I.

Search and seizure – Rule 126

1. Nature of search warrant

 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, Rules of Court).

 A search warrant is not a criminal action nor does it represent a commencement of a criminal prosecution
even if it is entitled like a criminal action. It is not a proceeding against a person but is solely for the
discovery and to get possession of personal property. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in
nature, and made necessary because of public necessity. It resembles in some respects with what is
commonly known as John Doe proceedings.

2. Distinguish from warrant of arrest

Arrest Search and Seizure

As to its Rules
1. The rules on arrest are concerned with the 1. A search may follow an arrest but the
seizure of a person. It involves the taking of a search must be incident to a lawful arrest.
person in custody.
The rules on searches and seizures cover a
wider spectrum of matters on the search of
both persons and places and the seizure of
things found therein
As to its Probable Cause
2. In order to determine probable cause to 2. Probable cause to search requires facts to
arrest, the judge (not the prosecutor) must show that particular things connected with a
have sufficient facts in his hands that would crime are found in a specific location.
tend to show that a crime has been
committed and that a
particular person committed it.
As to the examination of Judge
3. The judge is not necessarily required to 3. The judge
make a personal must, before issuing the search warrant,
examination before issuing a warrant of arrest personally examine the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce in
determining probable cause
As to its time
4. An arrest may be made on any day and at 4. A search warrant is generally served in the
any time of the day or night (Sec. 6, Rule 113, day time, unless there be a direction in the
and Rules of Court). warrant that it may be served at any time of
the day or night (Sec. 9, Rule 126, Rules of
Court).

3. Application for search warrant, where filed

Pending Action –

1. As a rule, an application for a search warrant shall be filed before any court within whose territorial
jurisdiction a crime was committed (Sec. 2[a], Rule 126, Rules of Court). 2. There are exceptions to the
above general rule. These are:

(a) The application may be made before any court within the judicial region where the crime was commit-
ted if the place of the commission of the crime is known (Sec. 2[b], Rule 126, Rules of Court).
(b) The application may also be filed before any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be
enforced (Sec. 2[b], Rule 126, Rules of Court).

Note: In both exceptions, filing in such courts re- quires compelling reasons stated in the application. (c) The
application shall be made only in the court where the criminal action is pending, if the criminal ac- tion has
already been filed (Sec. 2, last paragraph, Rule 126, Rules of Court).

4. Probable cause

 A search warrant can be issued only upon a finding of probable cause. Probable cause for search
warrant means such facts and circumstances which 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 to be searched (Kho v. Lanzanas, 489 SCRA 445; Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687).

 The facts and circumstances being referred thereto pertain to facts, data or information personally
known to the witnesses he may present. The applicant or his witnesses must have personal knowledge of
the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense being complained of. "Reliable information'' is
insufficient. Mere affidavits are not enough, and the judge must depose in writing the complainant and his
witnesses (Yao, Sr. v. People, 525 SCRA 108) because in the determination of probable cause, the court
must resolve whether or not an offense exists to justify the issuance of the search warrant (Skechers, USA,
Inc. v. Inter Pacific Industrial Trading Corporation, 509 SCRA 395).

5. Personal examination by judge of the applicant and witnesses

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
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.

Aside from the requirements mandated by Sec. 4 of Rule 126, the rule requires the judge to comply
with a specific procedure in the conduct of the examination of the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce. The required procedure involves the following:

(a) The examination must be personally conducted by the judge;

(b) The examination must be in the form of searching questions and answers;
(c) The complainant and the witnesses shall be examined on those facts personally known to them;
(d) The statements must be in writing and under oath; and
(e) The sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses, together with the affidavits
submitted, shall be attached to the record (Sec. 5, Rule 126, Rules of Court).

Note: It should be for the purpose for one particular crime only

 "Reliable information" is insufficient.

