NATURE, SCOPE AND DEFINITION

Stonehill vs Diokno The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and that the
objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties.

Petitioners may not validly object to the use in evidence against them of the documents, papers and things seized from
the offices and premises of the corporations, since the right to object to the admission of said papers in evidence
belongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom the seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate
officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity.

Two points must be stressed in connection with this constitutional mandate, namely: (1) that no warrant shall issue but
upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth in said provision; and (2) that the warrant
shall particularly describe the things to be seized.

In this case, no specific offense had been alleged in said applications. As a consequence, it was impossible for the
judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause, for the same presupposes the
introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts, or committed
specific omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal laws.

No search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense.

Exclusionary rule – the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
People vs Marti The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only
against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against
the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.

if the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private
purposes, as in the case at bar, and without the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search
and seizure cannot be invoked for only the act of private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY BOUNDARIES; LIMITATIONS ON STATE ACTION
Katz vs US The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.

The Fourth Amendment governs not only the seizure of tangible items, but extends as well to the recording of oral
statements, overheard without any "technical trespass under . . . local property law."

Once this much is acknowledged, and once it is recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects people -- and not
simply "areas" -- against unreasonable searches and seizures, it becomes clear that the reach of that Amendment
cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure.

Villanueva vs Querubin
People vs Marti
Guanzon vs De Villa Saturation drives
No permanent relief can be given because no erring soldier or policeman whom the Court can order prosecuted was

Burgos vs Chief of Staff
Katz vs US (supra)
TYPES OF SEARCH WARANT: Through Search Warrant
People vs Aruta
Rosa Aruta was arrested and charged with
violating RA 6425. Aruta alighted a bus and was searches and seizures are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of
pinpointed by an informant.
alleged.
This constitutional guarantee is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures as it operates only against
unreasonable searches and seizures. The plain import of the language of the Constitution, which in one sentence
prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and at the same time prescribes the requisites for a valid warrant, is that
arrest. Thus, the fundamental protection accorded by the search and seizure clause is that between person and police
must stand the protective authority of a magistrate clothed with power to issue or refuse to issue search warrants or
warrants of arrest.

It protects the privacy and sanctity of the person himself against unlawful arrests and other forms of restraint.

Probable cause in search warrant:

Refers to the existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in connection with said
offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched.

Before a search warrant can be issued, it must be shown by substantial evidence that the items sought are in fact
seizable by virtue of being connected with criminal activity, and that the items will be found in the place to be searched
Manalili vs CA The search was valid, being akin to a stop-and-frisk.

The policemen conducted a surveillance in an area
of the Kalookan Cemetery based on information
that drug addicts were roaming therein. Upon
reaching the place, they chanced upon a man in
front of the cemetery who appeared to be high on
drugs. He was observed to have reddish eyes and
to be walking in a swaying manner. Moreover, he
appeared to be trying to avoid the policemen.
When approached and asked what he was holding
in his hands, he tried to resist. When he showed
his wallet, it contained marijuana.
In allowing such a search, the US Supreme Court held that the interest of effective crime prevention and detection allows
a police officer to approach a person, in appropriate circumstances and manner, for purposes of investigating possible
criminal behavior even though there is insufficient probable cause to make an actual arrest.
In admitting in evidence two guns seized during the stop-and-frisk, the US Supreme Court held that what justified the
limited search was the more immediate interest of the police officer in taking steps to assure himself that the
person with whom he was dealing was not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against
him.
It did not, however, abandon the rule that the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of
searches and seizures through the warrant procedure, excused only by exigent circumstances.

VENUE OF APPLICATION/ JURISDICTION OF COURT

Malaloan vs CA The basic flaw in this reasoning is in erroneously equating the application for and the obtention of a search warrant with
the institution and prosecution of a criminal action in a trial court.

It would thus categorize what is only a special criminal process, the power to issue which is inherent in all courts, as
equivalent to a criminal action, jurisdiction over which is reposed in specific courts of indicated competence. It ignores
the fact that the requisites, procedure and purpose for the issuance of a search warrant are completely different from
those for the institution of a criminal action.

For, indeed, a warrant, such as a warrant of arrest or a search warrant, merely constitutes process. A search warrant is
defined in our jurisdiction as 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. 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.

Warrant is definitively considered merely as a process, generally issued by a court in the exercise of its ancillary
jurisdiction, and not a criminal action to be entertained by a court pursuant to its original jurisdiction.

