1. Requisites of a Valid Warrant

D. Arrests, Searches, and Seizures

• Requisites of a Valid Warrant
• Warrantless Arrests and Searches
• Exclusionary Rule

1987 CONST., art. III, sec. 2

> SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Section 2 is not just a circumscription of the power of the State over a person’s home and possessions. More importantly, it protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself. It is a guarantee of the right of the people to be secure in their “persons… against unreasonable searches and seizures.” It is therefore also a guarantee against unlawful arrests and other forms of restraint on the physical liberty of the person. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2009)

Under our Constitution, the same is declared a popular right of the people and, of course, indisputably it equally applies to both citizens and foreigners in this country. (Qua Chee Gan v Deportation Board, G.R. No. L-10280, September 30, 1963).

SEARCH WARRANTS

A search warrant is an order in writing, issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge, and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court. (Sec. 1, Rule 126, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)

The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are:

• Probable cause is present (in connection with one specific offense);
• Such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge;
• The judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce;
• The applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and
• The warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized. (People v. Mamaril, G.R. No. 171980, Oct. 6, 2010)

A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. (ROC, Rule 126, § 4)

A search warrant must conform strictly to the constitutional requirements for its issuance; otherwise, it is void. (Diaz v. People, G.R. No. 188794, Sept. 2, 2015)

Although the use of the word “and” implies conjunction or union, the CA was mistaken in giving the word undue importance. The primary consideration here is the finding of probable cause. It would not be necessary to examine both the applicant and other witnesses if either one is sufficient for the judge to establish probable cause. (People v. Gabiosa, G.R. No. 248395, Sept. 6, 2021.)

Definition

Probable cause for a search warrant is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discrete 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. (Laud v. People, G.R. No. 199032, Nov. 19, 2014)

Probability, Not Absolute or Moral Certainty

Probable cause is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. What is required is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but merely probable cause. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2009)

Conclusions of law unsupported by particulars are not sufficient to establish probable cause to be used as basis for the issuance of a warrant. (Bernas, The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer, 2011)

A tip received from a classified informant may be the basis of a search. (People v. Lo Ho Wing, G.R. No. 88017, Jan. 21, 1991)

Probing and Exhaustive Examination

In determining the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant, the examining magistrate must make probing and exhaustive, not merely routine or pro forma examination of the applicant and the witnesses. (Nala v. Barroso, G.R. No. 153087, Aug. 7, 2003)

Facts and Circumstances Must Be Examined in their Totality

Ultimately, in determining the existence of probable cause, the facts and circumstances must be personally examined by the judge in their totality, together with a judicious recognition of the variable complications and sensibilities attending a criminal case. (Laud v. People, G.R. No. 199032, Nov. 19, 2014)

Delay in Application Does Not Negate Probable Cause

The supposed delay in the search warrant’s application does not dilute the probable cause finding made herein. The delay may be accounted for by a witness’s fear of reprisal and natural reluctance to get involved in a criminal case. (Laud v. People, G.R. No. 199032, Nov. 19, 2014)

Trial Judge Determination Accorded Great Deference by the Reviewing Court

Generally, a judge’s determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is accorded great deference by a reviewing court, so long as there was substantial basis for that determination. Substantial basis means that the questions of the examining judge brought out such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and the objects in connection with the offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched. (Diaz v. People, G.R. No. 188794, Sept. 2, 2015)

If the judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the application is based or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall issue the warrant, which must be substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules. (ROC, Rule 126, § 6)

Purpose

The intent was to ensure that a warrant is issued not merely on the basis of the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, but only after examination by the judge of the complainant and his witnesses. (Diaz v. People, G.R. No. 188794, Sept. 2, 2015)

Personal Examination v. Personal Determination

What the Constitution requires is for the judge to conduct an "examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce," after which he determines the existence of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. (Diaz v. People, G.R. No. 188794, Sept. 2, 2015)

Personal examination by the judge of the complainant and his witnesses is necessary to enable him to determine the existence or nonexistence of a probable cause. The determination of whether or not a probable cause exists calls for the exercise of judgment after a judicial appraisal of facts and should not be allowed to be delegated in the absence of any rule to the contrary. (Bache and Co. v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-32409. February 27, 1971)

