FACTS:

The petitioners received information about the respondent's illegal sale and distribution of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) through the unauthorized refilling of steel cylinders bearing Petron's trademark. Petron hired a paralegal investigation team to verify these activities. The investigators visited the respondent's premises and had empty cylinders refilled. The refilled cylinders were confirmed by Petron's Marketing Coordinator to be unauthorized and lacking any Petron trademarks. The petitioners then sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for further investigation, which led to the discovery of stockpiled cylinders at the respondent's warehouse and the observation of trucks coming from the respondent's facility.

In response, the NBI, on behalf of Petron and Shell, filed applications for search warrants at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City. The RTC-Naga City granted the applications and issued search warrants. The respondent filed a motion to quash the search warrants, but the motion was denied. The respondent's new counsel later filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing for the first time that the application for search warrant should have been filed with the RTC-Iriga City instead. The RTC-Naga City granted the motion for reconsideration and quashed the search warrants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, leading to the petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the court where an application for search warrant is filed is jurisdictional.

2. Whether the motion to quash is subject to the Omnibus Motion Rule and whether the issue of lack of jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal.

RULING:

1. The court where an application for search warrant is filed is jurisdictional. The Supreme Court held that Section 2, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure clearly states that an application for search warrant shall be filed with the court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed or any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed or where the warrant shall be enforced. It was ruled that the application should have stated compelling reasons why it was filed with the RTC-Naga instead of the RTC-Iriga City, which has territorial jurisdiction over the alleged crime.

2. The motion to quash is subject to the Omnibus Motion Rule and the issue of lack of jurisdiction may not be raised for the first time on appeal. The Supreme Court held that the defendant should raise all available objections and defenses in a motion to quash before entering his plea. The issue of lack of jurisdiction, as stated in the motion for reconsideration, was raised for the first time after the denial of the motion to quash, in violation of the Omnibus Motion Rule.

PRINCIPLES:

• The court where an application for search warrant is filed is jurisdictional.

• The motion to quash is subject to the Omnibus Motion Rule.

• Lack of jurisdiction cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.