Criminal Procedure

Prepared by:
PLTCOL Hilberth Tacon Balanay

1
 RULE 126
SEARCH AND SEIZURE

2
 What is a 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.S1 R126

3
 Search Warrant
A search warrant proceeding is in no sense a criminal action or the
commencement of a prosecution. The proceeding is not one against any
person, but is solely for the discovery and to get possession of personal
property. It however has no relation to a civil process. It concerns the public at
large as distinguished from the ordinary civil action involving the rights of
persons. It may only be applied for in furtherance of public prosecution.
(United Laboratories, Inc vs. Isip, G.R No. 163858, 28 June 2005)

However a private individual or a private corporation complaining to the NBI

or to a government agency charged with the enforcement of special penal
laws, such as the BFAD, may appear, participate and file pleadings in the
search warrant proceedings to maintain the validity of a search warrant issued
by the court and the admissibility of properties seized in anticipation of a
criminal case to be filed; such private party may do so in collaboration with
the NBI or such government agency.

4
 Constitutional Provision on Search Warrant

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. Section 2,
Article III, 1987 Constitution
5
 Who may issue a search warrant?
For the guidance of the bench and the bar, we reaffirm the
following principles:

1. Under Article III, Section 2, of the l987 Constitution, it is

only judges, and no other, who may issue warrants of arrest
and search:

2. The exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and

undesirable aliens, whom the President or the Commissioner of
Immigration may order arrested, following a final order of
deportation, for the purpose of deportation.
SALAZAR vs. ACHACOSO, G.R. No. 81510 March 14,
6
1990
 Distinguish Search Warrant from Warrant of Arrest
Search Warrant Warrant of Arrest

For the seizure of For the seizure of a

personal property person

It may be issued even if May only be issued only

there is no criminal case in connection with a
filed in court criminal case filed in
court
Ten (10) days validity Remain valid until
served/revoked

7
 Filing of Application for Search Warrant
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. S2 R126

8
 What are the personal property which may be
seized under the warrant ?

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. S3 R126

9
 Requisites for the Issuance of Search Warrant

The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are:

a) There must be a probable cause;
b) The probable cause must be determined personally
by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce;
c) The search warrant must particularly describe the
place to be searched and the things to be seized;
d) The search warrant shall issue in connection with
one specific offense only. S4 R126

10
 People vs. Lagman, G.R. No. 168695, December 8, 2008

Respecting her contention that Search Warrant No. 96-101 is invalid for not having
identified her with particularity, the same does not lie. Under Sec. 3 and 4, Rule 126 of the
Rules of Court, the requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant are:
Sec. 3. Requisites for issuing search warrant.
A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific
offense to be determined by the judge or such other responsible officer authorized by law
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.
Sec. 4. 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 any witnesses he
may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn
statements together with any affidavits submitted." (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Contrary to Maribel’s contention, the aforementioned Rule does not require that the
search warrant should identify with particularity the person against whom it is
directed. It suffices that the place to be searched and things to be seized are described. 

11
 General Warrant
A general warrant is defined as "(a) search or arrest warrant
that is not particular as to the person to be arrested or the
property to be seized."It is one that allows the "seizure of one
thing under a warrant describing another" and gives the officer
executing the warrant the discretion over which items to take.

Such discretion is abhorrent, as it makes the person, against

whom the warrant is issued, vulnerable to abuses.1âwphi1 Our
Constitution guarantees our right against unreasonable
searches and seizures, and safeguards have been put in place to
ensure that people and their properties are searched only for
the most compelling and lawful reasons.

WORLDWIDE WEB CORPORATION vs.

12 PEOPLE, G.R. No. 161106 January 13, 2014
 Scatter-Shot Warrant

The search warrant issued by the trial court left the

space in the caption intended for the nature of the
offense in blank, indicating the uncertainty of
petitioner and the court as to the crime committed and
for which the search warrant was issued. On the other
hand, all that the body of the search warrant stated was
that the transformers were "Stolen or Embezzled and
proceeds or fruits of the offense, used or intended to be
used as the means of committing the offense.