 Mere affidavits are not enough, and the judge must depose in writing the complainant and
his witnesses (Yao, Sr. v. People, G.R. No. 168306, June 19, 2007). An application for a
search warrant if based on hearsay cannot, standing alone, justify issuance of a search
warrant. It is necessary for the witnesses themselves, by their own personal information, to
establish the applicant's claims (Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687).
Note:
"Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus, not sufficient. Aside
from the examination under oath, "...The examining judge has to make searching
questions and elicit answers of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce in
writing and to attach them to the record." Thus, in Balayon v. Dinopol, 490 SCRA 547,
the Court found an RTC judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law for failure to observe
the mandate of the rules because the Court found that there was no record of
searching questions and answers attached to the records of the case.

6. Procedure for issuance of search warrant

Section 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. — 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.

7. Particularity of place to be searched and things to be seize

 In the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premises to be searched with sufficient
particularity, it has been held that the executing officer's prior knowledge as to the place intended in the
warrant is relevant.
 Even if his name is unknown or erroneously written, the description of the person with certainty to
identify him and set him apart from others is enough to lend validity to the warrant (United States v.
Ferrone, 438 F.2d 381, 3d Cir. 1971).
 The prevailing doctrine is that the warrant "must sufficiently describe the premises to be searched so
that the officer executing the warrant may, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place
intended" (People v. Peck, 1974, 38 CA 3d 993,1000,113 CR 806).
 In United States v. Darensbourg (520 F.2d 985, 987 5th Cir. 1975), the warrant as well as the affidavit
supporting it gave an erroneous street address but with the right apartment number in a four-building
 apartment complex. Since there was no other apartment in the entire complex that had the same
apartment number as that described in the warrant, the description was upheld.
 The court ruled that a search warrant directed against a multiple occupancy structure, although does
not specify the sub-unit to be searched would not be considered invalid where it adequately specifies
the name of the occupant of the sub-unit against which the warrant is directed and thus provides the
searching officers sufficient information to identify the place intended by the warrant.
 The warrant, said the Court, must make reasonably clear what place is to be searched. Where the
particular place to be searched is described by the affidavit of the officer as a single living unit in an
entire building, a warrant describing an entire building and thus authorizing the search of the building is
too broad
 A John Doe warrant which does not name the person subject of the same, is the exception rather than
the rule. Hence, in one case, a warrant was voided to the extent that it was issued against fifty (50)
John Does none of which could be identified by the witnesses (Pangandaman v. Casar, 159 SCRA
599).
 The person to be searched must be described with reasonable particularity (Lohman v. Superior
Court, 69 Cat. App. 3d 894). He can even be identified by a name which others use in calling him, even
if it is not his real name (People v. Mclean, 56 Cal. 2d 660) because the standard for determining the
legality of a warrant directed against a person is whether the person has been sufficiently described
with particularity sufficient to identify him with reasonable certainty.
 Even if his name is unknown or erroneously written, the description of the person with certainty to
identify him and set him apart from others is enough to lend validity to the warrant (United States v.
Ferrone, 438 F.2d 381, 3rd Cir. 1971).
 Nowhere in Section 4, Rule 126 or any other provision of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure is it required that the search warrant must name the person who occupies the
described premises (Quelnan v. People, 526 SCRA 653, July 6,2007).

8. Personal property to be seized

Section 3. Personal property to be seized. — A search warrant may be issued for the
search and seizure of personal property:

(a) Subject of the offense;

(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or

(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. 

 The rule is, only the personal properties described in the search warrant may be seized by the
authorities.

 "The purpose of the constitutional requirement that the articles to be seized be particularly described in
the warrant is to limit the things to be taken 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 avoid fishing expedition.

9. Duty of the officer making the search

(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the
warrant;
(b) The officer must, together with the delivery of the property also deliver a true
inventory of the property seized. Such inventory must be duly verified under oath (Sec.
12, Rule 126, Rules of Court).
(c) Note: A violation of the above rules shall constitute contempt of court (Sec.12, Rule
126, Rules of Court).

