CRIMINAL PROCEDURE COURSE OUTLINE 2016 PART IV

ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE (RULES 113 and 126)

Requisites for issuance of search warrant and warrant of arrest
Sec. 2, Art. III, Constitution
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.
Inadmissibility of illegally obtained evidence
Sec. 3, par. 2, Art. III, Constitution
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.
Rights of a person arrested; custodial investigation
RA 7438 (1992)
Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties
of Public Officers.
(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be
assisted by counsel.
(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who
arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform
the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent
and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who
shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or
under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own
counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the
investigating officer.lawphi1
(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating
officer, provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested
or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately
explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating

officer in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise,
such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel
or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents,
elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district
school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such
extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by
such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void
and of no effect.
(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed
visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor
or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or
by his counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the
Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-governmental organization
duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person's "immediate family" shall
include his or her spouse, fianc or fiance, parent or child, brother or sister,
grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.
As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to
a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed,
without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.
Penalties for procuring search warrant without just cause and abuse in the service of those
legally obtained; searching domicile without witnesses; and unlawful arrest
Arts. 129, 130, and 269, Revised Penal Code
Article 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally
obtained. - In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other
offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public
officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause, or, having legally
procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in executing the
same.
Article 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium
and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who, in cases where
a search is proper, shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person, in the
absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their default, without the presence of two
witnesses residing in the same locality.
Article 269. Unlawful arrest. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos
shall be imposed upon any person who, in any case other than those authorized by law, or
without reasonable ground therefor, shall arrest or detain another for the purpose of delivering
him to the proper authorities.

Arrest of accused in cases under summary procedure - Sec. 16,

Revised Rule on Summary Procedure
Sec. 16. Arrest of accused. The court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for
failure to appear whenever required. Release of the person arrested shall either be on bail or on
recognizance by a responsible citizen acceptable to the court.
ARREST (Rule 113)
Definition of arrest - Sec. 1
Section 1. Definition of arrest. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he
may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense.
Judge not necessarily required to make a personal examination before
issuing warrant of arrest
Ocampo vs. Abando, G.R. No. 176830, February 11, 2014, citing People v. Grey, G.R.
No. 180109, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 523, 536.
Where Filed: RTC Hilongos, Leyte / RTC of Manila (Re-raffled)
Crime Committed: Multiple Murder
Doctrine: Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been
defined as "such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be
arrested." Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall be determined by
the judge after an examination under oath or an affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses, we have ruled that a hearing is not necessary for the determination
thereof. In fact, the judges personal examination of the complainant and the witnesses
is not mandatory and indispensable for determining the aptness of issuing a warrant of
arrest.

Although the Constitution provides that probable cause shall be determined by the
judge after an examination under oath or an affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses, a hearing is not necessary for the determination thereof;

Borlongan vs. Pena (G. R. No. 143591, May 5, 2010)

Where Filed: Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, Bago City.
Crime Committed: Falsification by a Private Individual and Use of Falsified
Document
Probable cause - existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense was committed by the
person sought to be arrested; determined to address the necessity of placing the
accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice (Hao vs. People)

How made Sec. 2

Section 2. Arrest; how made. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of a person to be
arrested, or by his submission to the custody of the person making the arrest.
No violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making an arrest. The person arrested shall
not be subject to a greater restraint than is necessary for his detention. (2a)
Duty of arresting officer Sec. 3
Section 3. Duty of arresting officer. It shall be the duty of the officer executing the warrant to
arrest the accused and to deliver him to the nearest police station or jail without unnecessary
delay. (3a)
Method of arrest of officer by virtue of a warrant Sec. 7
Section 7. Method of arrest by officer by virtue of warrant. When making an arrest by virtue
of a warrant, the officer shall inform the person to be arrested of the cause of the arrest and of
the fact that a warrant has been issued for his arrest, except when he flees or forcibly resists
before the officer has opportunity to so inform him, or when the giving of such information will
imperil the arrest. The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the
arrest but after the arrest, if the person arrested so requires, the warrant shall be shown to him
as soon as practicable. (7a)
Execution of warrant Sec. 4
Section 4. Execution of warrant. The head of the office to whom the warrant of arrest was
delivered for execution shall cause the warrant to be executed within ten (10) days from its
receipt. Within ten (10) days after the expiration of the period, the officer to whom it was
assigned for execution shall make a report to the judge who issued the warrant. In case of his
failure to execute the warrant, he shall state the reasons therefor. (4a)
Time of making arrest Sec. 6
Section 6. Time of making arrest. An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the
day or night. (6)
When arrest may be made day and time
Colorado vs. Agapito (A.M. No. MTJ-06-1658 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 01-1014-MTJ], July
3, 2007)
Where Filed: Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
Crime Committed: Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Authority
- an arrest may be made on any day regardless of what day the warrant of arrest was
issued. Nowhere in the Rules or in our jurisprudence can we find that a warrant of
arrest issued on a Friday is prohibited.