PEOPLE vs. CA, G.R. No. 94396, November 27,

13 1992
 Scatter-Shot Warrant
There is no question that the search warrant did not relate to a
specific offense, in violation of the doctrine announced in
Stonehill v. Diokno  and of Section 3 of Rule 126 .

Significantly, the petitioner has not denied this defect in the

search warrant and has merely said that there was probable
cause, omitting to continue that it was in connection with one
specific offense. He could not, of course, for the warrant was a
scatter-shot warrant that could refer, in Judge Dayrit's own
words "to robbery, theft, qualified theft or estafa." On this
score alone, the search warrant was totally null and void and
was correctly declared to be so by the very judge who had
issued it.
14 PEOPLE vs. CA, G.R. No. 94396, November 27, 1992
 A search warrant was issued by the RTC of Manila.
May the search warrant be enforced in Davao City?
The affiliated issue raised in this case is whether a branch of a regional trial court has the
authority to issue a warrant for the search of a place outside its territorial jurisdiction.

We repeat what we have earlier stressed: No law or rule imposes such a limitation on
search warrants, in the same manner that no such restriction is provided for warrants of
arrest. Parenthetically, in certain states within the American jurisdiction, there were
limitations of the time wherein a warrant of arrest could be enforced. In our jurisdiction,
no period is provided for the enforceability of warrants of arrest, and although within ten
days from the delivery of the warrant of arrest for execution a return thereon must be
made to the issuing judge, said warrant does not become functus officio but is enforceable
indefinitely until the same is enforced or recalled. On the other hand, the lifetime of a
search warrant has been expressly set in our Rules at ten days  but there is no provision as
to the extent of the territory wherein it may be enforced, provided it is implemented on
and within the premises specifically described therein which may or may not be within
the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing court.

15 Malaloan and Luarez vs. CA, G.R. No. 104879 May 6, 1994
 Policy Guidelines when the criminal case is pending in
one court and the search warrant is issued by another
court for the seizure of personal property intended to be
used as evidence in said criminal case.

1. The court wherein the criminal case is pending shall have primary
jurisdiction to issue search warrants necessitated by and for purposes of
said case. An application for a search warrant may be filed with
another court only under extreme and compelling circumstances
that the applicant must prove to the satisfaction of the latter court
which may or may not give due course to the application depending on
the validity of the justification offered for not filing the same in the
court with primary jurisdiction thereover.

16 Malaloan and Luarez vs. CA, G.R. No. 104879 May 6, 1994
 Policy Guidelines

2. When the latter court issues the search warrant, a

motion to quash the same may be filed in and shall be
resolved by said court, without prejudice to any proper
recourse to the appropriate higher court by the party
aggrieved by the resolution of the issuing court. All
grounds and objections then available, existent or
known shall be raised in the original or subsequent
proceedings for the quashal of the warrant, otherwise
they shall be deemed waived.

17
Malaloan and Luarez vs. CA, G.R. No. 104879 May 6, 1994
 Policy Guidelines

3. Where no motion to quash the search warrant was filed in or

resolved by the issuing court, the interested party may move in the
court where the criminal case is pending for the suppression as
evidence of the personal property seized under the warrant if the same
is offered therein for said purpose. Since two separate courts with
different participations are involved in this situation, a motion to
quash a search warrant and a motion to suppress evidence are
alternative and not cumulative remedies. In order to prevent forum
shopping, a motion to quash shall consequently be governed by the
omnibus motion rule, provided, however, that objections not available,
existent or known during the proceedings for the quashal of the warrant
may be raised in the hearing of the motion to suppress. The resolution
of the court on the motion to suppress shall likewise be subject to any
proper remedy in the appropriate higher court.
Malaloan and Luarez vs. CA, G.R. No. 104879 May 6,
18
1994
 Policy Guidelines

4. Where the court which issued the search warrant denies the
motion to quash the same and is not otherwise prevented from
further proceeding thereon, all personal property seized under
the warrant shall forthwith be transmitted by it to the court
wherein the criminal case is pending, with the necessary
safeguards and documentation therefor.

