4/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 741

G.R. No. 199032. November 19, 2014.*

 
RETIRED SPO4 BIENVENIDO LAUD, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Administrative Law; Judges; Reprimand; Section 5, Chapter III of

A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC which provides that “[t]he imposition upon an
Executive Judge or Vice Executive Judge of an administrative penalty of at
least a reprimand shall automatically operate to divest him of his position
as such.”—Citing Section 5, Chapter III of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC which
provides that “[t]he imposition upon an Executive Judge or Vice Executive
Judge of an administrative penalty of at least a reprimand shall
automatically operate to divest him of his position as such,” Laud claims
that Judge Peralta had no authority to act as Vice Executive Judge and
accordingly issue Search Warrant No. 09-14407 in view of the Court’s
Resolution in Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc. v. Judge Peralta, 585 SCRA 93
(2009), wherein he was administratively penalized with fines of P15,000.00
and P5,000.00. While the Court does agree that the imposition of said
administrative penalties did operate to divest Judge Peralta’s authority to act
as Vice Executive Judge, it must be qualified that the abstraction of such
authority would not, by and of itself, result in the invalidity of Search
Warrant No. 09-14407 considering that Judge Peralta may be considered to
have made the issuance as a de facto officer whose acts would, nonetheless,
remain valid.
Same; De Facto Officers; Words and Phrases; A de facto officer is one
who derives his appointment from one having colorable authority to
appoint, if the office is an appointive office, and whose appointment is valid
on its face.—Funa v. Agra, 691 SCRA 196 (2013), defines who a de facto
officer is and explains that his acts are just as valid for all purposes as those
of a de jure officer, insofar as the public or third persons who are interested
therein are concerned, viz.: A de facto officer is one who derives his
appointment from one having colorable authority to appoint, if the office is
an appointive office, and whose appointment is valid on its face. He may
also be one who is in possession of an office, and is discharging [his] duties

_______________

*  FIRST DIVISION.

240

240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Laud vs. People

under color of authority, by which is meant authority derived from an

appointment, however irregular or informal, so that the incumbent is not a
mere volunteer. Consequently, the acts of the de facto officer are just as
valid for all purposes as those of a de jure officer, insofar as the public or
third persons who are interested therein are concerned.
Same; Same; The treatment of a de facto officer’s acts is premised on
the reality that third persons cannot always investigate the right of one
assuming to hold an important office and, as such, have a right to assume
that officials apparently qualified and in office are legally such.—The
treatment of a de facto officer’s acts is premised on the reality that third
persons cannot always investigate the right of one assuming to hold an
important office and, as such, have a right to assume that officials apparently
qualified and in office are legally such. Public interest demands that acts of
persons holding, under color of title, an office created by a valid statute be,
likewise, deemed valid insofar as the public — as distinguished from the
officer in question — is concerned. Indeed, it is far more cogently
acknowledged that the de facto doctrine has been formulated, not for the
protection of the de facto officer principally, but rather for the protection of
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162feacb3645f361081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
4/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 741
the public and individuals who get involved in the official acts of persons
discharging the duties of an office without being lawful officers.
Constitutional Law; Criminal Procedure; Search Warrants; Section 12,
Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC states the requirements for the issuance
of search warrants in special criminal cases by the Regional Trial Courts
(RTCs) of Manila and Quezon City.—Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No.
03-8-02-SC states the requirements for the issuance of search warrants in
special criminal cases by the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City. These
special criminal cases pertain to those “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.” Search warrant applications for such cases may be filed by “the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Philippine National Police
(PNP) and the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF),” and

241

VOL. 741, NOVEMBER 19, 2014 241

Laud vs. People

“personally endorsed by the heads of such agencies.” As in ordinary

search warrant applications, they “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 [of these RTCs] and,
whenever they are on official leave of absence or are not physically present
in the station, the Vice Executive Judges” are authorized to act on such
applications and “shall issue the warrants, if justified, which may be served
in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said courts.”
Same; Same; Same; In order to protect the people’s right against
unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 2, Article III of the 1987
Philippine Constitution provides that no search warrant shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and
the persons or things to be seized.—In order to protect the people’s right
against unreasonable searches and seizures, Section 2, Article III of the
1987 Philippine Constitution (Constitution) provides that no search warrant
shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place
to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Same; Same; Same; Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court states
that a search warrant shall not be issued except upon probable cause in
connection with one (1) specific offense.—Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules
of Court states that a search warrant shall not be issued except upon
probable cause in connection with one specific offense: SEC. 4. Requisites
for issuing search warrant.—A search warrant shall not issue except upon
probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere
in the Philippines.
Same; Same; Same; In determining the existence of probable cause, the
facts and circumstances must be personally examined by