Arrest without warrant, when lawful Sec. 5 (Flagrante delicto, Hot Pursuit, Escapee)
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement
to another.
In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall
be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)

Method of arrest without warrant

Arrest by an officer Sec. 8
Section 8. Method of arrest by officer without warrant. When making an arrest without a
warrant, the officer shall inform the person to be arrested of his authority and the cause of the
arrest, unless the latter is either engaged in the commission of an offense, is pursued
immediately after its commission, has escaped, flees or forcibly resists before the officer has
opportunity so to inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest. (8a)
Arrest by a private person Sec. 9
Section 9. Method of arrest by private person. When making an arrest, a private person shall
inform the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him and cause of the arrest, unless the
latter is either engaged in the commission of an offense, is pursued immediately after its
commission, or has escaped, flees, or forcibly resists before the person making the arrest has
opportunity to so inform him, or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest. (9a)
In cases falling under in flagrante and hot pursuit exceptions, where to
deliver person arrested Sec. 5, last par.
In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall
be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)
Three instances when warrantless arrest may be effected

Ambre vs. People (G.R. No. 191532, August 15, 2012)

Where Filed: RTC of Caloocan
Crime Charged: Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia and Illegal Use of
Drugs
- Section 5, above, provides three (3) instances when warrantless arrest may be lawfully
effected: (a) arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b) arrest of a suspect where, based
on personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is probable cause that said suspect
was the perpetrator of a crime which had just been committed; (c) arrest of a prisoner
who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily confined during the
pendency of his case or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another.
Fourth instance when person previously lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued Sec. 13
Section 13. Arrest after escape or rescue. If a person lawfully arrested escapes or is
rescued, any person may immediately pursue or retake him without a warrant at any time and in
any place within the Philippines. (13)
In flagrante delicto Par. (a) Sec. 5
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
Valid arrest
People vs. Eduardo Dela Cruz (G.R. No. 205414 April 4, 2016)
CRIME CHARGED: Illegal sale of dangerous drugs (Valium, which contains
diazepam, a dangerous drug)
WHERE FILED: RTC of Manila, Branch 2
- There is overwhelming evidence that appellant was actually committing a crime in the
presence of the police officers who arrested him without a warrant. Straightforward and
unwavering testimonies were presented by the prosecution narrating, in detail, how the
police officers personally witnessed the sale by appellant of the dangerous drug, being
actual participants of the buy-bust operation. A buy-bust operation is a form of
entrapment, in which the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers
conducting the operation are not only authorized, but duty-bound, to apprehend the
violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the
commission of the crime.
Peope vs. Usman (G.R. No. 201100, February 4, 2015)
CRIME CHARGED: Illegal sale of dangerous drugs (Shabu)
WHERE FILED: RTC of Manila, Branch 23
-. Since accused-appellant was caught by the buy-bust team in flagrante delicto, his
immediate arrest was also validly made. The accused was caught in the act and had to
be apprehended on the spot.

People vs. Araza (G.R. No. 190623, November 17, 2014)

CRIME CHARGED: Illegal posession of dangerous drugs (Shabu)
WHERE FILED: RTC of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 93
-Araza was clearly apprehended in flagrante delicto as he was then committing a
crime (sniffing shabu) in the presence of PO1 Talacca; his warrantless arrest is valid
pursuant to Section 5(a) of the above-quoted Rule 113 of the Rules of Court
People vs. Adriano (G.R. No. 208169, October 8, 2014)
CRIME CHARGED: Illegal sale of dangerous drugs (Shabu)
WHERE FILED: RTC (Taguig City)
- A buy-bust operation is "a form of entrapment, in which the violator is caught in
flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized
but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have
been part of or used in the commission of the crime."
Invalid arrest
Sanchez vs. People (G.R. No. 204589, November 19, 2014)
CRIME CHARGED: SEC 11, ART 2, RA 9165
WHERE FILED: RTC IMUS, CAVITE
- no overt physical act could be properly attributed to Sanchez as to rouse suspicion in
the minds of the police operatives that he had just committed, was committing, or was
about to commit a crime..
People vs. Andaya (G.R. No. 183700 October 13, 2014)
CRIME CHARGED: Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs of RA 9165
WHERE FILED: RTC Batangas
- confidential informant was not a police officer. none of the members of the buy-bust
team had directly witnessed the transaction, if any, between Andaya and the poseur
buyer due to their being positioned at a distance from the poseur buyer and Andaya at
the moment of the supposed transaction.
People vs. Cogaed, (G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014)
CRIME CHARGED:
WHERE FILED: RTC La Union
- At the time of his apprehension, Cogaed has not committed, was not committing, or
was about to commit a crime. As in People v. Chua, for a warrantless arrest of in
flagrante delicto to be affected, two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested
must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit a crime; and
(2) such overt act is done in the presence or
within the view of the arresting officer.; Both elements were missing when Cogaed was
arrested. There were no overt acts within plain view of the police officers that suggested
that Cogaed was in possession of drugs at that time.

