G.R. No.

196045

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner

FACTS: National Bureau of Investigation Special Investigator Albert Froilan Gaerlan (SI Gaerlan)filed a Sworn Application for a
Search Warrant5 before the RTC, Makati City, for the purpose of conducting a search of the office premises of respondents
Amador Pastrana and Rufina Abad at Room 1908, 88 Corporate Center, Valero Street, Makati City. SI Gaerlan alleged that he
received confidential information that respondents were engaged in a scheme to defraud foreign investors.

Some of their employees would call prospective clients abroad whom they would convince to invest in a foreign-based
company by purchasing shares of stocks. Those who agreed to buy stocks were instructed to make a transfer for the payment
thereof. No shares of stock, however, were actually purchased. Instead, the money collected was allocated as follows: 42% to
respondent Pastrana's personal account; 32% to the sales office; 7% to investors-clients, who threatened respondents with
lawsuits; 10% to the cost of sales; and 8% to marketing. Special Investigator Gaerlan averred that the scheme not only
constituted estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), but also a violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8799 or the
Securities Regulation Code (SRC).

Judge Tranquil Salvador, Jr. of the RTC, Makati City, issued Search Warrant.

NBI agents and representatives from the Securities and Exchange Commission proceeded to respondents' office to search the
same. The search was witnessed by Isagani Paulino and Gerardo Denna, Chief Security Officer and Building Administrator,
respectively of 88 Corporate Center.

Respondent Abad moved to quash Search Warrant No. 01-118 because it was issued in connection with two (2) offenses, one
for violation of the SRC and the other for estafa under the RPC, which circumstance contravened the basic tenet of the rules of
criminal procedure that search warrants are to be issued only upon a finding of probable cause in connection with one specific
offense. Further, Search Warrant No. 01-118 failed to describe with specificity the objects to be seized.

Pending the resolution of the motion to quash the search warrant, respondent Abad moved for the inhibition of Judge Salvador,
Jr. She contended that the lapse of three (3) months without action on the motion to quash clearly showed Judge Salvador, Jr. 's
aversion to passing judgment on his own search warrant.15

In an Order, Judge Salvador, Jr. voluntarily inhibited himself from the case. Hence, the case was re-raffled to the RTC, Makati
City, Branch 58.

RTC ruled that the search warrant was null and void because it violated the requirement that a search warrant must be issued
in connection with one specific offense only. It added that the SRC alone punishes various acts such that one would be left in
limbo divining what specific provision was violated by respondents; and that even estafa under the RPC contemplates
multifarious settings.

CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. It declared that Search "Warrant No. 01-118 clearly violated Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules
of Court which prohibits the issuance of a search warrant for more than one specific offense, because the application failed to
specify what provision of the SRC was violated or even what type of estafa was committed by respondents. The appellate court
observed that the application for search warrant never alleged that respondents or their corporations were not SEC-registered
brokers or dealers, contrary to petitioner's allegation that respondents violated Section 28.1 of the SRC which makes unlawful
the act of buying or selling of stocks in a dealer or broker capacity without the requisite SEC registration.

ISSUE: Whether or not the search warrant is null and void

HELD:Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution guarantees every individual the right to personal liberty and security of homes
against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The purpose of the constitutional provision against unlawful searches and seizures is to prevent violations of private security in
person and property, and unlawful invasion of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the law acting under legislative or judicial
sanction, and to give remedy against such usurpations when attempted.

Additionally, Rule 126, Sections 4 and 5 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure provide for the requisites for the issuance of a
search warrant, to wit:

SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. 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 witness he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be
anywhere in the Philippines.

SEC. 5. Examination of complainant; record. The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of
searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts
personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted.

The search warrant must beissued for one specific offense.

One of the constitutional requirements for the validity of a search warrant is that it must be issued based on probable cause
which, under the Rules, must be in connection with one specific offense to prevent the issuance of a scatter-shot warrant.28 In
search warrant proceedings, probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances that 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.29

In this case, Search Warrant No. 01-118 was issued for "violation of R.A. No. 8799 (The Securities Regulation Code) and
for estafa (Art. 315, RPC)."33 First, violation of the SRC is not an offense in itself for there are several punishable acts under the
said law such as manipulation of security prices,34 insider trading,35 acting as dealer or broker without being registered with the
SEC,36 use of unregistered exchange,37 use of unregistered clearing agency,38 and violation of the restrictions on borrowings by
members, brokers, and dealers39 among others. Even the charge of "estafa under Article 315 of the RPC" is vague for there are
three ways of committing the said crime: (1) with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence; (2) by means of false pretenses or
fraudulent acts; or (3) through fraudulent means. The three ways of committing estafa may be reduced to two, i.e., (1) by
means of abuse of confidence; or (2) by means of deceit. For these reasons alone, it can be easily discerned that Search
Warrant No. 01-118 suffers a fatal defect.

In this case, the core of the problem is that the subject warrant did not state one specific offense. It included violation of the
SRC which, as previously discussed, covers several penal provisions and estafa, which could be committed in a number of ways.

Hence, Search Warrant No. 01-118 is null and void for having been issued for more than one specific offense.

Reasonable particularity of the

It is elemental that in order to be valid, a search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to
be seized. The constitutional requirement of reasonable particularity of description of the things to be seized 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. It is not, however, required that the things to be seized must be described in precise and
minute detail as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities.

Here, as previously discussed, Search Warrant No. 01-118 failed to state the specific offense alleged committed by respondents.
Consequently, it could not have been possible for the issuing judge as well as the applicant for the search warrant to determine
that the items sought to be seized are connected to any crime. Moreover, even if Search Warrant No. 01-118 was issued for
violation of Section 28.1 of the SRC as petitioner insists, the documents, articles and items enumerated in the search warrant
failed the test of particularity. The terms used in this warrant were too all-embracing, thus, subjecting all documents pertaining
to the transactions of respondents, whether legal or illegal, to search and seizure. Even the phrase "and other showing that
these companies acted in violation of their actual registration with the SEC" does not support petitioner's contention that
Search Warrant No. 01-118 was indeed issued for violation of Section 28.1 of the SRC; the same could well-nigh pertain to the
corporations' certificate of registration with the SEC and not just to respondents' lack of registration to act as brokers or
dealers.

In fine, Search Warrant No. 01-118 is null and void for having been issued for more than one offense and for lack of particularity
in the description of the things sought for seizure.