iv. Motion to Quash Warrant or Suppress Evidence

XPN:

• Motion to quash a complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused
• Motion to quash a warrant of arrest (Miranda v. Tuliao, G.R. No. 158763, 2006).

Remedies against an Unlawful Search

• Motion to quash the search warrant;
• Motion to suppress as evidence the objects illegally taken;
• Replevin, if the objects are legally possessed; and
• Certiorari, where the search warrant is a patent nullity.

NOTE: The remedies are alternative. If a motion to quash is denied, a motion to suppress cannot be availed consequently. The illegality of the search warrant does not call for the return of the things seized, the possession of which is prohibited by law. However, those personal properties seized in violation of the constitutional immunity whose possession is not illegal or unlawful per se ought to be returned to their rightful owner or possessor.

Venue of filing a Motion to quash Search warrant

• It may be filed and acted upon only by the court where the action has been instituted; or
• If no criminal action has been instituted, it may be filed in and resolved by the court that issued the search warrant. However, if such court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in another court, the motion shall be resolved by the latter court. (Sec. 14, Rule 126, ROC, as amended)

Rule with respect to Waiver of Legality and Admissibility of a Search warrant

Objection to the legality of the search warrant, or as to the admissibility of the evidence obtained is deemed waived where no objection of the search warrant was raised during the trial of the case nor to the admissibility of the evidence obtained through said warrant. (Demaisip v. CA, G.R. No. 89393, 25 Jan. 1991)

Q: Boy Maton, a neighborhood tough guy, was arrested by a police officer on suspicion that he was keeping prohibited drugs in his clutch bag. When Boy Maton was searched immediately after the arrest, the officer found and recovered 10 sachets of shabu neatly tucked in the inner linings of the clutch bag. At the time of his arrest, Boy Maton was watching a basketball game being played in the town plaza, and he was cheering for his favorite team. He was subsequently charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and he entered a plea of not guilty when he was arraigned.

During the trial, Boy Maton moved for the dismissal of the information on the ground that the facts revealed that he had been illegally arrested. He further moved for the suppression of the evidence confiscated from him as being the consequence of the illegal arrest, hence, the fruit of the poisonous tree. The trial court, in denying the motions of Boy Maton, explained that at the time the motions were filed Boy Maton had already waived the right to raise the issue of the legality of the arrest. The trial court observed that, pursuant to the Rules of Court, Boy Maton, as the accused, should have assailed the validity of the arrest before entering his plea to the information. Hence, the trial court opined that any adverse consequence of the alleged illegal arrest had also been equally waived.

Comment on the ruling of the trial court. (2017 BAR)

A: The ruling of the court denying the motion for dismissal of the information on the ground of illegal arrest is proper. Under the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the accused’s failure to file a motion to quash before plea is a waiver of the objection to lack of personal jurisdiction or of the objection to an illegal arrest.

Here, Boy Maton entered a plea without filing a motion to quash on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. Hence, he is deemed to have waived the ground of illegal arrest which is subsumed under lack of personal jurisdiction.

However, the ruling denying the motion to suppress evidence is not correct. The SC has held that a waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. A waiver of an illegal arrest is not a waiver of an illegal search.

The Constitution provides that evidence seized in violation of the right against illegal search is inadmissible in evidence.

Here, the evidence seized was by virtue of an illegal search since the arrest was illegal. Thus, such evidence may be suppressed.

Q: Judge Sabarre and Judge Cabalona issued search warrants against Mayor Espinosa and Yap who are detainees inside the Baybay Sub- Provincial Jail, a facility under the control of the government. The OCA opined that the issuance of search warrants to search jail facilities of the government can be considered as gross ignorance of the law for which judges can be held liable. In Senate Committee Report No. 46, the Committee on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs and the Committee on Justice and Human Rights stated that there is no need to issue search warrants because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy inside Baybay Sub- Provincial Jail. Applications should have been denied because the proper action in this case should have been coordination with the jail guards or the PNP personnel augmented inside the jail premises. Is the issuance of a search warrant against an inmate in a government- controlled detention facility proper?

A: YES. A comprehensive analysis of searches that may be conducted in a penal institution by correctional officers and those that may be implemented by law enforcers other than correctional officers in charge of the detention facility reveal their manifest differences in terms of purpose, frequency, and scope.

In a search conducted by jail guards, the search is routinary and is intended to preserve internal order and security in the entire detention facility. A search conducted as a protective measure in prison management is noncriminal in nature and does not require a finding of probable cause.

Meanwhile, a search carried out as an incident to a criminal investigation and intended to uncover evidence of a crime may be narrower in scope and may be limited only to a specific jail cell and articles specified in the warrant, as in the case. As a rule, a warrant is still necessary to execute a search in a controlled detention facility in relation to a criminal investigation. Strict compliance with governing laws, rules, and procedures on the issuance of search warrants and implementation of the search in a controlled detention facility is required to carry out a valid search. (Re: Rolando Espinosa, Sr., A.M. No. RTJ-17-2494 & A.M. No. RTJ-19-2557, 26 Jan. 2021)

Remedy

Filing of a Motion to Quash (Rule 110, Sec. 3[f])