Laud v. People PDF
Laud v. People PDF
Laud v. People PDF
Article/s Invoked:
Sec. 2, Art. III, Const. - 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.
Case Summary:
PNP applied for a warrant to search the Laud Compound caves for the remains of 6 people, who were victims
of the Davao Death Squad. Petitioner argued that it was illegally-seized evidence. Court ruled that the search
warrant was valid and human remains can be the subject of things to be searched.
2. W/N RTC – Manila had jurisdiction to issue the warrant despite non-compliance with the compelling
reasons requirement—YES.
• Special criminal cases,1 which include heinous crimes, may be filed by the PNP2 and must be
personally endorsed by the head of the agency. The search warrant must particularly describe the
places to be searched and the property or things to be seized. The application must be made to RTC –
Manila or QC, which may be acted upon by either the Executive or Vice Executive Judges of these
courts, if justified, which may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of said courts.
o A search warrant application involving a special criminal case excludes it from the compelling
reason requirement under Sec. 2, Rule 126 of the ROC.3
3. W/N the requirements of probable cause and particular description were complied with—YES.
• In order to protect the people’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures, Sec. 2 of Art. III
provides that no search warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath of 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.
o Existence of probable cause in this case is evident from the first-hand account of Avasola who
stated that he personally witnessed the commission of the crime and was part of the group that
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Law 122 – Constitutional Law 2
E2024 Professor Loanzon
buried the victims. The facts and circumstances established from this testimony sufficiently
show the likelihood that the crime of murder was committed.
o The Court found that the quantum of proof to establish the existence of probable cause4 had
been met. That a “considerable length of time” had passed after the crime does not negate the
veracity of the applicant’s claims or the witness testimony. As CA said, the delay may be
attributed to the witness’s fear and reluctance to get involved in a criminal case. The Court
decided that the supposed delay in the application does not dilute the probable cause finding
made.
• Similarly, the Court concluded that there was compliance with the constitutional requirement that there
be a particular description of “the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”5 The
search warrant particularly describes the place to be searched (the 3 caves located inside the Laud
Compound) and even included an explicit reference to the sketch contained in the application. These
are sufficient enough for the officers to ascertain and identify the place to be searched.
o The things to be searched were also particularly described, namely, the remains of the 6 victims
who were killed and buried in the premises.
o “Personal property” in the context of Sec. 3, Rule 126 of the ROC6 refers to the thing’s
mobility, not its capacity to be owned or alienated by a particular person. Art. 416 of the Civil
Code states that in general, all things which can be transported from place to place are deemed
to be personal property. Considering that human remains can generally be transported from
place to place, and considering further that they qualify under the phrase “subject of the
offense” given that they prove the crime’s corpus delicti, it follows that they may be valid
subjects of a search warrant.
o The term “human remains” is not all-embracing to subvert the particular description
requirement. The description points to no other than the things that bear a direct relation to the
offense of murder; the description is also perceived to be specific as the circumstances
ordinarily allow, given that the buried bodies would have naturally decomposed over time.
NOTES
1 Special criminal cases involve heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions, as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Intellectual
Property Code, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, and other
relevant laws that may hereafter be enacted by Congress, and included herein by the Supreme Court.
2
Aside from the PNP, it may also be filed by the NBI, the Anti-Crime Task Force.
3 SEC. 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. — An application for search warrant shall
be filed with the following:
However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be made in the court where
the criminal action is pending. (Emphasis supplied)
4 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. A finding of probable cause
needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that
it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than bare suspicion; it requires less than
evidence which would justify conviction. The existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion
of the judge conducting the examination. However, the findings of the judge should not disregard the facts
before him nor run counter to the clear dictates of reason. (Santos v. Pryce Gases, Inc.)
5A description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. Any
designation or description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on
inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement.
6SEC. 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.
7 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 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.