Hot pursuit Par. (b), Sec. 5

(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and
Pestilos vs. Generoso (G.R. No. 182601, November 10, 2014)
CRIME CHARGED: Attempted Murder
WHERE FILED: RTC Quezon City
(1) an offense has just been committed; and
(2) the arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.
Waiver of illegal arrest does not mean waiver of inadmissibility of evidence
Dela Cruz vs. People (G.R. No. 200748, July 23, 2014)
CRIME CHARGED: Extortion
WHERE FILED: RTC Cebu
- petitioner never raised the alleged irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment and
raises the issue only now before this tribunal; hence, he is deemed to have waived his
right to question the validity of his arrest curing whatever defect may have attended his
arrest. However, a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not mean a waiver of the
inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest.
Antiquera vs. People (G.R. No. 180661, December 11, 2013)
CRIME CHARGED: illegal possession of paraphernalia for dangerous drugs
WHERE FILED: RTC Pasay City
- no crime was plainly exposed to the view of the arresting officers that authorized the
arrest of accused Antiquera without warrant; considering that his arrest was illegal, the
search and seizure that resulted from it was likewise illegal; the various drug
paraphernalia that the police officers allegedly found in the house and seized are
inadmissible, having proceeded from an invalid search and seizure.
- failure of the accused to object to the irregularity of his arrest by itself is not enough to
sustain his conviction. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a
waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest.
Waiver of illegality of arrest
Roallos vs. People, G.R. No. 198389, December 11, 2013
Where Filed: RTC Quezon City
Crime Committed: Acts of Lasciviousness
- the accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity attending his arrest should he
fail to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground prior to
arraignment; accused is deemed to have waived his right to a preliminary investigation

by entering his plea and actively participating in the trial without raising the lack of a
preliminary investigation
Effect of admission to bail on objections to an illegal arrest Sec. 26, Rule 114

SEARCH WARRANT

WARRANT OF ARREST

The applicant must show:

The applicant must show:

1. that the items sought are in fact seizable by
virtue of being connected with criminal 1. probable cause that an offense has been
committed; and
activity; and
2. that the items will be found in the place to 2. that the person to be arrested committed it
be searched.
The judge must conduct a personal, searching The judge need not conduct a personal
examination of the applicant and his witnesses examination of the applicant and his witnesses.
He may rely on the affidavits of the witnesses

and the recommendation of the prosecutor.

Section 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of or irregular preliminary
investigation. An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from
challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from
assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge
against him, provided that he raises them before entering his plea. The court shall resolve the
matter as early as practicable but not later than the start of the trial of the case. (n)
Leviste vs. Alameda, G.R. No. 182677, August 3, 2010
Where Filed: RTC Makati City
Crime Committed: Homicide
By applying for bail, petitioner did not waive his right to challenge the regularity of the
reinvestigation of the charge against him, the validity of the admission of the Amended
Information, and the legality of his arrest under the Amended Information, as he
vigorously raised them prior to his arraignment.

RULE 126 (SEARCH AND SEIZURE)

1. The Constitution does not prohibit all kinds of searches and seizures. It only prohibits
unreasonable searches and seizures.
2. A search and seizure is unreasonable if it is made without a warrant, or the warrant was
invalidly issued.
3. A search and seizure without a warrant is still reasonable if conducted under the
following circumstances:
a. Incident to a lawful arrest It must be made AFTER the arrest. The objective is to
make sure that the life of the peace officer will not be endangered. It must be
contemporaneous with the arrest in both time and place.
b. Search of moving vehicles
c. Consent searches Only the person whose right may be violated can give the
consent; it is a personal right. The requisites are: (1) The person has knowledge
of his right against the search; (2) He freely gives his consent in spite of such
knowledge.
d. Objects in plain view Requisites:
i. (1) There must have been a prior valid intrusion, and the officer must
have had a right to be at the place searched at the time of the search;
ii. (2) The evidence was inadvertently discovered;

10

iii. (3) The evidence must be immediately apparent;

iv. (4) There was no need for further search.
e. Customs searches
f.