Depositions made by Clerk

The participation of respondent Judge in the proceedings which led to the issuance of search warrant was limited to listening to the stenographer's readings of her notes, to a few words of warning against the commission of perjury, and to administering the oath to the complainant and his witness. This cannot be considered a personal examination. If there was an examination at all of the complainant and his witness, it was the one conducted by the Deputy Clerk of Court. The Constitution and the Rules require a personal examination by the judge. (Bache and Co. v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-32409, February 27, 1971)

Compliance is Shown by the Depositions and the Transcript

Ideally, compliance with the examination requirement is shown by the depositions and the transcript. In their absence, however, a warrant may still be upheld if there is evidence in the records that the requisite examination was made and probable cause was based thereon. There must be, in the records, particular facts and circumstances that were considered by the judge as sufficient to make an independent evaluation of the existence of probable cause to justify the issuance of the search warrant. (Diaz v. People, G.R. No. 188794, Sept. 2, 2015)

Purpose

The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable cause. (Burgos v. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. L-6426, Dec. 26, 1984)

Particularity of Description

The warrant must be issued in relation to one specific offense. (ROC, Sec. 4, Rule, 126)

Purpose

The evident purpose and intent of the requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant – to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not be made and that abuses may not be committed. (People v. Go, G.R. No. 144639, Sept. 12, 2003)

Particular Description Not Required if Goods by their Nature are Described Generally

The search warrant must contain a particular description of the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized. These provisions are mandatory and must be strictly complied with; but where, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather generally, it is not required that a technical description be given, as this would mean that no warrant could issue. (Alvarez v. CFI, G.R. No. L-45358, Jan. 29, 1937)

Required Wherever and Whenever it is Feasible

The particularity of the description of the place to be searched and the things to be seized is required "wherever and whenever it is feasible." A search warrant need not describe the items to be seized in precise and minute detail. The warrant is valid when it enables the police officers to readily identify the properties to be seized and leaves them with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized. (Worldwide Web Corporation v. People, G.R. No. 161106, Jan. 13, 2014)

Search Warrant for an Unnamed Party; John Doe Search Warrant

A warrant for the apprehension of an unnamed party is void, except in those cases where it contains a descriptio personae such as will enable the officer to identify the accused. The description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper person upon whom the warrant is to be served. As the search warrant stated that John Doe had gambling apparatus in his possession in the building occupied by him at No. 124 Calle Arzobispo, City of Manila, and as this John Doe was Jose Ma. Veloso, the manager of the club, the police could identify John Doe as Jose Ma. Veloso without difficulty. (People v. Veloso, G.R. No. L-23051, Oct. 20, 1925)

John Doe Search Warrants – Exception, Not the Rule

John Doe search warrants should be the exception and not the rule. The police should particularly describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized, wherever and whenever it is feasible. The police should not be hindered in the performance of their duties, which are difficult enough of performance under the best of conditions, by superficial adherence to technicality or farfetched judicial interference. (People v. Veloso, G.R. No. L23051, Oct. 20, 1925)

As said warrant is issued against 50 “John Does" not one of whom the witnesses to the complaint could or would Identify, it is of the nature of a general warrant, one of a class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and once anathematized as "totally subversive of the liberty of the subject." (Pangandaman v. Casar, G.R. No. 71782 April 14, 1988)

Mistake in the Name of the Person Does Not Invalidate the Warrant

A mistake in the name of the person to be searched does not invalidate the warrant, especially when the authorities had personal knowledge of the drug related activities of the accused. In fact, a "John Doe" warrant satisfies the requirements so long as it contains a descriptio personae such as will enable the officer to identify the accused. A mistake in the identification of the owner of the place does not invalidate the warrant provided the place to be searched is properly described. (People v. Tiu Won Chua, G.R. No. 149878, July 1, 2003)

General Warrants are Void

A general warrant is defined as a search or arrest warrant that is not particular as to the person to be arrested or the property to be seized. It is one that allows the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another and gives the officer executing the warrant the discretion over which items to take. (Worldwide Web Corporation v. People, G.R. No. 161106, Jan. 13, 2014)

General warrants do not meet the requirement in Art. III, Sec. 2, of the Constitution, and of Sec. 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, that the warrant should particularly describe the things to be seized. (Uy v. BIR, G.R. No. 129651, Oct. 20, 2000)

General Rule: A general warrant is null and void. (Nolasco v. Paño, G.R. No. L- 69803, Oct. 8, 1985).

