1) Criminal Action is Jurisdictional - Pilipinas Shell v.

Romars International
(Fake LPG)

Doctrines: Difference between a Criminal Process v. Criminal Action on the issue of

Jurisdiction (as to proper venue):

- Jurisdiction: right to act or the power and authority to hear and determine a
cause - it is a question of law.
- Concept of venue of actions in Crim. Action: Jurisdictional - The place
where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but
is an essential element of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction to hear criminal action is
reposed to specific courts of indicated competence.
- Omnibus motion rule: Proper remedy when raising the issue of jurisdiction
in a criminal case - All issues such as the jurisdiction of the court must be in
accordance to the Rules of Court governing omnibus motion, must be raised at
the first instance. Objections/issues not mentioned in this omnibus motion, when
the trial proceeds, shall be deemed waived. Though there are cases that courts
can still take cognizance of certain motions not included(pleaded) in the omnibus
motion (L.E.B.):
(a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter (defense can be raised at any
stage of the trial);
(b) existence of another action pending between the same parties for the same
cause; and
(c) bar by prior judgment or by statute of limitations.
In accordance with the omnibus motion rule, therefore, the trial court could only
take cognizance of an issue that was not raised in the motion to quash if (1) not
be available or existent when they filed the motion to quash the search warrant;
or (2) the issue was one involving jurisdiction over the subject matter.

- Application for a search warrant is not a criminal action, and, therefore, not
jurisdictional - It takes the nature of being a special criminal process but not a
criminal action. Therefore, the power to issue such special criminal process is
inherent in all courts.
Facts:

Pilipinas Shell (Shell) and Petron received info that Romars Intl was engaging in
illegal LPG refilling and distribution of LPG by refilling the gas cylinders of Shell
(Shellane) and, at times, re-branding and selling them as Petron Gasul.
Marketing Coordinator of Petron Gasul verified that Romars Intl is not an
 authorized distributor of Petron Gasul LPG brand. That such distribution by the
respondents of LPG tanks branded/imitated to be Petron Gasul is unauthorized.
Petitioners asked the help of NBI to investigate the matter.
Constitutes violation of Sections 155.1-170 of RA 8293 (Intellectual Prop Code of
the Phil.)
NBI proceeded with the investigation and was able to track and obtain said illegal
tradings by Romars Intl (even finding commercial quantities of LPG cylinders
and seeing the movement of such cylinders to other distribution/retail stores in
the Iriga City (i.e. Eldrich). Investigators were able to purchase said illegal goods
from Eldrich Store in Iriga.
IMPORTANT: NBI, on behalf of Shell and Petron filed in RTC-NAGA an
application of search warrant in violation of Sections 155.1-170 of the
Intellectual Prop. Code. On, Oct. 23, 2002, RTC-NAGA granted the
application, and on the same day, they went to served the search warrant
to Romars in a peaceful manner.
On Nov. 4, 2002, Romars Intl filed a motion to quash but did not include the
issue of jurisdiction of RTC-Naga
On March 27, 2003, in a motion for recon., the new counsel of Romars
raised the issue of jurisdiction of RTC-Naga over the issuance of search
warrant. According to the M.R., it should have been the jurisdiction of RTC-
Iriga City and not RTC-Naga. The application of NBI failed to explain the
compelling reason of choosing RTC-Naga as venue of filing the application
of search warrant instead of RTC-Iriga City.
RTC-Naga granted the M.R. based on the question of jurisdiction
CA affirmed RTC-Nagas granting of M.R.
Issue:
a) WON CA erred in affirming Naga-RTCs decision to quash the search warrant on the
basis of jurisdiction (was there really a question of jurisdiction when it comes to search
warrants)?
b) WON CA erred in affirming that the respondents (M.R.) is not subject to the omnibus
motion rule that the issue on jurisdiction may not be waived for the first time on appeal?

Held: Yes and Yes.

Ratio: The foregoing reasoning of the CA, is inceptionally flawed (refer to Malaloan v.
CA and World Wide Web Corp v. People of the Phil.)

a) The Court deems it improper for the RTC--Naga to have even taken into
consideration an issue which respondent failed to raise in its motion to quash, as it did
not involve a question of jurisdiction over the subject. Search warrant application is a
special criminal process that is not jurisdictional. All courts, including RTC-Naga, have
the power to facilitate such special criminal process.

b) In accordance with the omnibus motion rule, therefore, the trial court could only take
cognizance of an issue that was not raised in the motion to quash if (1) not be available
or existent when they filed the motion to quash the search warrant; or (2) the issue was
one involving jurisdiction over the subject matter. Neither of the two exceptions are
present in the case at bar, and, therefore, grounds in raising the motion to quash is
already deemed waived.

Rule 126 SEC. 2. Court where applications 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)