242

242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Laud vs. People

the judge in their totality, together with a judicious recognition of the

variable complications and sensibilities attending a criminal case.—In light
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162feacb3645f361081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/16
4/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 741
of the foregoing, the Court finds that the quantum of proof to establish the
existence of probable cause had been met. That a “considerable length of
time” attended the search warrant’s application from the crime’s
commission does not, by and of itself, negate the veracity of the applicant’s
claims or the testimony of the witness presented. As the CA correctly
observed, the delay may be accounted for by a witness’s fear of reprisal and
natural reluctance to get involved in a criminal case. Ultimately, in
determining the existence of probable cause, the facts and circumstances
must be personally examined by the judge in their totality, together with a
judicious recognition of the variable complications and sensibilities
attending a criminal case. To the Court’s mind, the supposed delay in the
search warrant’s application does not dilute the probable cause finding made
herein. In fine, the probable cause requirement has been sufficiently met.
Same; Same; Same; Any designation or description known to the
locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on
inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional
requirement.—“[A] description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the
officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify
the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community.
Any designation or description known to the locality that points out the
place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry leads the officers
unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement.”
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Forum Shopping; 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.—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

243

VOL. 741, NOVEMBER 19, 2014 243

Laud vs. People

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.
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. For one,
the witnesses presented in each application were different. Likewise, the
application filed in Manila was in connection with Murder, while the one in
Davao did not specify any crime. Finally, and more importantly, the places
to be searched were different — that in Manila sought the search of the
Laud Compound caves, while that in Davao was for a particular area in the
Laud Gold Cup Firing Range. There being no identity of facts and
circumstances between the two applications, the rule against forum
shopping was therefore not violated.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  Aguirre & Aguirre Law Firm for petitioner.
  The Solicitor General for respondent.

 
PER CURIAM:
 
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the
Decision2 dated April 25, 2011 and the Resolution3 dated October
17, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 113017
upholding the validity of Search Warrant No. 09-14407.4

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162feacb3645f361081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/16
4/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 741
_______________

1  Rollo, pp. 9-53.

2  Id., at pp. 57-70. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with
Associate Justices Mario L. Guariña III and Agnes Reyes-Carpio, concurring.
3  Id., at pp. 72-74.
4  CA Rollo, pp. 207-208.

244

244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Laud vs. People

The Facts
 
On July 10, 2009, the Philippine National Police (PNP), through
Police Senior Superintendent Roberto B. Fajardo, applied with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 50 (Manila-RTC) for
a warrant to search three (3) caves located inside the Laud
Compound in Purok 3, Barangay Ma-a, Davao City, where the
alleged remains of the victims summarily executed by the so-called
“Davao Death Squad” may be found.5 In support of the application,
a certain Ernesto Avasola (Avasola) was presented to the RTC and
there testified that he personally witnessed the killing of six (6)
persons in December 2005, and was, in fact, part of the group that
buried the victims.6
Judge William Simon P. Peralta (Judge Peralta), acting as Vice
Executive Judge of the Manila-RTC, found probable cause for the
issuance of a search warrant, and thus, issued Search Warrant No.
09-144077 which was later enforced by the elements of the PNP-
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, in coordination with
the members of the Scene of the Crime Operatives on July 15, 2009.
The search of the Laud Compound caves yielded positive results for
the presence of human remains.8
On July 20, 2009, herein petitioner, retired SPO4 Bienvenido
Laud (Laud), filed an Urgent Motion to Quash and to Suppress
Illegally Seized Evidence9 premised on the following grounds: (a)
Judge Peralta had no authority to act on the application for a search
warrant since he had been automatically divested of his position as
Vice Executive Judge when several administrative penalties were
imposed against him by