Stop and Frisk/ Exigent circumstances

g. Emergency

Search and seizure defined Sec. 1

Section 1. Search warrant defined. 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. (1)
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Romars International Gases Corporation (G.R. No.
189669, February 16, 2015)
Where Filed: RTC Naga City
Crime Committed: Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8293, Section 2 of R.A. No. 623
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 and bring it before the court.
Court where application for search warrant shall be filed Sec. 2
Section 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. An application for search
warrant shall be filed with the following:
a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.
b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial region
where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known, or
any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.
However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be made in the
court where the criminal action is pending. (n)
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Romars International Gases Corporation (G.R.
No. 189669, February 16, 2015)
Where Filed: RTC Naga City
Crime Committed: Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8293, Section 2 of R.A. No. 623
An application for a search warrant is a "special criminal process," the power to issue which
is inherent in all courts, and jurisdiction over which is reposed in specific courts of indicated

11

competence. The requisites, procedure and purpose for the issuance of a search warrant are
completely different from those for the institution of a criminal action.
A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process akin to a writ of discovery. It is a
special and peculiar remedy, drastic in its nature, and made necessary because of a public
necessity. Thus, the rule that venue is jurisdictional does not apply thereto. Evidently, the
issue of whether the application should have been filed in RTC-Iriga City or RTC-Naga, is not
one involving jurisdiction because the power to issue a special criminal process is inherent in all
courts. The RTC-Naga had jurisdiction to issue criminal processes such as a search warrant.
Personal property to be seized Sec. 3
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. (2a)
Requisites for issuing search warrant Sec. 4
Section 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. (3a)
Retired SPO4 Laud vs. People (G.R. No. 199032, November 19, 2014)
Where filed: RTC of Manila
Crime charged: Murder
- was intended to prevent the issuance of scattershot warrants, or those which are
issued for more than one specific offense.
- a search warrant that covers several counts of a certain specific offense does not
violate the one-specific-offense rule
- where several counts of the offense of copyright infringement and the search warrant
uncovered several contraband items in the form of pirated video tapes is not to be
confused with the number of offenses charged. The search warrant herein issued does
not violate the one-specific-offense rule (Citing Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. CA, 329 Phil.
875 [1996])
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Alvarez (G.R. No. 179408, March 5,
2014)
Where filed: RTC of Pasay
=Crime charged: Theft and violation of PD No. 401
Requirements for the issuance of a search warrant:

12

(1) the existence of probable cause;

(2) the probable cause must be determined personally by the judge;
(3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the
complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce;
(4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them;
(5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to
be seized.
- Should any of these requisites be absent, the party aggrieved by the issuance and
enforcement of the search warrant may file a motion to quash the search warrant with
the issuing court or with the court where the action is subsequently instituted
Examination of complainant by the judge Sec. 5
Section 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. (4a)

Century Chinese Medicine Co. vs. People (G.R. No. 188526, November 11, 2013)
Where filed: RTC of Makati
Crime charged: Violation of Sec. 168 in relation to Sec. 170 (unfair competition)
and Sec. 155 in relation to Sec. 170 (trademark infringement) of RA 8293 (Intellectual
Property Code)
- A core requisite before a warrant shall validly issue is the existence of a probable
cause, meaning the existence of 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.
Distinguish from warrant of arrest where personal examination is not required
Particular description of place or person
A search warrant must state particularly the place to be searched and the objects to be seized.
The evident purpose for this requirement is to limit the articles to be seized only to those
particularly described in the search warrant. This is a protection against potential abuse. It is
necessary to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they shall
seize, to the end that no unreasonable searches and seizures be committed.
Retired SPO4 Laud vs. People (G.R. No. 199032, November 19, 2014)
- 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.
Del Castillo v. People (G.R. No.185128, January 30, 2012, 664 SCRA 430)

13

- the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and
persons or things to be seized in order for it to be valid. A designation or description that
points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry
unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of
definiteness;
Issuance and form of search warrant Sec. 6
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. (5a)
Right to break door or window to effect search Sec. 7
Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. The officer, if refused admittance
to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open
any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to
execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully
detained therein. (6)
Search to be made in the presence of witnesses Sec. 8
Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence of two witnesses. No
search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the
lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. (7a)
Receipt for the property seized Sec. 11
Section 11. Receipt for the property seized. The officer seizing property under the warrant
must give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose
presence the search and seizure were made, or in the absence of such occupant, must, in the
presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality,
leave a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property. (10a)
Time of making search Sec. 9
Section 9. Time of making search. The warrant must direct that it be served in the day time,
unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be
searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or
night. (8)
Distinguish from warrant of arrest Rule 113, Sec. 6

14

Section 6. Time of making arrest. An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the
day or night. (6)
Validity of search warrant Sec. 10
Section 10. Validity of search warrant. A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from
its date. Thereafter it shall be void. (9a)
Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; duty of judge; return and
other proceedings Sec. 12
Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and proceedings thereon.
(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant,
together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath.
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing judge shall ascertain if
the return has been made, and if none, shall summon the person to whom the warrant
was issued and require him to explain why no return was made. If the return has been
made, the judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule has been complained
with and shall require that the property seized be delivered to him. The judge shall see to
it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of the log
book on search warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return, the result, and
other actions of the judge.
A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.(11a)
Search incident to lawful arrest Sec. 13
Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a search warrant. (12a)
People vs. Araza (G.R. No. 190623, November 17, 2014)
Crime charged: violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)
Where filed: RTC- San Pedro, Laguna
- The Constitution states that failure to secure a judicial warrant prior to the
actual search and consequent seizure would render it unreasonable and any
evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.. The constitutional prohibition, however, admits of the following
exceptions; having been lawfully arrested, the warrantless search that followed was
undoubtedly incidental to a lawful arrest, which is an exception to the constitutional
prohibition on warrantless search and seizure. Conversely, the shabu seized from
Araza is admissible in evidence to prove his guilt of the offense charged.