19 Malaloan and Luarez vs. CA, G.R. No. 104879 May 6, 1994
 Policy Guidelines

5. These guidelines shall likewise be observed where the same

criminal offense is charged in different informations or
complaints and filed in two or more courts with concurrent
original jurisdiction over the criminal action. Where the issue of
which court will try the case shall have been resolved, such court
shall be considered as vested with primary jurisdiction to act on
applications for search warrants incident to the criminal case.

20 Malaloan and Luarez vs. CA, G.R. No. 104879 May 6, 1994
 How shall the judge make the personal determination of
probable cause?

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. S5 R126

21
 What are the exceptions to the rule that a search
or seizure must be authorized by a warrant?

The following are the exceptions to the rule that a search may
be validly made:

a) Search incidental to lawful arrest;

b) Consent or waiver;
c) Search of moving vehicle;
d) Check points;
e) Body checks in airport;
f) Plainview exception; and
g) Stop and frisk.

22
 Search Incidental 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. (S13 R126). The scope thereof
should be limited to the area within which the arrestee can
reach for a weapon or for evidence in order to destroy it
(Chimel v. California, 395 US 752)

23
 Search Incidental to Lawful Arrest

A search incidental to a lawful arrest requires that there

must first be a lawful arrest before a search is made.
Otherwise stated, a lawful arrest must precede the search;
"the process cannot be reversed." For there to be a lawful
arrest, law enforcers must be armed with a valid warrant.
Nevertheless, an arrest may also be effected without a
warrant.

24 Veridiano vs People, G.R. No. 200370, June 7, 2017

 Extent of allowable search as an incident of a lawful
arrest

In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right

of the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless
search not only on the person of the suspect, but also in
the permissible area within the area of his immediate
control. This means the area from within which he
might gain possession of a weapon or destructible
evidence. A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one
who is arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer
as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. The
warrantless search in this case cannot be made in a place
other than the place of arrest.  (Vaporoso v. People, G.R.
No. 238659, June 3, 2019, Perlas-Bernabe

25
 Rationale behind the warrantless search as an
incident of a lawful arrest

The 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
State's police power to protect: (a) law enforcers from the injury
that may be inflicted on them by a person they have lawfully
arrested; and (b) 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 (Vaporoso v. People, G.R. No. 238659, June 3,
2019, Perlas-Bernabe)

26
 Consent or Waiver

If the person searched consented to the warrantless

search, then the same is valid. However silence or implied
acquiescence is not considered as a consent to a
warrantless search. The right against warrantless search
may be waived but the waiver must be clear and
unequivocal, that is, no room for doubt must be left.

27
 Consent or Waiver

The validity of a consented warrantless search is determined by the totality of

the circumstances. This may involve an inquiry into the environment in which
the consent was given such as "the presence of coercive police procedures.“

Mere passive conformity or silence to the warrantless search is only an implied

acquiescence, which amounts to no consent at all.  In Cogaed, this Court
observed:
Cogaed's silence or lack of aggressive objection was a natural reaction to a
coercive environment brought about by the police officer's excessive
intrusion into his private space. The prosecution and the police carry the
burden of showing that the waiver of a constitutional right is one which is
knowing, intelligent, and free from any coercion. In all cases, such waivers
are not to be presumed.
The presence of a coercive environment negates the claim that petitioner
consented to the warrantless search.

28 Veridiano vs People, G.R. No. 200370, June 7, 2017

 Search of Moving Vehicle

The guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches

and seizures is construed as recognizing a necessary
difference between a search of a dwelling house or other
stationary structure in respect of which a search warrant
may readily be obtained and a search of a moving vehicle
where it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the
vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. Carrol v.
US, 267 US 132

29
 Search of Moving Vehicle

This in no way, however, gives the police officers

unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless searches of
automobiles in the absence of probable cause. When a
vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search,
such a warrantless search has been held to be valid only as
long as the officers conducting the search have reasonable
or probable cause to believe before the search that they will
find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime,
in the vehicle to be searched.

