Rule 126 Searches and

Seizures
By: DCP Irene R. Medrano
Office of the City Prosecutor, Quezon City
• Definition of Search Warrant (SW)
• Where to File SW
• What are the things to be seized
• Requisites for the Issuance of SW
• Examination of Complainant
• How to Enforce SW
• Time of Making Search
• Validity SW
• Receipt of the Property Seized
• Delivery to the Court and Inventory
• Search Incidental to lawful arrest
• Motion to Quash SW/Suppress Evidence
Rule 126 Searches and Seizures

What is 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.
(Section 1, Rule 126)
 Is search warrant a criminal action?

It is not. A search warrant is not a criminal action nor does it

represent a commencement of a criminal action. It is not a
proceeding against a person but is solely for the discovery and
to get possession of personal property. Since it is not a
criminal action, it can be prosecuted without the direct control
and participation of the public prosecutor (Worldwide Web
Corp. vs. People, GR No. 161106, January 13, 2014)
 A constitutional law principle

The rule against unreasonable searches and seizures is a

protection against governmental intrusion. It does not extend
to acts committed by private individual and entities (Sesbreno
vs. CA, March 26, 2014)
 Constitutional Provision
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, 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 determine 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 search or the person or
things to be seized (1987 Constitution).
 Constitutional Provision

Section 3. “Any evidence obtained in violation of this or

preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceedings. (1987 Constitution).
 Where should application for search
warrant be filed?
- Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was
committed.

- 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. (Section 2, Rule 126)
What are the properties that may be
seized?

Stolen or embezzled
Subject of the and other proceeds,
offense or fruits of the
offense

Used or intended to
be used as the means
Section 3, Rule 126
of committing an
offense
 The Rule: Only personal properties
described in the SW may be seized.

Thus, the taking of lady’s wallet, cash, grinder, camera,

component, speakers, electric panel, jigsaw, etc., should not
have been taken because in the SW what is to be taken were
methamphetamine hydrochloride and paraphernalia. The
above items cannot be classified as “paraphernalia” (People
vs. Nunez, 591 SCRA 394).
 Requisites for the issuance of 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 (Section 4, Rule 126).
 Dissection of the Requisites for the
Issuance of Search Warrant

- It must be based upon probable cause in connection with

one specific offense.
- Probable cause must be determined by the judge himself
and not by the applicant or any other person.
- In the determination of probable cause, the judge must
examine, under oath, the complainant and such witnesses
he may produce
- The warrant issued must particularly describe the place to
be searched and the person or things to be seized.
 Probable Cause

What is probable cause in search

warrant?
The existence of such facts and circumstances
w h ich w ou ld lead a rea s o n a b l e d i s c r e e t a n d
prudent man to believe that the offense has been
committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place to be
searched. (Century Chinese Medicine Co. vs. People,
706 SCRA 177, 192)
 Probable Cause

- Probable cause is not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

(Century Chinese Medicine Co. vs. People, 706 SCRA
177, 192).

- But probable cause must be based on the personal

knowledge of the complainant and the witnesses (Uy vs.
BIR, 344 SCRA 36, 55-56)
“In connection with one specific offense”

The constitution requires that a search warrant must be issued

in connection with one specific offense. The single offense
requirement is meant to prevent the issuance a scattershot
warrant (Tampasen vs. People, 316 Phil. 237).
The one specific-offense requirement reinforces t he
constitutional requirement that a search warrant should issue
on the basis of probable cause (Stonehill vs. Diokno, G.R.
No. L-19550, 19June 1967).
 BUT!
The rule is not violated when search warrant
covers several counts of a certain specific offense
(Columbia Pictures vs. CA, G.R. No. 110318,
August 28, 1996).
 Note the following cases:
- People vs. Pastrana – search warrant was issued for
violation of RA No. 8799 (Securities Regulations Code) and
for Estafa, the SC ruled that it is a scattershot warrant (G.R.
No. 196045, February 21, 2018).

- People vs. Dichoso – the search warrant was issued for

violation of RA 6425 without specifying what provisions of
the law was violated. The SC upheld its validity (223 SCRA
174,191).
Particularity in the description of place to be
searched

RULE
In t he det ermi n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r a s e a r c h w a r r a n t
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. This would seem to be especially true where the
executing officer is the affiant on whose affidavit the
warrant had been issued, and when he knows that the
judge who issued the warrant intended the compound
described in the affidavit (Yao, Sr., vs.People, 525 SCRA
Particularity in the description of place to be
searched

RULE
Description of the place to be searched is sufficient if
the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish
if from other places in the community. Any designation
or description that points out the place to the exclusion
of others, and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to
it,satisfies the constitutional requirement.
 The search warrant here stated that the place to be searched was
appellant's "rented residence and its premises located [on] 6th Street,
Guingona Subdivision, Barangay 25, Jose P. Rizal, Butuan City."