15

People vs. Calantiao (G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014)

Crime charged: violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)
Where filed: RTC- Caloocan City
- Purpose of allowing a warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest is
to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might
be armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying
evidence within reach.
- It is therefore a reasonable exercise of the States police power to protect (1) law
enforcers from the injury that may be inflicted on them by a person they have
lawfully arrested; and (2) evidence from being destroyed by the arrestee. It seeks
to ensure the safety of the arresting officers and the integrity of the evidence under
the control and within the reach of the arrestee.
Objection to issuance or service of warrant
Santos vs. Pryce Gases, Inc. (G. R. No. 165122, November 23, 2007
Crime charged: Section 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 623, as amended by R.A.
No. 5700
On Warrants: filed a Motion to Quash the warrant
Where filed: RTC- Iloilo City
- Well-settled is the rule that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the
party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and the objection to an unlawful
search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties.
Motion to quash search or to suppress evidence; where to file Sec. 14
Section 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence; where to file. A
motion to quash a search warrant and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in
and acted upon only by the court where the action has been instituted. If no criminal action has
been instituted, the motion may be filed in and resolved by the court that issued the search
warrant. However, if such court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequent
filed in another court, the motion shall be resolved by the latter court. (n)
Probable cause for issuance of search warrant
A search warrant may be issued only if there is probable cause in connection with only one
specific offense alleged in an application on the basis of the applicants personal knowledge and
his or her witnesses.
HPS Software and Communication Corporation vs. Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company (PLOT) (G.R. No. 170217, December 10, 2012)
Crime charged: Theft and Violation of PD 401
Where filed: RTC- Mandaue City
Probable cause, as a condition for the issuance of a search warrant, is such reasons
supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man to believe that his

16

action and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just and proper. It requires facts
and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with that
offense are in the place to be searched.
Disini, Jr. vs. The Secretary of Justice (G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014)
Crime charged: Consolidated Petitions that assail the constitutionality of RA
10175 (Cybercrime Law).
Where filed:
- 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; referring to factual and practical
considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians,
act.
Century Chinese Medicine Co. vs. People ( G.R. No. 188526, November 11, 2013)
Where Filed: RTC of Makati
Crime Charged: Violation of Intellectual Property Rights under RA 8293
- The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards
of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. As implied by the
words themselves, "probable cause" is concerned with probability, not absolute or even
moral certainty. The prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man, not the exacting
calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial.
Tan vs. Tiong Gue (G.R. No. 174570, December 15, 2010)
Where Filed: RTC Manila
Crime Charged: Robbery
- a search warrant may be issued only if there is probable cause in connection with only one
specific offense alleged in an application on the basis of the applicant's personal knowledge
and his or her witnesses; cannot utilize the evidence seized by virtue of the search warrants
issued in connection with the case of Robbery in a separate case of Qualified Theft, even if
both cases emanated from the same incident.
When warrantless search and seizure valid
a) Search incidental to lawful arrest
Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.

People vs. Nuevas (G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007, 516 SCRA 463)
Where Filed: RTC of Olongapo
Crime Charged: Violation of Section 8, Article 2 of RA 6425
- search incidental to a lawful arrest is sanctioned by the Rules of Court. The arrest
must precede the search; the process cannot be reversed as in this case where the
search preceded the arrest. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous
with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the

17

arrest at the outset of the search.

Buy-bust operation
People vs. Collado (G.R. No. 185719, June 17, 2013)
Where Filed: RTC of Pasig
Crime Charged: violations of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
- The arrest of the appellants was an arrest in flagrante delicto made in
pursuance of Sec. 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court; the subsequent search
and seizure made by the police officers were likewise valid.
People vs. Araneta (G.R. No. 191064, October 20, 2010)
Where Filed: RTC of Pasig
Crime Charged: violating Section 5 and Section 11 of Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Drugs
Act of 2002.
- search warrant or warrant of arrest was not needed because it was a buy-bust
operation and the accused were caught in flagrante delicto in possession of, and
selling, dangerous drugs to the poseur-buyer. It was definitely legal for the buybust team to arrest, and search, them on the spot because a buy-bust operation is
a justifiable mode of apprehending drug pushers, provided due regard to
constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.