_______________

5  Rollo, p. 58.
6  Id., at p. 66.
7  CA Rollo, pp. 207-208.
8  Rollo, p. 59.
9  Id., at pp. 93-127.

245

VOL. 741, NOVEMBER 19, 2014 245

Laud vs. People

the Court;10 (b) the Manila-RTC had no jurisdiction to issue

Search Warrant No. 09-14407 which was to be enforced in Davao
City;11 (c) the human remains sought to be seized are not a proper
subject of a search warrant;12 (d) the police officers are mandated to
follow the prescribed procedure for exhumation of human remains;13
(e) the search warrant was issued despite lack of probable cause;14
(f) the rule against forum shopping was violated;15 and (g) there was
a violation of the rule requiring one specific offense and the proper
specification of the place to be searched and the articles to be
seized.16
 
The Manila-RTC’s Ruling
 

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162feacb3645f361081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/16
4/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 741
17
In an Order dated July 23, 2009, the Manila-RTC granted the
motion of Laud “after a careful consideration [of] the grounds
alleged [therein].” Aside from this general statement, the said Order
contained no discussion on the particular reasons from which the
Manila-RTC derived its conclusion.
Respondent, the People of the Philippines (the People), filed a
Motion for Reconsideration18 which was, however, denied in an
Order19 dated December 8, 2009, wherein the Manila-RTC, this
time, articulated its reasons for the warrant’s quashal, namely: (a)
the People failed to show any compelling

_______________

10  Id., at pp. 95-98. Referring to the administrative case entitled “Dee C. Chuan
& Sons, Inc. v. Peralta” (see 603 Phil. 94; 585 SCRA 93 [2009]), wherein the Court
administratively penalized Judge Peralta with fines of P15,000.00 and P5,000.00.
11  Id., at pp. 98-106.
12  Id., at pp. 106-108.
13  Id., at pp. 108-112.
14  Id., at pp. 113-118.
15  Id., at pp. 118-121.
16  Id., at pp. 121-124.
17  Id., at p. 139.
18  Id., at pp. 140-187.
19  Id., at pp. 188-192.

246

246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Laud vs. People

reason to justify the issuance of a search warrant by the Manila-

RTC which was to be implemented in Davao City where the offense
was allegedly committed, in violation of Section 2, Rule 126 of the
Rules of Court;20 (b) the fact that the alleged offense happened
almost four (4) years before the search warrant application was filed
rendered doubtful the existence of probable cause;21 and (c) the
applicant, i.e., the PNP, violated the rule against forum shopping as
the subject matter of the present search warrant application is
exactly the same as the one contained in a previous application22
before the RTC of Davao City, Branch 15 (Davao-RTC) which had
been denied.23
Unconvinced, the People filed a petition for certiorari before the
CA, docketed as C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 113017.
 
The CA’s Ruling
 
In a Decision24 dated April 25, 2011, the CA granted the People’s
petition and thereby annulled and set aside the Orders of the Manila-
RTC for having been tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
It held that the requirements for the issuance of a search warrant
were satisfied, pointing out that an application therefor involving a
heinous crime, such as Murder, is an exception to the compelling
reasons requirement under Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court
as explicitly recognized in A.M. No. 99-20-09-SC25 and reiterated
in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC,26 pro-

_______________

20  Id., at p. 190.
21  Id.
22  Id., at pp. 79-80.
23  Id., at p. 191. See Davao-RTC Order dated July 7, 2009 penned by Presiding
Judge Ridgway M. Tanjili.
24  Id., at pp. 57-70.
25   Entitled “Resolution Clarifying Guidelines on the Application for and
Enforceability of Search Warrants” (January 25, 2000).

247

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162feacb3645f361081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/16
4/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 741
VOL. 741, NOVEMBER 19, 2014 247
Laud vs. People

vided that the application is filed by the PNP, the National

Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Presidential Anti-Organized
Crime Task Force (PAOC-TF) or the Reaction Against Crime Task
Force (REACT-TF),27 with the endorsement of its head, before the
RTC of Manila or Quezon City, and the warrant be consequently
issued by the Executive Judge or Vice Executive Judge of either of
the said courts, as in this case.28
Also, the CA found that probable cause was established since,
among others, witness Avasola deposed and testified that he
personally witnessed the murder of six (6) persons in December
2005 and was actually part of the group that buried the victims —
two bodies in each of the three (3) caves.29 Further, it observed that
the Manila-RTC failed to consider the fear of reprisal and natural
reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case, stating that
these are sufficient reasons to justify the delay attending the
application of a search warrant.30 Accordingly, it deemed that the
physical evidence of a protruding human bone in plain view in one
of the caves, and Avasola’s firsthand eye witness account both
concur and point to the only reasonable conclusion that the crime of
Murder had been committed and that the human remains of the
victims were located in the Laud Compound.31
Finally, the CA debunked the claim of forum shopping, finding
that the prior application for a search warrant filed before the Davao-
RTC was based on facts and circumstances