Exception: The search warrant is severable, and those items not particularly described may be cut off without destroying the whole warrant. (Uy v. BIR, G.R. No. 129651, Oct. 20, 2000)

Scatter-shot Warrants

A warrant must be issued upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense. Thus, where the questioned warrant was issued for multiple offenses, specifically Articles 171 and 213 of the Revised Penal Code, as well as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, it is void for being a scattershot warrant. (Vallejo v. CA, G.R. No. 156413, Apr. 14, 2004)

No provision of law exists which requires that a warrant, partially defective in specifying some items sought to be seized yet particular with respect to the other items, should be nullified as a whole. A partially defective warrant remains valid as to the items specifically described in the warrant. A search warrant is severable, the items not sufficiently described may be cut off without destroying the whole warrant. (Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, G.R. No. 140946, Sept. 13, 2004)

Personal Property to be Seized

A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of personal property:

• Subject of the offense;
• Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
• Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. (ROC, Rule 126, § 3)

Ownership Not Required, But Control or Possession

The above rule does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. It may or may not be owned by him. In fact, under Section 3(b) of Rule 126, one of the properties that may be seized is stolen property. Necessarily, stolen property must be owned by one other than the person in whose possession it may be at the time of the search and seizure. Ownership, therefore, is of no consequence, and it is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the property sought to be seized. (Burgos v. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. L-6426, Dec. 26, 1984)

Only Those Things Particularly Described in the Search Warrant

The officers of the law are to seize only those things particularly described in the search warrant. A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime. The search is limited in scope so as not to be general or exploratory. Nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant. (United Laboratories v. Isip, G.R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005)

The description "an undetermined amount of marijuana" must be held to satisfy the requirement for particularity in a search warrant. What is to be seized in the instant case is property of a specified character, i.e., marijuana, an illicit drug. By reason of its character and the circumstances under which it would be found, said article is illegal. A further description would be unnecessary and ordinarily impossible, except as to such character, the place, and the circumstances. It is not required that technical precision of description be required, particularly where, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather general, since the requirement of technical description would mean that no warrant could issue. (People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January 20, 2003)

Place to be Searched

What is material in determining the validity of a search is the place stated in the warrant itself, not what the applicants had in their thoughts, or had represented in the proofs they submitted to the court issuing the warrant. (People v. CA, G.R. No. 126379, June 26, 1998)

Time of Making Search

The warrant must direct that it be served in the day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night. (ROC, Rule 126, § 9)

Period of the Validity of a Search Warrant

A search warrant shall be valid for 10 days from its date. Thereafter it shall be void. (ROC, Rule 126, Sec. 10)

Search of House, Room, or Premises to Be Made in Presence of Two Witnesses

No search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. (ROC, Rule 126, § 8)

This requirement is mandatory to ensure regularity in the execution of the search warrant. The Rules of Court clearly and explicitly establishes a hierarchy among the witnesses in whose presence the search of the premises must be conducted. Thus, Section 8, Rule 126 provides that the search should be witnessed by “two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality” only in the absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or any member of his family (People v. Go, G.R. No. 144639, Sept. 12, 2003)

WARRANT OF ARREST

Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. (ROC, Sec. 1, Rule 113)

An arrest is made by an actual restraint of a person to be arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest. No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest. The person arrested shall not be subject to a greater restraint than is necessary for his detention. (ROC, Sec. 2. Rule 113)

Within ten days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the prosecutor’s resolution and supporting evidence. If these establish probable cause, the judge shall issue a warrant of arrest; if in doubt, the judge may require additional evidence. (Sec. 6, Rule 112, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)

Probable cause for issuance of warrant of arrest

Such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.

Procedure for Conviction Under Art. 201

• The authorities must apply for the issuance of a search warrant from a judge, if in their opinion, an obscenity rap is in order;
• The authorities must convince the court that the materials sought to be seized are "obscene", and pose a clear and present danger of an evil substantive enough to warrant State interference and action;
• The judge must determine whether or not the same are indeed "obscene:" the question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on His Honor's sound discretion.
• If, in the opinion of the court, probable cause exists, it may issue the search warrant prayed for;
• The proper suit is then brought in the court under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code;
• Any conviction is subject to appeal. The appellate court may assess whether or not the properties seized are indeed "obscene." (Pita v. CA, G.R. No. 80806, Oct. 5, 1989)

Authority to Search Dwelling House

A dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon warrant issued by a Judge of a competent court, the sworn application thereon showing probable cause and particularly describing the place to be searched and the goods to be seized. (Customs Modernization And Tariff Act, § 220)