FACTS:

Philippine National Police (PNP) applied for a warrant to search three caves in Davao City, where they believed the alleged remains of victims executed by the "Davao Death Squad" may be found. A certain Ernesto Avasola testified that he witnessed the killing of six persons in 2005 and was part of the group that buried the victims. Search Warrant No. 09-14407 was issued by Judge Peralta, and the search of the caves yielded human remains. Retired SPO4 Bienvenido Laud filed a motion to quash and suppress the evidence seized, arguing several grounds including lack of jurisdiction of the Manila-RTC to issue the warrant. The Manila-RTC granted the motion, but the People filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. They filed a petition before the CA, which granted the petition and annulled the Manila-RTC orders. Laud filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, this petition. The issues before the court include whether administrative penalties on Judge Peralta invalidated the search warrant, whether the Manila-RTC had jurisdiction, and whether the requirements of probable cause, particular description, and the one-specific-offense rule were complied with.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the administrative penalties imposed on Judge Peralta resulted in the invalidity of Search Warrant No. 09-14407.

2. Whether the Manila-RTC had jurisdiction to issue Search Warrant No. 09-14407.

3. Whether the search warrant application is exempted from the compelling reason requirement under Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.

4. Whether the search warrant complied with the constitutional requirements.

5. Whether the search warrant established probable cause for the search.

6. Whether the search warrant complied with the constitutional requirement of a particular description of the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

7. Whether the search warrant sufficiently described the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

8. Whether the search warrant violated the one-specific-offense rule.

9. Whether there was forum shopping committed in this case.

RULING:

1. The imposition of administrative penalties on Judge Peralta divested him of his authority to act as Vice-Executive Judge. However, the invalidity of Search Warrant No. 09-14407 was not automatically a result of this. Judge Peralta may be considered a de facto officer, and his acts remain valid. The de facto doctrine applies when there is a de jure office, color of right or general acquiescence by the public, and actual physical possession of the office in good faith. These elements are present in this case, thus Search Warrant No. 09-14407 is valid.

2. The Manila-RTC had jurisdiction to issue Search Warrant No. 09-14407. The requirements for the issuance of search warrants in special criminal cases by the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City were complied with, including the endorsement by the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the authorization by the Executive Judge of the Manila-RTC. Therefore, the Manila-RTC had the authority to issue the search warrant.

3. The search warrant application involving a "special criminal case" is exempted from the compelling reason requirement under Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, the preliminary issuance of the search warrant is not defective.

4. The search warrant complied with the constitutional requirements as it was issued upon probable cause and particularly described the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

5. The Court ruled that the search warrant established probable cause for the search. The quantum of evidence necessary to establish probable cause for a search warrant is such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet 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. The Court found that the facts and circumstances presented in the application and examined by the judge sufficiently showed that more likely than not the crime had been perpetrated and that the human remains were in the place sought to be searched. The supposed delay in the search warrant's application did not dilute the finding of probable cause.

6. The search warrant complied with the constitutional requirement of a particular description of the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The description of the place to be searched was sufficient if the officer with the warrant could, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. The search warrant particularly described the three caves inside the Laud Compound, including a sketch in the application for further guidance. The things to be seized were particularly described as the remains of six victims who were killed and buried in the said premises. Human remains can be considered personal property for the purpose of a search warrant as they qualify as the subject of the offense, proving the crime's corpus delicti. The term "human remains" was specific enough as circumstances would ordinarily allow, considering the decomposed state of the buried bodies.

7. The Court found that the particular description requirement for the place to be searched and the things to be seized had been complied with. The description in the search warrant expressed a conclusion of fact, not of law, and the things described were limited to those that bear a direct relation to the offense for which the warrant was issued.

8. The Court held that the search warrant did not violate the one-specific-offense rule. Although it was issued for six counts of murder, it still qualified as one specific offense under Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.

9. The Court determined that there was no forum shopping committed in this case. The search warrant applications before the Manila-RTC and the Davao-RTC had various points of divergence, different witnesses, and different places to be searched. Therefore, there was no identity of facts and circumstances between the two applications, thus not violating the rule against forum shopping.

PRINCIPLES:

• The de facto doctrine provides that the acts of a de facto officer are valid for all purposes as those of a de jure officer, insofar as the public or third persons who are interested therein are concerned.

• The de facto doctrine is formulated to protect the public and individuals involved in the official acts of persons discharging the duties of an office without being lawful officers.

• In order for the de facto doctrine to apply, there must be a de jure office, color of right or general acquiescence by the public, and actual physical possession of the office in good faith.

• The jurisdiction of the Manila-RTC to issue search warrants in special criminal cases is governed by specific requirements, including endorsement by the appropriate agency and authorization by the Executive Judge.

• The Manila and Quezon City RTCs are allowed to issue search warrants to be served in places outside their territorial jurisdiction for special criminal cases, as long as the parameters under the applicable rules have been complied with.

• Search warrants should be issued based on probable cause determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and witnesses.

• Search warrants must particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

• Search warrants shall not be issued except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense.

• Probable cause for a search warrant requires such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet 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.

• The particular 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.

• Human remains can be considered personal property for the purpose of a search warrant, as they can generally be transported from place to place and qualify as the subject of the offense, proving the crime's corpus delicti.

• The description in a search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the description is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow.

• A search warrant must sufficiently describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

• The description requirement in a search warrant expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law, and is limited to things that bear a direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is issued.

• A search warrant that covers several counts of a certain specific offense does not violate the one-specific-offense rule.

• Forum shopping occurs when a litigant repetitively avails of several judicial remedies in different courts, all substantially founded on the same transactions, facts, and circumstances, and raising substantially the same issues.