_______________

26  Entitled “Guidelines on the Selection and Designation of Executive Judges and

Defining their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties” (January 27, 2004).
27  Chapter V, Section 12, of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC omits the PAOC-TF and the
REACT-TF, and mentions, instead, the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF).
28  Rollo, pp. 62-64.
29  Id., at pp. 66-67.
30  Id., at pp. 64-65.
31  Id., at p. 67.

248

248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Laud vs. People

different from those in the application filed before the Manila-

RTC.32
Dissatisfied, Laud moved for reconsideration which was,
however, denied in a Resolution33 dated October 17, 2011, hence,
this petition.
 
The Issues Before the Court
 
The issues for the Court’s resolution are as follows: (a) whether
the administrative penalties imposed on Judge Peralta invalidated
Search Warrant No. 09-14407; (b) whether the Manila-RTC had
jurisdiction to issue the said warrant despite noncompliance with the
compelling reasons requirement under Section 2, Rule 126 of the
Rules of Court; (c) whether the requirements of probable cause and
particular description were complied with and the one-specific-
offense rule under Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court was
violated; and (d) whether the applicant for the search warrant, i.e.,
the PNP, violated the rule against forum shopping.
 
The Court’s Ruling
 
The petition has no merit.
 
A. Effect of Judge Peralta’s Administrative Penalties.
 
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162feacb3645f361081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/16
4/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 741

Citing Section 5, Chapter III of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC which

provides that “[t]he imposition upon an Executive Judge or Vice
Executive Judge of an administrative penalty of at least a reprimand
shall automatically operate to divest him of his position as such,”
Laud claims that Judge Peralta had no authority to act as Vice
Executive Judge and accordingly issue Search Warrant No. 09-
14407 in view of the Court’s

_______________

32  Id., at p. 69.
33  Id., at pp. 72-74.

249

VOL. 741, NOVEMBER 19, 2014 249

Laud vs. People

Resolution in Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc. v. Judge Peralta34

wherein he was administratively penalized with fines of P15,000.00
and P5,000.00.35
While the Court does agree that the imposition of said
administrative penalties did operate to divest Judge Peralta’s
authority to act as Vice Executive Judge, it must be qualified that the
abstraction of such authority would not, by and of itself, result in the
invalidity of Search Warrant No. 09-14407 considering that Judge
Peralta may be considered to have made the issuance as a de facto
officer whose acts would, nonetheless, remain valid.
Funa v. Agra36 defines who a de facto officer is and explains that
his acts are just as valid for all purposes as those of a de jure officer,
insofar as the public or third persons who are interested therein are
concerned, viz.:

A de facto officer is one who derives his appointment from one having
colorable authority to appoint, if the office is an appointive office, and
whose appointment is valid on its face. He may also be one who is in
possession of an office, and is discharging [his] duties under color of
authority, by which is meant authority derived from an appointment,
however irregular or informal, so that the incumbent is not a mere volunteer.
Consequently, the acts of the de facto officer are just as valid for all
purposes as those of a de jure officer, insofar as the public or third persons
who are interested therein are concerned.37

 
The treatment of a de facto officer’s acts is premised on the
reality that third persons cannot always investigate the right of one
assuming to hold an important office and, as such, have a right to
assume that officials apparently qualified and in

_______________

34  603 Phil. 94; 585 SCRA 93 (2009).

35  Id., at p. 103; p. 102.
36  G.R. No. 191644, February 19, 2013, 691 SCRA 196.
37  Id., at p. 224; citations omitted.

250

250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Laud vs. People

office are legally such.38 Public interest demands that acts of

persons holding, under color of title, an office created by a valid
statute be, likewise, deemed valid insofar as the public — as
distinguished from the officer in question — is concerned.39 Indeed,
it is far more cogently acknowledged that the de facto doctrine has
been formulated, not for the protection of the de facto officer
principally, but rather for the protection of the public and individuals

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162feacb3645f361081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/16
4/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 741

who get involved in the official acts of persons discharging the

duties of an office without being lawful officers.40
In order for the de facto doctrine to apply, all of the following
elements must concur: (a) there must be a de jure office; (b) there
must be color of right or general acquiescence by the public; and (c)
there must be actual physical possession of the office in good faith.41
The existence of the foregoing elements is rather clear in this
case. Undoubtedly, there is a de jure office of a 2nd Vice Executive
Judge. Judge Peralta also had a colorable right to the said office as
he was duly appointed to such position and was only divested of the
same by virtue of a supervening legal technicality — that is, the
operation of Section 5, Chapter III of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC as
above explained; also, it may be said that there was general
acquiescence by the public since the search warrant application was
regularly endorsed to the sala of Judge Peralta by the Office of the
Clerk of Court of the Manila-RTC under his apparent authority as
2nd Vice Execu-

_______________

38   See Re: Nomination of Atty. Lynda Chaguile, IBP Ifugao President, as

Replacement for IBP Governor for Northern Luzon, Dennis B. Habawel, A.M. No.
13-04-03-SC, December 10, 2013, 711 SCRA 715.
39  Gonzales v. COMELEC, 129 Phil. 7, 29; 21 SCRA 774, 792-793 (1967).
40   See Monroy v. Court of Appeals, 127 Phil. 1, 7; 20 SCRA 620, 626-627
(1967).
41  Tuanda v. Sandiganbayan, 319 Phil. 460, 472; 249 SCRA 342, 353 (1995).

251

VOL. 741, NOVEMBER 19, 2014 251

Laud vs. People

tive Judge.42 Finally, Judge Peralta’s actual physical possession

of the said office is presumed to be in good faith, as the contrary was
not established.43 Accordingly, Judge Peralta can be considered to
have acted as a de facto officer when he issued Search Warrant No.
09-14407, hence, treated as valid as if it was issued by a de jure
officer suffering no administrative impediment.
 
B. Jurisdiction of the Manila-RTC to Issue Search Warrant No.
09-14407; Exception to the Compelling Reasons Requirement
Under Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.
 
Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC states the
requirements for the issuance of search warrants in special criminal
cases by the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City. These special
criminal cases pertain to those “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 Cus-

_______________

42  Rollo, pp. 61-64.

43  “Well-settled is the rule that good faith is always presumed and the Chapter on
Human Relations of the Civil Code directs every person, inter alia, to observe good
faith which springs from the fountain of good conscience. Specifically, a public
officer is presumed to have acted in good faith in the performance of his duties.
Mistakes committed by a public officer are not actionable absent any clear showing
that they were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith. ‘Bad
faith’ does not simply connote bad moral judgment or negligence. There must be
some dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a
breach of a sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will. It partakes of the
nature of fraud. It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive
design or some motive of self-interest or ill will for ulterior purposes.” (Collantes v.
Marcelo, 556 Phil. 794, 806; 530 SCRA 142, 155 [2007])

 
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162feacb3645f361081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/16
4/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 741

252

252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Laud vs. People

toms Code, as amended, and other relevant laws that may

hereafter be enacted by Congress, and included herein by the
Supreme Court.” Search warrant applications for such cases may be
filed by “the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Philippine
National Police (PNP) and the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF),”
and “personally endorsed by the heads of such agencies.” As in
ordinary search warrant applications, they “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 [of these RTCs] and, whenever they are on official
leave of absence or are not physically present in the station, the Vice
Executive Judges” are authorized to act on such applications and
“shall issue the warrants, if justified, which may be served in
places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said courts.”
The Court observes that all the above stated requirements were
complied with in this case.
As the records would show, the search warrant application was
filed before the Manila-RTC by the PNP and was endorsed by its
head, PNP Chief Jesus Ame Versosa,44 particularly describing the
place to be searched and the things to be seized (as will be
elaborated later on) in connection with the heinous crime of
Murder.45 Finding probable cause therefor,

_______________

44  Rollo, p. 63. See also CA Rollo, p. 22.

45   Republic Act No. 7659, entitled “An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on
Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as
Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for Other Purposes,” states:
x x x x
WHEREAS, the crimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for
being grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or
manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant and
outrageous to the common standards and

253

VOL. 741, NOVEMBER 19, 2014 253

Laud vs. People

Judge Peralta, in his capacity as 2nd Vice Executive Judge,

issued Search Warrant No. 09-14407 which, as the rules state, may
be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said
RTC.
Notably, the fact that a search warrant application involves a
“special criminal case” excludes it from the compel-

_______________

norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society;

x x x x
Sec. 6. Article 248 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“Art. 248. Murder.—Any person who, not falling within the provisions of
Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by
reclusion perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed
men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or
afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a
vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor
vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162feacb3645f361081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/16
4/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 741
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph,
or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other
public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the
victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.” (Emphases and underscoring
supplied)

254

254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Laud vs. People

ling reason requirement under Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules

of Court which provides:

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 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.
(Emphasis supplied)

 
As explicitly mentioned in Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No.
03-8-02-SC, 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.” Perceptibly, the fact that a search warrant is being
applied for in connection with a special criminal case as above
classified already presumes the existence of a compelling reason;
hence, any statement to this effect would be superfluous and
therefore should be dispensed with. By all indications, Section 12,
Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC allows the Manila and Quezon
City RTCs to issue warrants to be served in places outside their
territorial jurisdiction for as long as the parameters under the said
section have been complied with, as in this case. Thus, on these
grounds, the Court finds nothing defective in the preliminary
issuance of Search Warrant No. 09-14407. Perforce, the RTC-Manila
should not have overturned it.

255

VOL. 741, NOVEMBER 19, 2014 255

Laud vs. People

C. Compliance with the Constitutional Requirements for the

Issuance of Search Warrant No. 09-14407 and the One-Specific-
Offense Rule Under Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.
 
In order to protect the people’s right against unreasonable
searches and seizures, Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution (Constitution) provides that no search warrant shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to
be seized:

SEC. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162feacb3645f361081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/16
4/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 741
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

 
Complementarily, Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court
states that a search warrant shall not be issued except upon probable
cause in connection with one specific offense:

SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant.—A search warrant

shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one
specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things
to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied)

256

256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Laud vs. People

In this case, the existence of probable cause for the issuance of

Search Warrant No. 09-14407 is evident from the firsthand account
of Avasola who, in his deposition, stated that he personally
witnessed the commission of the aforestated crime and was, in fact,
part of the group that buried the victims:

Q9: Who are these six (6) male victims who were killed and buried in the
caves in December 2005 at around 9:00 p.m.?
A9: I heard Tatay Laud calling the names of the two victims when they
were still alive as Pedro and Mario. I don’t know the names of the other four
victims.
Q10: What happened after Pedro, Mario and the other four victims were
killed?
A10: Tatay Laud ordered me and the six (6) killers to bring and bury
equally the bodies in the three caves. We buried Pedro and Mario altogether
in the first cave, located more or less 13 meters from the makeshift house of
Tatay Laud, the other two victims in the second cave and the remaining two
in the third cave.
Q11: How did you get there at Laud Compound in the evening of
December 2005?
A11: I was ordered by Tatay Laud to go [to] the place. I ran errands [for]
him.46

 
Avasola’s statements in his deposition were confirmed during the
hearing on July 10, 2009, where Judge Peralta conducted the
following examination:

Court: x  x  x Anong panandaan mo? Nandoon ka ba noong naghukay,

nakatago o kasama ka?

_______________

46  Rollo, pp. 66-67.

257

VOL. 741, NOVEMBER 19, 2014 257

Laud vs. People

Mr. Avasola: Kasama po ako sa pagbuhat ng mga tao, sir.

Court: Mga ilang katao?
Mr. Avasola: Anim (6) po.
Court: May mass grave ba na nahukay?
Mr. Avasola: May tatlong kweba po na maliliit yung isa malaki. x x x47

 
Verily, the facts and circumstances established from the
testimony of Avasola, who was personally examined by Judge
Peralta, sufficiently show that more likely than not the crime of

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162feacb3645f361081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/16
4/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 741

Murder of six (6) persons had been perpetrated and that the human
remains in connection with the same are in the place sought to be
searched. In Santos v. Pryce Gases, Inc.,48 the Court explained the
quantum of evidence necessary to establish probable cause for a
search warrant, as follows:

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. A finding
of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely
than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the
accused. Probable cause demands more than bare suspicion; it requires less
than evidence which would justify conviction. The existence depends to a
large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the
examination. However, the findings of the judge should not disregard the
facts before him nor run counter to the clear dictates of reason.49

_______________

47  Id., at p. 67.
48  563 Phil. 781; 538 SCRA 474 (2007).
49  Id., at p. 793; pp. 484-485.

258

258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Laud vs. People

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the quantum of

proof to establish the existence of probable cause had been met. That
a “considerable length of time” attended the search warrant’s
application from the crime’s commission does not, by and of itself,
negate the veracity of the applicant’s claims or the testimony of the
witness presented. As the CA correctly observed, the delay may be
accounted for by a witness’s fear of reprisal and natural reluctance to
get involved in a criminal case.50 Ultimately, in determining the
existence of probable cause, the facts and circumstances must be
personally examined by the judge in their totality, together with a
judicious recognition of the variable complications and sensibilities
attending a criminal case. To the Court’s mind, the supposed delay in
the search warrant’s application does not dilute the probable cause
finding made herein. In fine, the probable cause requirement has
been sufficiently met.
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.”
“[A] description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the
officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and
identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the
community. Any designation or description known to the locality
that points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry
leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional
requirement.”51
Search Warrant No. 09-14407 evidently complies with the
foregoing standard since it particularly describes the place to be
searched, namely, the three (3) caves located inside the Laud
Compound in Purok 3, Barangay Ma-a, Davao City:

_______________

50  Rollo, p. 65.
51  Uy v. Bureau of Internal Revenue, 397 Phil. 892, 907-908; 344 SCRA 36, 53
(2000); citations omitted.

259

VOL. 741, NOVEMBER 19, 2014 259

Laud vs. People

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162feacb3645f361081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/16
4/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 741
You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search at any time
[of] the day of the premises above describe[d] particularly the three (3)
caves (as sketched) inside the said Laud Compound, Purok 3, Brgy. Ma-
a, Davao City and forthwith seize and take possession of the remains of
six (6) victims who were killed and buried in the just said premises.
x x x x 52 (Emphases supplied)

For further guidance in its enforcement, the search warrant even

made explicit reference to the sketch53 contained in the application.
These, in the Court’s view, are sufficient enough for the officers to,
with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place to be
searched, which they in fact did.
The things to be seized were also particularly described, namely,
the remains of six (6) victims who were killed and buried in the
aforesaid premises. Laud’s posturing that human remains are not
“personal property” and, hence, could not be the subject of a search
warrant deserves scant consideration. 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:
(a) Subject of the offense;
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.
(Emphases supplied)

 
“Personal property” in the foregoing context actually refers to the
thing’s mobility, and not to its capacity to be owned or alienated by a
particular person. Article 416 of the Civil Code,54

_______________

52  CA Rollo, p. 207.

53  Rollo, p. 81.
54  Art. 416. The following things are deemed to be personal property:

260

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Laud vs. People

which Laud himself cites,55 states that in general, all things

which can be transported from place to place are deemed to be
personal property. Considering that human remains can generally be
transported from place to place, and considering further that they
qualify under the phrase “subject of the offense” given that they
prove the crime’s corpus delicti,56 it follows that they may be valid
subjects of a search warrant under the above cited criminal
procedure provision.
Neither does the Court agree with Laud’s contention that the term
“human remains” is too all-embracing so as to subvert the particular
description requirement. As the Court sees it, the description points
to no other than the things that bear a direct relation to the offense
committed, i.e., of Murder. It is also perceived that the description is
already specific as the circumstances would ordinarily allow given
that the buried bodies would have naturally decomposed over time.
These observations on the description’s sufficient particularity
square with the Court’s pronouncement in Bache and Co. (Phil.),
Inc. v. Judge Ruiz,57 wherein it was held:

A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to

be seized when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances
will ordinarily allow; (People v. Rubio, 57 Phil. 384 [1932]) or when the
description expresses a conclusion of fact — not of law — by which the
warrant officer may be guided

_______________

x x x x

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162feacb3645f361081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/16
4/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 741
(4) In general, all things which can be transported from place to place without
impairment of the real property to which they are fixed.
55  Rollo, p. 46.
56  “Corpus delicti is defined as the body, foundation or substance upon which a
crime has been committed, e.g., the corpse of a murdered man. It refers to the fact that
a crime has been actually committed.” (People v. Quimzon, 471 Phil. 182, 192; 427
SCRA 261, 270 [2004])
57  147 Phil. 794; 37 SCRA 823 (1971).