10. Exceptions to search warrant requirement (See the Notes of Atty. Alexis P. Medina)

a. Search of moving vehicle

Routine car inspection: Valid even without probable cause

Routine inspections of motor vehicles are “normally permissible” in the following instances:

(1) where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the
public fair ground;
 (2) simply looks into a vehicle;
(3) flashes a light therein without opening the car's doors;
(4) where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search;
(5) where the inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual inspection; and
(6) where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area.

Visual search: Probable cause not required

When there is no probable cause, peace officers are limited to routine checks where the
examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection.

Extensive search: Probable cause required

When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such would be constitutionally
permissible only if the officers made it upon probable cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of
circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains as item, article or
object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction, or instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in
the vehicle to be searched.

Extensive search must be done only when it is not practicable to secure a warrant

Warrantless search of a moving vehicle is allowed only when it is not practicable to secure a warrant
because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the area or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.

Search of moving vehicle principle applies to fishing vessels and boats

Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for violations of customs laws have
been the traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a search warrant. It is rooted on the
recognition that a vessel and an aircraft, like motor vehicles, can be quickly moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought and secured. The same exception ought to apply to
seizures of fishing vessels and boats breaching fishery laws.

Case:
1. Saluday v. People, 03 April 2018

2. People vs. Jerry Sapla, G.R. No. 244045. June 16, 2020

b. Check points; body checks in airport

c. Plain view situation

Under the plain view doctrine, objects failing in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in that
position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in
evidence.

Elements of a valid seizure of evidence in plain view

(a) A prior valid intrusion in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
(b) The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are;
(c) The evidence must be immediately apparent;
(d) “Plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.

Evidence in plain view may be seized, although not described in the search warrant

Meaning of “immediately apparent”

At the time of the discovery of the object or facts or at the moment of seizure, the officer has probable
cause to connect the object to criminal activity.

Meaning of “inadvertence”

The officer must not have known in advance of the location of the evidence and intend to seize it.
Discovery is not anticipated.

d. Stop and frisk situation

 Scope
Limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons.

When stop and frisk is valid

Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his
experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and
dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes
reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable
fear for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a
carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be
used to assault him.

Mere suspicion is not enough for a “stop-and-frisk”; there must be “genuine reason” to believe
that the person has a concealed weapon

Mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a “stop-and-frisk”. A genuine reason must exist, in light of
the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has
weapons concealed about him.

e. Enforcement of custom laws

Enforcers of customs and tariff laws are authorized to effect searches, seizures, and arrests, and to
make seizure, among others, of any cargo, articles or other movable property when the same may be subject
to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws. They could lawfully open and examine
any box, trunk, envelope or other container wherever found when he had reasonable cause to suspect the
presence therein of dutiable articles introduced into the Philippines contrary to law; and likewise, to stop,
search and examine any vehicle, beast or person reasonably suspected of holding or conveying such
articles.

f. Exigent and Emergency circumstances

In People v. De Gracia (233 SCRA 716, [1994]), there were intelligence reports that the building was
being used as headquarters by the military rebels during a coup d’etat. A surveillance team was fired at by a
group of armed men coming out of the building and the occupants of said building refused to open the door
despite repeated requests. There were large quantities of explosives and ammunitions inside the building.
Nearby courts were closed and general chaos and disorder prevailed. The existing circumstances sufficiently
showed that a crime was being committed. In short, there was probable cause to effect a warrantless search of
the building.

g. Inspection of buildings and other premises for enforcement of fire, sanitary, and building
regulations,
Case: Saluday v. People, 03 April 2018
1. Who may assail the issuance of a search warrant?
Case: Santos vs. Pryce Gases, Inc., G.R. No. 165122
2. Remedies from unlawful search and seizure
Cases:World Wide Web Corporation, et al. v. People of the Philippines, et al./Planet Internet
Corporation v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, G.R. Nos. 161106/161266, January 13,
2014