If the searching officers are familiar with the place to be

searched, then the requirement of particularity is complied
with. The rule is that a description of the 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 (People vs. Magayon, G.R. No. 238873,
September 16, 2020).
 Particularity in the description of place
to be searched

RULE
The warrant is valid when it enabled the police officers
to readily identify the properties to be seized and leaves
them with no discretion regarding the articles to be
seized.
 Rule on particularity of things to be
seized
In Vallejo v. Court of Appeals, 471 Phil. 670, the Court clarified that
technical precision of description is not required. "It is only
necessary that there be reasonable particularity and certainty as to
the identity of the property to be searched for and seized, so that
the warrant shall not be a mere roving commission. Indeed, the law
does not require 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. If this were the rule, it would be
virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain a warrant as they
would not know exactly what kind of things to look for (cited in
Dimal vs. People, G.R. No. 216922,April 18, 2018).
 Particularity in the description of things
to be seized

Invalid Warrant
“Book of accounts, financial records, vouchers, journals,
correspondences, receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credit journal,
typewriters, and other documents and papers showing all
business transaction, including disbursement receipts, balance
sheets and related profits and loss statement…” Invalid warrant
(Stonehill vs. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383)
 Particularity in the description of things
to be seized

Invalid Warrant
“Television sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders, tape head
cleaners, accessories, equipment and other machines used or
intended to be used in unlawful reproduction, sale, rental/lease,
distribution of above-mentioned video tapes…. ( 20th Century
Fox Film Corp., vs. CA, 164 SCRA 655), 664-665)
 Particularity in the description of things
to be seized

Invalid Warrant
“multiple set of books, ledgers, journals, columnar books,
cash register books, sales books or records tapes…. ”
(Uy vs. BIR, 344 SCRA 36)
 Particularity in the description of things
to be seized

Valid Warrant
“Unlicensed firearms of various calibers and ammunitions
for said firearms” (Kho vs. Makalintal, 306 SCRA 70, 78-
79)
 Particularity in the description of things
to be seized

Valid Warrant
“Undetermined amount of marijuana or Indian hemp”
(People vs. Tee, 395 SCRA 419)
 How shall examination by the Judge be
conducted?

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.(Section 5, Rule 126).
 How shall examination by the Judge be
conducted?

Although there is no hard and fast rule governing how a judge

should conduct his investigation, it is nevertheless required
that the examination must be probing and exhaustive, not
merely routinary, general, peripheral, perfunctory or pro forma.
The judge must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit
but must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of
the application (Yao, Sr. vs. People, 525 SCRA 108, 131)
 What is the time frame for law enforcement
to implement the search warrant?

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.
(Section 9, Rule 126)
 How should the LE implement the
search warrant?
- No search of a house, room, or any other premises 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. (Section 8, Rule 126)

- 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. (Section 7, Rule 126)
 How should the LE implement the
search warrant?

- 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. (Section 11, Rule 126)
- 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. (Section 12 (a), Rule 126)
 WHAT SHOULD THE LE DO AFTER ENFORCING A
SEARCH WARRANT?

• 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.
• Make a report of the receipt of the property seized
• 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.
When can LE make an arrest even
without a search warrant
- Search incidental to a lawful arrest
- Seizure of evidence in plain view
- Consented warrantless search
- Custom search
- Stop and Frisk
- Exigent or emergency circumstances
- Search of vessels and aircraft
- Inspection of buildings and other premises for the
enforcement of fire, sanitary or building regulations
 Search incidental to a 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. (Section 13, Rule 126)
 Parameters of search incident to a
lawful arrest

- It is limited to search for dangerous weapon, for anything

that may have been used for the commission of the offense
or proof of the commission of the offense (Section 13,
Rule 126)

- Search can extend “within the area of immediate control” of

the person arrested. (Valeroso vs. CA, 598 SCRA 41, 55-
56)
 Parameters of search incident to a
lawful arrest

- Valeroso vs. CA, 598 SCRA 41 – the cabinet is situated in

the area different from where the accused was arrested or
temporarily detained. The cabinet is not an area within the
immediate reach and control of the accused.

- Espano vs. CA, 288 SCRA 558 – Accused was arrested

outside his house. The subsequent search of his house
after his arrest is invalid.
 Search of moving vehicles
- Peace officers are limited only to routine checks where
examination of a vehicle is limited to visual inspection.

- Before the vehicle may be subjected to extensive search,

such would be permissible only if officers made it upon
probable cause. i.e. upon belief, reasonably arising out of
the circumstances known to the seizing officers, that the
vehicle contains an item which by law is subject to seizure
(People vs. Libnao, cited in People vs. Breis, August 17,
2015).
 Checkpoints

- Allowed under exceptional circumstances, as when the

survival of organized government is on balance, or where
the lives and safety of the people are in grave peril
(Valmonte vs. DeVilla, 185 SCRA 665).

- For as long as the vehicle is neither searched not its

occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection
of the vehicle is limited to visual search, routine check is
valid. (See, People vs.Vinecario,420 SCRA 280)
 Illegal implementation of search
warrants may result in the following
violations:
Section Two- Violation of Domicile Art. 128. Violation of Domicile. –
The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon any public officer or employee who, not being authorized
by judicial order, shall enter any dwelling against the will of the owner
thereof, search papers or other effects found therein without the
previous consent of such owner, or, having surreptitiously entered said
dwelling, and being required to leave the premises, shall refuse to do
so. If the offense be committed in the nighttime, or if any papers or
effects not constituting evidence of a crime be not returned immediately
after the search made by the offender, the penalty shall be prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
 Illegal implementation of search warrants
may result in the following violations:
Art. 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 1,000 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.
Illegal implementation of search warrants
may result in the following violations:

AS AMENDED BY RA 10951
Section 5. Article 129 of the same Act is hereby amended to read
as follows:

"Art. 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 offense, the
penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión
correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding
(₱200,000) 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."
 Illegal implementation of search warrants
may result in the following violations:

Art. 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.
 Plain view doctrine

REQUISITES:
- Law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has
prior justification for an intrusion or in the position from
which he can view a particular area.

- The discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent.

- Object is immediately apparent to the officer that the item

he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or
otherwise subject to seizure ( Zalameda vs. People, 598
SCRA 537).
END OF PRESENTATION
THANK YOU