261

VOL. 741, NOVEMBER 19, 2014 261

Laud vs. People

in making the search and seizure (idem., dissent of Abad Santos, J.); or
when the things described are limited to those which bear direct
relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued (Sec. 2, Rule
126, Revised Rules of Court) x x x If the articles desired to be seized have
any direct relation to an offense committed, the applicant must necessarily
have some evidence, other than those articles, to prove the said offense; and
the articles subject of search and seizure should come in handy merely to
strengthen such evidence. (Emphases supplied)58

 
Consequently, the Court finds that the particular description
requirement — both as to the place to be searched and the things to
be seized — had been complied with.
Finally, 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. The defective nature of scatter-shot warrants was discussed
in the case of People v. CA59 as follows:

There is no question that the search warrant did not relate to a specific
offense, in violation of the doctrine announced in Stonehill v. Diokno and of
Section 3 [now, Section 4] of Rule 126 providing as follows:
SEC. 3. Requisites for issuing search warrant.—A search warrant
shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific
offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be
seized.

_______________

58  Id., at p. 811; p. 835.

59  G.R. No. 94396, November 27, 1992, 216 SCRA 101.

262

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Laud vs. People

Significantly, the petitioner has not denied this defect in the search
warrant and has merely said that there was probable cause, omitting to
continue that it was in connection with one specific offense. He could not, of
course, for the warrant was a scatter-shot warrant that could refer, in Judge
Dayrit’s own words, “to robbery, theft, qualified theft or estafa.” On this
score alone, the search warrant was totally null and void and was correctly
declared to be so by the very judge who had issued it.60

 
In Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. CA,61 the Court, however, settled
that a search warrant that covers several counts of a certain specific
offense does not violate the one-specific-offense rule, viz.:

That there were several counts of the offense of copyright infringement

and the search warrant uncovered several contraband items in the form of
pirated video tapes is not to be confused with the number of offenses
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162feacb3645f361081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/16
4/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 741
charged. The search warrant herein issued does not violate the one-specific-
offense rule. (Emphasis supplied)62

 
Hence, given that Search Warrant No. 09-14407 was issued only
for one specific offense — that is, of Murder, albeit for six (6)
counts — it cannot be said that Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court had been violated.
That being said, the Court now resolves the last issue on forum
shopping.

_______________

60  Id., at pp. 104-105; citations omitted.

61  329 Phil. 875; 261 SCRA 144 (1996).
62  Id., at p. 928; pp. 185-186.

263

VOL. 741, NOVEMBER 19, 2014 263

Laud vs. People

D. Forum Shopping.
 
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.63
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. For one, the witnesses presented in each application
were different. Likewise, the application filed in Manila was in
connection with Murder, while the one in Davao did not specify any
crime. Finally, and more importantly, the places to be searched were
different — that in Manila sought the search of the Laud Compound
caves, while that in Davao was for a particular area in the Laud Gold
Cup Firing Range. There being no identity of facts and
circumstances between the two applications, the rule against forum
shopping was therefore not violated.
Thus, for all the above discussed reasons, the Court affirms the
CA Ruling which upheld the validity of Search Warrant No. 09-
14407.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
April 25, 2011 and the Resolution dated October 17, 2011 of the
Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 113017 are hereby
AFFIRMED.

_______________

63  Briones v. Henson-Cruz, 585 Phil. 63, 80; 563 SCRA 69, 84 (2008).

264

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Laud vs. People

SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Velasco, Jr.,** Leonardo-De Castro,

Perez and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.—While it is not necessary that the property to be searched

or seized should be owned by the person against whom the search
warrant is issued, there must be sufficient showing that the property
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162feacb3645f361081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/16
4/26/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 741

is under appellant’s control or possession. (Del Castillo vs. People,

664 SCRA 430 [2012])
Under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, “[a] person
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a search warrant.” (People vs.
Collado, 698 SCRA 628 [2013])
——o0o——

_______________

* *  Designated acting member per Special Order No. 1870 dated November 4,
2014.

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000162feacb3645f361081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/16