Page |1

1. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs Romars International Gases Corporation

Facts:

Petitioners received information that respondent was selling liquified petroleum gas (LPG) by illegally
refilling the steel cylinders manufactured by and bearing the duly registered trademark of respondent
Petron. Petitioners, after verifying, then requested the NBI to investigate the said activities, as prospective
violation of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines.

The NBI filed with the RTC Naga, two separate applications for search warrant. RTC Naga issued an order
granting said applications. Respondents filed a Motion to Quash Warrant but after a month, respondent’s
new counsel filed an Appearance with Motion for Reconsideration. It was only in said motion where
respondent raised for the first time, the issue of impropriety of filling the application of search warrant at
the RTC Naga City when the alleged crime was committed in a place within the territorial jurisdiction of
RTC Iriga City. They pointed out that the application filed with the RTC Naga failed to state any compelling
reason to justify the filling of the same in a court which does not have territorial jurisdiction over the place
of commission of the crime, as required by Section 2(b), Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure.

RTC Naga issued an order granting respondent’s motion of reconsideration, thereby quashing the two
search warrant. Petitioner appealed to the CA, but the appellate court, affirmed the RTC order.

Issues:

1. Petitioner’s application for a search warrant was insufficient for failing to comply with Rule 126?

2. Did the RTC Naga act properly taking into consideration the issue of said defect in resolving
respondent’s motion for reconsideration where the issue was raised for the very first time?

Ruling

1. Petitioner’s application for a search warrant was indeed insufficient for failing to comply with the
requirement to state therein the compelling reasons why they had to file the application in a court that
did not have territorial jurisdiction over the place where the alleged crime was committed.

2. Yes. The issue whether the application should have been filed in RTC Iriga City or Naga is not one
involving jurisdiction because, the power to issue a special criminal process in inherent in all courts.

In accordance with the Omnibus Motion Rule, trial court could only take cognizance of an issue that was
not raised in the motion to quash if: (1) said issue was not available or existent when they filed the motion
to quash; or (2) if the issue was one involving jurisdiction over the subject matter.

An application for a search warrant is a “special criminal process” rather than a criminal action. The Court
gravely erred in equating the proceedings for applications of search warrants with criminal actions
themselves. Proceedings for said applications are not criminal in nature, and thus, the rule that venue is
jurisdictional does not apply thereto.
 Page |2

2. AAA vs BBB

Facts:

AAA and BBB were married. Their union produced two children. BBB started working in Singapore as a
chef, where he acquired permanent resident status. BBB started having an affair with a Singaporean
woman with whom he allegedly has been living with in Singapore. A warrant of arrest was issued against
BBB. The counsel for the accused filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash Information and lift Hold Departure
Order and warrant of arrest against BBB. The trial court granted the motion to quash on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

 Section 7 of RA 9262 provides that the case shall be filed in the RTC where the crime or any of its
elements were committed at the option of the complainant.

Issue: May the PH Courts exercise jurisdiction over an offense constituting psychological violence under
RA 9262, otherwise known as Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004, committed
through marital infidelity, when the alleged illicit relationship occurred outside the country?

Ruling: The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an
essential element of jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases is the territory where the court
has jurisdiction to try the offense allegedly committed therein by the accused. The jurisdiction of a court
over the criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.

The mental or emotional suffering of the victim is an essential and distinct element in the commission of
the offense. The law contemplates that acts of violence against women and their children may manifest
as transitory or continuing crimes. Some acts requisite in their consummation may occur in one
municipality while some occur in another. The first court taking cognizance of the same excludes the
other.

4. Uy v Javellana

Facts:

This is an administrative case which arose from a verified complaint filed by Atty. Gerlie Uy and
Consolacion Bascug of the Public Attorney;s Office (PAO) against Presiding Judge Erwin Javellana of the
MTC in Negros Occidental. They alleged that Judge Javellana was grossly ignorant of the Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure.