guidelines on applications for search warrants filed only in
the courts of Metropolitan Manila and other courts with multiple salas and only
with respect to violations of the Anti-Subversion Act, crimes against public order
under the Revised Penal Code, illegal possession of firearms and/or ammunitions,
and violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Issue/s:
WON a court may take cognizance of an application for a search warrant in
connection with an offense allegedly committed outside its territorial
jurisdiction and to issue a warrant to conduct a search on a place likewise
outside its territorial jurisdiction? –
Yes, the court may take cognizance and may issue a search warrant even if the
offense is committed outside its territorial jurisdiction. A search warrant is merely
a judicial process designed by the Rules to respond only to an incident in the main
case.
Held:
The basic flaw in petitioners reasoning is erroneously equating the
application for and the obtention of a search warrant with the instituting
and prosecution of aa criminal action in a trial court.
 Petitioners ignored the fact that the requisites, procedure and purpose for
the issuance of a search warrant are completely different from those for
the institution of a criminal action.
 For, indeed, a warrant, such as a warrant of arrest or a search warrant,
merely constitutes process.
A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process (JUDICIAL
PROCESS) akin to a writ of discovery. It is a special and peculiar remedy,
drastic in its nature, and made necessary because of a public necessity
 definitively considered merely as a process, generally issued by a court in
the exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction, and not a criminal action to be
entertained by a court pursuant to its original jurisdiction
Judicial Process
 a writ, warrant, subpoena, or other formal writing issued by authority of
law; also the means of accomplishing an end, including judicial
proceedings, or all writs, warrants, summonses, and orders of courts of
justice or judicial officers. It is likewise held to include a writ, summons,
or order issued in a judicial proceeding to acquire jurisdiction of a person
or his property, to expedite the cause or enforce the judgment, or a writ,
warrant, mandate, or other process issuing from a court of justice.
Guidelines on possible conflicts of jurisdiction where the criminal case
is pending in one court and the search warrant is issued by another
court for the seizure of personal property intended to be used as
evidence in said crime.
1. The court wherein the criminal case is pending shall have primary
jurisdiction to issue search warrants necessitated by and for the
purposes of said case.
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.
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.
 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.
City. The two trade union instructors, Elizalde Malaloan and Marlon Luarez, were later
charged with illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion under Presidential Decree
1866; they were held for a few weeks before being released on bail. They are currently on trial
at the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City. The other trade unionists were released without
charge following interrogation at Camp Karingal in Quezon City, the headquarters of the
Northern Police District. It is concerned that the evidence used to implicate them may have been
planted by the arresting officers and by reports that, in the course of the trial, EILER staff
members have received threatening telephone calls believed to be from members of the police
or the military.

Military authorities claimed that they had found amunition, firearms and "subversive
documents" during the raid on the EILER seminar house. The accused and witnesses claimed
Circular No. 13 and Circular No. 19 were not intended to be of general that the arms and ammunition in question had been planted by the authorities, and denied that
application to all instances involving search warrants and in all courts as the written materials seized were subversive in content. The allegation of falsification of
would be the case if they had been adopted as part of the Rules of Court evidence was supported by the caretaker at EILER, Sol Trinidad, who stated that some of the
arresting officers had carried a plastic bag into the house and had placed it on the shelf where
 Administrative Order No. 3 of this Court, supposedly “defining the limits they later claimed to have discovered arms and ammunition. The caretaker was made to sign an
of the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts,” was the source inventory of the items allegedly found on the premises although she had not been able to
of the subject matter jurisdiction of, as distinguished from the exercise of accompany the soldiers as they conducted their search.
jurisdiction by, the courts. As earlier observed, this administrative order
was issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 18 of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129 - Background info taken from Amnesty International
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ASA35/016/1991/en/
SEC. 18. Authority to define territory appurtenant to each
branch.—The Supreme Court shall define the territory over
which a branch of the Regional Trial Court shall exercise its
authority. The territory thus defined shall be deemed to be the
territorial area of the branch concerned for purposes of
determining the venue of all writs, proceedings or actions,
whether civil or criminal. x x x.”

JURISDICTION IS CONFERRED BY SUBSTANTIVE LAW,

IN THIS CASE, IT IS BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129, NOT
BY A PROCEDURAL LAW AND, MUCH LESS, BY AN
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER OR CIRCULAR.

Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, on the foregoing premises, the instant

petition is DENIED and the assailed judgment of respondent Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 23533 is hereby AFFIRMED.

____________________________________________________________________________

NOTES:

Human Rights Violation among Labor Movement Organizations

Elizalde Malaloan and Marlon Luarez: Possible Prisoners of Conscience

On 25 March 1990, 62 people - including two trade union instructors, 58 workers from different
trade unions, a caretaker and her one-month old baby - were arrested during a raid by members
of the Philippines Constabulary's Capital Regional Command (CAPCOM) during a trade union
seminar at the Ecumenical Institute for Labour Education (EILER) Seminar House in Quezon