b. Execution of Search Warrant

Execution of Search Warrant

Concept

Execution is the carrying out of a search warrant against the place and things it particularly describes. The constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures remains relevant when officers carry out the warrant, not only when the judge issues it. (Art. III, Sec. 2, 1987 Const.)¹

Governing provisions

The Constitution requires a search warrant to particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. For a properly issued search and seizure warrant involving computer data, Section 15 of Republic Act No. 10175 specifies powers and duties exercisable within the period stated in the warrant. (Art. III, Sec. 2, 1987 Const.)¹ (Sec. 15, Rep. Act No. 10175)²

Requisites / Rules

• Keep the search and seizure within the warrant’s valid scope. If evidence supports some listed items but not others, the unsupported authorization may be invalidated without necessarily invalidating the whole warrant. Evidence obtained under the invalid portion is inadmissible. (Puguon v. People, G.R. No. 257683, 21 October 2024)³
• Under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 10175, authorities acting within the warrant’s specified period may secure a computer system or data storage medium, make and retain a copy of secured data, maintain the integrity of relevant stored data, conduct forensic analysis or examination, and render inaccessible or remove data in the accessed system or network. The provision also addresses interception as defined in that Act. (Sec. 15, Rep. Act No. 10175)²
• For that computer-data search, authorities may reasonably require necessary information from a person who knows how the system functions and how its data is protected or preserved. They may request more time to complete examination of the storage medium and make a return, but the extension cannot exceed 30 days from court approval. (Sec. 15, Rep. Act No. 10175)²
• Preserve the identity and integrity of seized exhibits. For confiscated firearms, the chain of custody must be strictly observed and documented; marking the firearm itself, rather than only its container, is more prudent. For seized drugs, chain-of-custody requirements apply even when seizure is pursuant to a search warrant. (Togado v. People, G.R. No. 260973, 6 August 2024)⁴ (Sio v. People, G.R. No. 224935, 2 March 2022)⁵

Distinctions

Issuance and execution raise related but distinct questions. A court may, in appropriate circumstances, issue a warrant for a place outside its territorial jurisdiction. That does not dispense with the warrant’s particular description of the place and things or with limits on what the officers may seize. (Luarez v. Court of Appeals; Hon. Antonio J. Fineza, G.R. No. 104879, 6 May 1994)⁶ (Art. III, Sec. 2, 1987 Const.)¹ (Puguon v. People)³

Key doctrines

An invalid warrant cannot supply a lawful starting point for a seizure: when arrest and seizure flow from a warrant void for violating the one-specific-offense requirement, the plain view doctrine does not make the seized evidence admissible. Nor does a failure to timely object to an illegal arrest waive the inadmissible character of evidence seized during it. (Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 248350, 5 December 2022)⁷

Exceptions

Departure from the drug-seizure chain-of-custody requirements may be excused only if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. The prosecution bears the burden of establishing an unbroken chain of custody; lapses compromising the identity and integrity of the items can require acquittal. (Sio v. People)⁵ (Pagal v. People, G.R. No. 251894, 2 March 2022)⁸

Bar tip

Separate the authority to search from the manner and proof of seizure: identify the warrant’s valid scope, then test whether the particular exhibits offered in court were lawfully obtained and reliably identified. (Puguon v. People)³ (Pagal v. People)⁸