Invalid Search
Sanchez vs. People (G.R. No. 190623, November 17, 2014)
Where Filed: RTC Imus cavite
Crime Charged: Violation of Sec 11, RA 9165
- A search as an incident to a lawful arrest is sanctioned by the Rules of Court. It
bears emphasis that the law requires that the search be incidental to a lawful
arrest. Therefore it is beyond cavil that a lawful arrest must precede the search of
a person and his belongings; the process cannot be reversed; Here, the search
preceded the arrest of Sanchez. There was no arrest prior to the conduct of the
search.

b) Consented search ((waiver of right)

Requisites: People vs. Nuevas (G.R. NO. 170233, February 22, 2007
Where filed: RTC Olongapo
Crime: Illegal Possession of Marijuana
(1) the right exists
(2) the person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the
existence of such right; and
(3) the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
c) Search of moving vehicle
People vs. Mariacos (G.R. No. 188611, June 16, 2010)

18

Where filed: RTC San Fernando, La Union

Crime: Violation of Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for
the vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the
warrant must be sought.
d) Check points; body checks in airport
Abenes vs. Court of Appeals (G. R. No. 156320, February 14, 2007)
Where filed: RTC Pagadian City
Crime Charged: Illegal Possession of High Powered Firearm and
Ammunition under PD 1866 and violation of Omnibus Election Code on
Gun Ban during election period.
- not all checkpoints are illegal. Those which are warranted by the exigencies of
public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed; as
long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search,
and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine checks
cannot be regarded as violative of an individuals right against unreasonable search.
In fact, these routine checks, when conducted in a fixed area, are even less intrusive.
- firearm was seized from the petitioner when in plain view, the policemen saw it
tucked into his waist uncovered by his shirt.
People vs. Vicenerao (G.R. No. 141137, January 20, 2004)
Where filed: RTC of Davao City
Crime: Violation of Article IV of R.A. 6425 (Dangerous Drubs Act of 1972,
as amended by R.A. 7659)
- Searches conducted in checkpoints are valid for as long as they are warranted by
the exigencies of public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists
e) Plain view situation
Elements- Sanchez vs. People (G.R. No. 190623, November 17, 2014)
Where Filed: RTC San Pero Laguna
Crime Charged: Violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of
2002
(1) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification
for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
(2) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and
(3) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be
evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
People v. Mariacos (G.R. No. 188611, June 21, 2010, 621 SCRA 327)
Where Filed: RTC San Fernando City, La Union
Crime Charged: Violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of
2002
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the
police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;

19

(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to
be where they are;
(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and;
(d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.
Applicable
Miclat, Jr. vs. People (G.R. No. 176077, August 31, 2011, 656 SCRA 539)
Where Filed: RTC Caloocan City
Crime Charged: Violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of
2002
- What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure is
purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the
circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the
presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and
seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles
procured.
People vs. Nuevas (G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007, 516 SCRA 463)
Where Filed: RTC Olongapo City
Crime Charged: Illegal Possession of Marijuana
- An object is in plain view if it is plainly exposed to sight. Where the object
seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and
therefore cannot be seized without a warrant; if the package proclaims its
contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its
contents are obvious to an observer, then the contents are in plain view and may
be seized; if the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from
its appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is deemed in
plain view. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they
observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure

Not applicable

People vs. Calantiao (G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014)

Where Filed: RTC Caloocan City
Crime Charged: Violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of
2002
- Plain View Doctrine thus finds no applicability in this case because the police
officers purposely searched him upon his arrest. The police officers did not
inadvertently come across the black bag, which was in Calantiaos possession;
they deliberately opened it, as part of the search incident to Calantiaos lawful
arrest.
Valeroso vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 164815, September 3, 2009)
Where Filed: RTC of Quezon City
Crime Charged: Violation of P.D. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearm)

20

-"plain view doctrine" may not be used to launch unbridled searches and
indiscriminate seizures or to extend a general exploratory search made solely to
find evidence of defendant's guilt. The doctrine is usually applied where a police
officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless
inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.
Because a warrantless search is in derogation of a constitutional right, peace
officers who conduct it cannot invoke regularity in the performance of official
functions.
f) Stop and frisk situation or Terry search
Invalid Search
Sanchez vs. People (G.R. No. 190623, November 17, 2014)
Where Filed: RTC, Branch 93, San Pedro Laguna
Crime Charged: Illegal Possession of Shabu
- no valid stop-and-frisk search; coming out from the house of a drug pusher
and
boarding a tricycle, without more, were innocuous movements, and by
themselves
alone could not give rise in the mind of an experienced and prudent police officer
of
any belief that he had shabu in his possession, or that he was

probably

committing a
crime in the presence of the officer.
People vs. Cogaed, (G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014)
Where Filed: RTC San Fernando City, La Union
Crime Charged: Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165 (Possession of
Dangerous Drugs)
- He was simply a passenger carrying a bag and traveling aboard a jeepney.
There
was nothing suspicious, moreover, criminal, about riding a jeepney or carrying a bag.
The assessment of suspicion was not made by the police officer but by the jeepney
driver;
Two-Fold Interest:
the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection; and
safety and self-preservation
Esquillo vs. People (G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010)
Where Filed: RTC, Branch 116, Pasay City
Crime Charged: Violation of Sec. 11 Art. II of R.A. 9165 (Possession of
Shabu)
- essential is that a genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer's
experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person who
manifests unusual suspicious conduct has weapons or contraband concealed
about him.
- The search/seizure of the suspected shabu initially noticed in petitioner's
possession - later voluntarily exhibited to the police operative- was undertaken