30 People vs. Mariacos, G.R. No. 188611, June 16, 2010

 Check Points

“Stop and search” without warrant at military or

police checkpoints have been declared valid so long as
it is required by the exigencies of public order and
conducted in the least intrusive manner to motorist.
(Valmonte vs. De Villa, 178 Scra 211)

31
 Check Points
A checkpoint search may either be a mere routine
inspection or it may involve an extensive search. For a
mere routine inspection, the search is normally
permissible when it is limited to a mere visual search,
where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or
body search. On the other hand, when the vehicle is
stopped and subjected to an extensive search, it would be
constitutionally permissible only if the officers
conducting the search had probable cause to believe
before the search that either the motorist is a law
offender or they will find instrumentality or evidence
pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to be searched.
(Antonio Nachura, Outline Reviewer in Political Law)
32
 Permissible Routine Inspections at Checkpoints
Routine inspections in checkpoints are allowed if limited to the
following:

 (a) where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle
which is parked on the public fair grounds;
 (b) simply looks into a vehicle; 
(c) flashes a light therein without opening the car's doors; 
(d) where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search; 
(e) where the inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual search or
visual inspection; and 
(f) where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area.  Routine
inspections do not give police officers carte blanche discretion to
conduct warrantless searches in the absence of probable cause. (People v.
Manago y Acut, G.R. No. 212340, August 17, 2016, Perlas-Bernabe)

33
 Body Checks in Airports
Search made pursuant to routine airport security procedure,
which is allowed under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6235,
constitutes another exception to the proscription against
warrantless searches and seizures. RA No. 6235 authorizes search
for prohibited materials or substances. “To limit the action of the
airport security personnel to simply refusing her entry in the
aircraft and sending her home (as suggested by the appellant),
and thereby depriving them of the ability and facility to act
accordingly, including to further search without warrant, in light
of such circumstances, would be to sanction impotence and
ineffectivity in law enforcement, to the detriment of society.
Thus, the strip search in the ladies room was justified under the
circumstances.” People vs. Canton, G.R.No. 148825, December
27, 2002.

34
 Plain View
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.

The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites

concur:
(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.
Abelita III vs. Doria, G.R. No. 170672, August 14,
35
2009
 Plain View

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.  (People v. Acosta,
G.R. No. 238865, January 28, 2019, Perlas-Bernabe)

36
 Stop and Frisk

Stop and frisk is also known as a “Terry Search” is the right

of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate
him and pat him for weapons and contraband whenever he
observes unusual conduct which leads him to conclude that
criminal activity may be afoot. (Terry vs. Ohio, 392 US 1)

The police officer must have a genuine reason, in accordance

with his experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant
the belief that the person to be searched has weapons or
contraband concealed about him. (People vs. Chua, G.R. Nos.
136066-67,4 February 2003)

37
 What is the Exclusionary Rule ?

To protect people from unreasonable searches and

seizures, Section 3 (2), Article III of the Constitution
 provides an exclusionary rule which instructs that
evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such
unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted
and should be excluded for being the fruit of a poisonous
tree. Evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and
seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose
in any proceeding. (Comerciante y Gonzales v. People,
G.R. No. 205926, July 22, 2015, Perlas-Bernabe)

38
 Remedies for Unlawful Search Warrant

The remedies against an unlawful search warrant are:

 A motion to Quash the search warrant, and/or

 Motion to suppress evidence obtained by the unlawful
search warrant.
 If no motion to suppress evidence was filed, the aggrieved
party may still object to the evidence obtained when the
same is being offered invoking Sec.3(2), Article III of the
Constitution.

39
 Motion to Quash the Search Warrant

The question of whether there was abuse in the

enforcement of the challenged search warrants is not within
the scope of a Motion to Quash. In a Motion to Quash,
what is assailed is the validity of the issuance of the
warrant. The manner of serving the warrant and of
effecting the search are not an issue to be resolved here. As
aptly opined and ruled by the respondent Judge, petitioners
have remedies under pertinent penal, civil and
administrative laws for their problem at hand, which cannot
be solved by their present motion to quash.

Kho vs. Makalintal, G.R. No. 94902-0 April 21,

40
1999