types; through search warrant; venue of application, jurisdiction of court PEOPLE v.

COURT OF APPEALS 26 June 1998 Narvasa, ponente Rule 45 appeal from a Court of Appeals decision FACTS: PNP S/Insp Brillantes applied for a search warrant before the RTC QC Branch 261 (presided by Judge Bacalla) against Hussain, who was allegedly possessing firearms and explosives at Abigail Variety Store, Apt. 1207 Area F, Bagong Buhay Ave. Sapang Palay, San Jose del Monte Bulacan. Using the issued warrant, a search was conducted not at Abigail Variety Store but at Apt. No. 1 adjacent to it. Four Pakistani nationals were arrested and among the seized personal belongings, papers and effects were dynamite, C4, a grenade (all included in the warrant) PLUS three Ingram pistols, four gmm pistols, blasting caps, fuses, chemical ingredients for explosives and assorted magazines and ammunitions (NOT described in the warrant). There was no showing that the lawful occupants of the apartment were made to witness the search. At the arraignment, the respondent Pakistanis pleaded not guilty and submitted an Extremely Urgent Motion (To Quash Search Warrant and to Declare Evidence Obtained Inadmissible) stating that the warrant was defective since it stated Abigail Variety Store and Apt. 1207 while the search had been conducted in Apt. No. 1, a completely separate though adjacent place (Apt. 1207 did not exist). RTC Bulacan Judge Casanova granted the motion to quash the search warrant. To nullify the quashal order, the Solicitor General commenced a special civil action of certiorari in the CA; the case was dismissed for lack of merit, on the ff. grounds: The place actually searched was different and distinct from the place described in the search warrant. The public prosecutors claim that the sketch submitted to Judge Bacalla relative to the application for a search warrant, actually depicted the particular place to be searched was refuted by the Judge Casanova who pointed out it was not dated, not signed by the person who made it and not even mentioned in the search warrant. ISSUES: did the search warrant describe in particular the place to be searched? if no, was the search and seizure conducted still valid?

REASONING: The discrepancy between the direct personal knowledge of the police officers regarding the place to be searched versus the description in the search warrant came from the officers faulty depiction of the premises. They stated in their application that the place was premises located at Abigail Variety Store Apt 1207, Area-F, Bagong Buhay Avenue, Sapang Palay, San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan even though what they had in mind was Apt. No. 1 behind Abigail Variety Store. The scope of the search was also made more particular by Judge Bacallas admonition in the search warrant that the search be limited only to the premises herein described. They also did not ask Bacalla to correct the erroneous description even after receiving the warrant. The case of Burgos v. Chief of Staff was inapplicable to the present case. In this case, there was no obvious typographical error involving ambiguous descriptions of the place, but the search of a place different from what was clearly and unambiguously identified in the search warrant. It was not fair and licit to allow police officers to search a place different from what was stated in the warrant on the claim that the place actually searched was what they had in mind and had marked in supporting evidence. The validity of a search was determined by the place stated in the warrant itself, and the place could not be amplified or modified by the officers own personal knowledge of the premises or evidence adduced. This is barred by the Constitution that required the search warrant to particularly describe the place to be searched (Art. III 2). The particularity of the description of place could only be properly done by the judge, and only in the warrant; it could not be left to the discretion of the police officers. Clarifying the guidelines in Malaloan v. Court of Appeals: Where a search warrant is issued by one court and the criminal action based on the results of the search is afterwards commenced in another court, it is not the rule that a motion to quash the warrant (or to retrieve things thereunder seized) may be filed only with the issuing Court. Such a motion may be filed for the first time for the first time in either the issuing Court or that in which the criminal action is pending. However, the remedy is alternative, not cumulative. The Court first taking cognizance of the motion does so

to the exclusion of the other, and the proceedings thereon are subject to the Omnibus Motion Rule and the rule against forumshopping. RULING: CA judgment affirmed