WARRANT REQUIREMENT

Purpose

(1) Search Warrant – to gain evidence to convict

(2) Warrant of Arrest – to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused

The warrant must refer to one specific offense.

[Castro v. Pabalan (1976)]

The Dangerous Drugs Act is a special law that deals specifically with dangerous drugs which are subsumed into “prohibited” and “regulated”

drugs, and defines and penalizes categories of offenses which are closely related or which

119 belong to the same class or species; thus, one search warrant may be validly issued for several violations thereof. [People v. Dichoso (1993)]

Search Warrant – an order in writing, issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge or justice of peace, directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property and bring it before the court.

Requisites (Search Warrant):

(a) Existence of probable cause

Probable cause – such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that (a) an offense has been committed and that (b) the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. [Burgos v.

Chief of Staff (1984)]

Cf. for Warrant of Arrest – such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that (a) a crime has been committed and (b) the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof. [Allado v. Diokno (1994)]

(b) Determination of probable cause personally by the judge.

On determining probable cause: The magistrate must make an exhaustive and probing examination of witnesses and applicant and not merely routine or pro forma examination [Nala v. Barroso, Jr.

(2003)]

The determination of probable cause calls for an exercise of judgment after a judicial appraisal of the facts and should not be

allowed to be delegated in the absence of any rule to the contrary.

(c) After personal examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.

How it is done: In the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath [Rule 126, Sec. 6, ROC]

 Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient.

 The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and attach them to the record.

 Such written deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly determine the existence or non-existence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false.

 It is axiomatic that the examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routine or pro-forma, if the claimed probable cause is to be established.

There must be a conduct of own inquiry regarding intent and justification of the application

 The examining magistrate must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the application. [Roan v. Gonzales (1984)]

Oath – any form of attestation that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully or truthfully; an outward pledge given by the person taking it that his attestation or promise is made under an immediate sense of his responsibility to God

120 Requisites:

(a) Must refer to facts

(b) Such facts are of personal knowledge of the petitioner or applicant or witnesses. Not hearsay.

Test of sufficiency of an oath

“Whether or not it was drawn in a manner that perjury could be charged against the affiant and he be held liable for damages.”

(d) On the basis of their personal knowledge of the facts they are testifying to. [Nala v.

Barroso, Jr. (2003); Burgos v. AFP (1984);

Roan v. Gonzales (1986); People v.

Malmstead (1991)]

The purpose of having personal knowledge by the complainant and witnesses and the sufficiency of the warrant is to convince the magistrate seeking the issuance of the warrant that there is probable cause.

(e) The warrant must describe particularly the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Requirement is primarily meant to enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to (1) readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items; and (2) leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures.

[People v. Tee (2003)]

Place to Be Searched

The search warrant issued to search petitioner’s compound for unlicensed firearms was held invalid for failing to describe the place with particularity, considering that the compound was made up of 200 buildings, 15 plants, 84 staff houses, one airstrip etc. spread out over 155 hectares. [PICOP v. Asuncion (1999)]

Description of Place/Things

The description of the property to be seized need not be technically accurate or precise. Its nature will vary according to whether the identity of the property is a matter of concern.

The description is required to be specific only insofar as the circumstances will allow. [Kho v.

Judge Makalintal (1999)]

A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the (a) description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow [People v.

Rubio, 57 Phil 384]; or (b) when the description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law, by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure; or (3) when the tings described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. [Bache and Co. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823]

General Rule: the warrant must contract the particular place to be searched and person or thing to be seized.

Exception: If the nature of the goods to be seized cannot be particularly determined.

 the nature of the thing is general in description

 the thing is not required of a very technical description [Alvarez v. CFI (1937)]

Description of Persons Searched

Search warrant is valid despite the mistake in the name of the persons to be searched. The authorities conducted surveillance and test-buy operations before obtaining the search warrant and subsequently implementing it.

They had personal knowledge of the identity of the persons and the place to be searched, although they did not specifically know the names of the accused. [People v. Tiu Won Chua (2003)]

121 A John Doe search warrant is valid. There is nothing to prevent issue and service of warrant against a party whose name is unknown.

[People v. Veloso (1925)]

General Warrant – one that:

(1) Does not describe with particularity the things subject of the search and seizure; or (2) Where probable cause has not been

properly established.

Effect: It is a void warrant. [Nolasco v. Paño (1985)]

Exception to General Warrants: General descriptions will not invalidate the entire warrant if other items have been particularly described. [Uy v. BIR (2000)]

Conduct of the Search [Sec. 7, Rule 126, ROC]

(1) In the presence of a lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family, OR (2) If occupant or members of the family are

absent, in the presence of 2 witnesses of sufficient age and discretion, residing in the same locality.

Failure to comply with Sec. 7 Rule 126 invalidates the search. [People v. Gesmundo (1993)]

When Forcible Entry Justified

Force may be used in entering a dwelling if justified by Rule 126 ROC. e.g. Occupants of the house refused to open the door despite the fact that the searching party knocked several times, and the agents saw suspicious movements of the people inside the house. [People v.

Salanguit (2001)]

Unlawful Search

Police officers arrived at appellant’s residence and “side-swiped” appellant’s car (which was parked outside) to gain entry into the house.

Appellant’s son, who is the only one present in

the house, opened the door and was immediately handcuffed to a chair after being informed that they are policemen with a warrant to search the premises. [People v.

Benny Go (2003)]