21

after she was interrogated on what she placed inside a cigarette case, and after
PO1 Cruz introduced himself to petitioner as a police officer. And, at the time of
her arrest, petitioner was exhibiting suspicious behavior and in fact attempted to
flee after the police officer had identified himself.
g) Enforcement of custom laws
Tarriff and Customs Code authorizes customs officer to:
a. Enter, pass through or search any land, enclosure, warehouse;
b. Inspect/search/examine any vessel/aircraft and any trunk/ package/box/
envelope or any person on board
c. Stop and examine any vehicle/boat/person suspected of holding/conveying
any dutiable/prohibited articles introduced into the Philippines contrary to law.
Salvador vs. People (G.R. No. 146706, August 15, 2005)
Where Filed: RTC, Branch 117, Pasay City
Crime Charged: Violation of Sec. 3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code
-

law enforcers who are tasked to effect the enforcement of the customs and
tariff laws are authorized to search and seize, without a search warrant, any
article, cargo or other movable property when there is reasonable cause to
suspect that the said items have been introduced into the Philippines in
violation of the tariff and customs law. They may likewise conduct a
warrantless search of any vehicle or person suspected of holding or
conveying the said articles.

Exceptions to search warrant requirement

To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5 of Rule 113, two
requisites must concur:
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and
(2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
(Ambre vs. People, G.R. No. 191532, August 15, 2012) a) Search incidental to lawful arrest
Sec. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. A person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a search warrant.
It is important to note that the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, and
the corresponding testimony of the arresting officers on the buy-bust transaction, can only be
overcome through clear and convincing evidence showing either of two things: (1) that they
were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DENNIS E. TANCINCO, G.R. No. 200598, June 18. 2014,
J. Perez
The accused cannot claim that the evidence obtained from a search conducted incident to an
arrest is inadmissible because it is violative of the plain view doctrine. The plain view doctrine
only applies to cases where the arresting officer is not searching for evidence against the

22

accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. MEDARIO CALANTIAO y DIMALANTA, G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014, J.
Leonardo-De Castro
b) Consented search
Determination of Voluntary Consent to a Search
Whether consent to the search was in fact voluntary is a question of fact to be determined from
the totality of all the circumstances. Relevant to this determination are the following
characteristics of the person giving consent and the environment in which consent is given:
(1) the age of the defendant;(2) whether the defendant was in a public or a secluded location;(3)
whether the defendant objected to the search or passively looked on; (4) the education and
intelligence of the defendant;(5) the presence of coercive police procedures;(6) the defendants
belief that no incriminating evidence would be found; (7) the nature of the police questioning;(8)
the environment in which the questioning took place; and
(9) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting. It is the State that has the
burden of proving, by clear and positive testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained,
and was freely and voluntarily given. In this case, all that was alleged was that petitioner was
alone at the police station at three in the morning, accompanied by several police officers.
These circumstances weigh heavily against a finding of valid consent to a warrantless search.
(Luz vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012)
c) Search of moving vehicled) Check points; body checks in airport Airport Frisking
Persons may lose the protection if the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons
or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which
expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in
airport security procedures. With increased concern about airplane high jacking and terrorism
has come increased security at the nations airports. Passengers attempting to board an aircraft
routinely pass through metal detectors; their carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage are
routinely subjected to x-ray scans. Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious
objects, physical searches are conducted to determine what the objects are. There is little
question that such searches are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of
safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy expectations associated with airline travel.
(People of the Philippines vs. Hadji Socor Cadidia, GR No. 191263, October 16, 2013)
e) Plain view situation
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an officer, who has a right to
be in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. It
applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the
evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a
particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and (c) it is
immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an
initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the
course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating
the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand, and its discovery inadvertent. (Elenita

23

C. Fajardo vs. People of the Philippines., G.R. No. 190889, January 10, 2011)
f) Stop and frisk situation
g) Enforcement of custom laws
h) Remedies from unlawful search and seizureMay non-parties question validity of search
warrant?
It is not correct to say that only the parties to the application for search warrant can question its
issuance or seek suppression of evidence seized under it the proceeding for the issuance of
search warrant does not partake of an action where a party complains of a violation of his right
by another. (Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Rizza G. Mendoza, G.R. No. 170425,
April 23, 2012)
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
When is arrest not necessary?
When the accused voluntarily appears after a complaint has been filed against him and gives
bond for his appearance at anytime he is called.
What is the remedy for warrants improperly issued?
Petition to quash it.
What are the requisites for a valid search warrant and warrant of arrest?
1.
It must be issued upon probable cause;
2.
The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge himself;
3.
The determination of the existence of probable cause must be made after
examination by the judge of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce;
and
4.
The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.
What constitustes arrest?
The actual restraint on a person, the deprivation of his own will and liberty, binding him to
become obedient to the will of the law.
Within what period must a warrant of arrest be served?
There is no time period. A warrant of arrest is valid until the arrest is effected or until it is lifted.
The head of the office to whom the warrant was delivered must cause it to be executed within
10 days from its receipt, and the officer to whom it is assigned for execution must make a report
to the judge who issued it within 10 days from the expiration of the period. If he fails to execute
it, he should state the reasons therefor.
Who are authorized to make warrantless arrest?
Peace officers and private persons.
Why are the requirements for the issuance of a search warrant more stringent than the
requirements for the issuance of a warrant of arrest?

24

The violation of the right to privacy produces a humiliating effect which cannot be rectified
anymore. This is why there is no other justification for a search, except a warrant. On the other
hand, in a warrant of arrest, the person to be arrested can always post bail to prevent the
deprivation of liberty.
Where should the application for search warrant be filed?
As a general rule, it should be filed with the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the crime
was committed.
But for compelling reasons, it can be filed with the court within whose judicial region the offense
was committed or where the warrant is to be served.
Example of this: The drug syndicate stores its drugs in Pasay. It has connections in Pasay and
can easily get a tip when the police officers will file for a search warrant. To avoid the drug
syndicate from getting a tip of the impending search, the police officer may apply for a search
warrant in Makati (within the RTC region), stating the compelling reason.
But, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application for a search warrant can only be
made in the court where the criminal action is pending.
What may be the subject of a search warrant?
Personal property, which is:
1. subject of the offense,
2. stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense, or
3. used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.
What are the requisites for issuing a search warrant?
1. There must be probable cause
2. Which must be determined personally by the judge
3. upon personal examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and his
witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers on facts personally
known to them
4. the probable cause must be in connection with one specific offense
5. particularly describing the place to be searched and the items to be seized
6. the sworn statements together with the affidavits of the witnesses must be attached to
the record.
When is the affidavit or testimony of the witness said to be based on personal
knowledge?
The test is whether perjury could be charged against the witness.
Is it necessary that the person named in the search warrant be the owner of the things to
be seized?
No. Ownership is of no consequence. What is relevant is that the property is connected to an
offense.
What are the requisites of the personal examination that the judge must conduct before
issuing the search warrant?
The judge must:

25

1. examine the witnesses personally;

2. under oath;
3. and reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and answers.
What is a scatter shot warrant?
It is a warrant of arrest that is issued for more than one offense. It is void, since the law requires
that a warrant of arrest should only be issued in connection with one specific offense.
A warrant was issued for the seizure of drugs connected with violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Law. Is the warrant valid?
The warrant is valid. Although there are many ways of violating the Dangerous Drugs Law, it is
not a scatter shot warrant since it is in connection with only one penal law.
Police officers applied for a warrant to search Door #1 of an apartment complex. The
court issued the warrant. When the went to the apartment complex, they realized that
what they thought was Door #1 was actually Door #7. Can they search Door #7?
No. What is controlling is what is stated in the warrant, not what the peace officers had in mind,
even if they were the ones who gave the description to the court. This is to prevent abuses in
the service of search warrants.
Can the police officer seize anything that is not included in the warrant?
No. Anything not included in the warrant cannot be seized EXCEPT if it is mala prohibita, in
which case, the seizure can be justified under the plain view doctrine.
Even if the object was related to the crime, but it is not mentioned in the warrant nor is it mala
prohibita, it still cannot be seized.
Police officers went to a house to execute a search warrant. They found a pistol on the
table, but the pistol was not included in the search warrant. Can they seize the pistol?
No. It is not mala prohibita, and they have no proof that it is unlicensed.
What should the police officer or court do to things seized illegally?
Anything seized illegally must be returned to the owner unless it is mala prohibita. In this case, it
should be kept in custodia legis.
When should the search warrant be executed?
If possible, it should be executed during the daytime. But in certain cases, such as when the
things to be seized are mobile or are in the person of the accused, it can be served during
nighttime.
For how long is the search warrant valid?
It is valid for 10 days, after which the peace officer should make a return to the judge who
issued it. If the peace officer does not make a return, the judge should summon him and require
him to explain why no return was made. If the return was made, the judge should determine if
the peace officer issued a receipt to the occupant of the premises from which the things were
taken. The judge shall also order the delivery to the court of the things seized.
If the warrant was executed even before the expiration of the ten-day period, can the
peace officer use the warrant again before it expires?
No. If the purpose for which it was issued has already been carried out, the warrant cannot be
used anymore. The exception is if the search was not finished within one day, the warrant can
still be used the next day, provided that it is still within the 10-day period.

26

27