Search warrant is merely a judicial process designed by the Rules to respond only to an incident in the main case, if one
has already been instituted, or in anticipation thereof. In the latter contingency, as in the case at bar, it would involve
some judicial clairvoyance to require observance of the rules as to where a criminal case may eventually be filed where,
in the first place, no such action having as yet been instituted, it may ultimately be filed in a territorial jurisdiction other
than that wherein the illegal articles sought to be seized are then located. This is aside from the consideration that a
criminal action may be filed in different venues under the rules for delitos continuados or in those instances where
different trial courts have concurrent original jurisdiction over the same criminal offense.

Concededly, the problem of venue would be relatively easier to resolve if a criminal case has already been filed in a
particular court and a search warrant is needed to secure evidence to be presented therein. Obviously, the court trying
the criminal case may properly issue the warrant, upon proper application and due compliance with the requisites
therefor, since such application would only be an incident in that case and which it can resolve in the exercise of its
ancillary jurisdiction. If the contraband articles are within its territorial jurisdiction, there would appear to be no further
complications.

It is incorrect to say that only the court which has jurisdiction over the criminal case can issue the search warrant, as
would be the consequence of petitioners' position that only the branch of the court with jurisdiction over the place to be
searched can issue a warrant to search the same. It may be conceded, as a matter of policy, that where a criminal case
is pending, the court wherein it was filed, or the assigned branch thereof, has primary jurisdiction to issue the search
warrant; and where no such criminal case has yet been filed, that the executive judges or their lawful substitutes in the
areas and for the offenses contemplated in Circular No. 19 shall have primary jurisdiction.

This should not, however, mean that a court whose territorial jurisdiction does not embrace the place to be searched
cannot issue a search warrant therefor, where the obtention of that search warrant is necessitated and justified by
compelling considerations of urgency, subject, time and place. Conversely, neither should a search warrant duly
issued by a court which has jurisdiction over a pending criminal case, or one issued by an executive judge or his lawful
substitute under the situations provided for by Circular No. 19, be denied enforcement or nullified just because it was
implemented outside the court's territorial jurisdiction.

The lifetime of a search warrant has been expressly set in our Rules at ten days 20 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.
 xxx Guidelines:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

REQUISITES FOR ISSUANCE

Paper Industries vs Asuncion The requisites of a valid search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such presence is determined personally
by the judge; (3) the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce are personally examined by the judge, in
writing and under oath or affirmation; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on facts personally known to them; and
(5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

On Personal Examination:
Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. The examining Judge has to take
depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and attach them to the record. Such written
deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly determine the existence or non-existence of the
probable cause, to hold liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false.
 The examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary or pro-forma, if the claimed probable cause is to
be established. The examining magistrate must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must make his own
inquiry on the intent and justification of the application.

On facts personal to the applicant and witnesses:

The facts and circumstances that would show probable cause must be the best evidence that could be obtained under
the circumstances. The introduction of such evidence is necessary in cases where the issue is the existence of the
negative ingredient of the offense charged for instance, the absence of a license required by law, as in the present case
and such evidence is within the knowledge and control of the applicant who could easily produce the same. But if the
best evidence could not be secured at the time of the application, the applicant must show a justifiable reason therefor
during the examination by the judge.

On particularity of the place to be searched:

The requisite of particularity is related to the probable cause requirement in that, at least under some circumstances, the
lack of a more specific description will make it apparent that there has not been a sufficient showing to the magistrate
that the described items are to be found in a particular place. What is material in determining the validity of a search is
the place stated in the warrant itself, not what the applicants had in their thoughts, or had represented in the proofs they
submitted to the court issuing the warrant.

The place to be searched, as set out in the warrant, cannot be amplified or modified by the officers own personal
knowledge of the premises, or the evidence they adduced in support of their application for the warrant.

The particularization of the description of the place to be searched may properly be done only by the Judge, and
only in the warrant itself; it cannot be left to the discretion of the police officers conducting the search.
CONCEPT OF PROBABLE CAUSE IN SEARCH WARRANTS
Illinois vs Gates An informant's veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge are important in determining probable cause, but that those
issues are intertwined and should not be rigidly applied. He argued that the "totality-of-the-circumstances" approach to
probable cause was the correct one to glean from Spinelli, and that the law enforcement officials who obtained a warrant
abided by it in this case.

When a court decides whether or not to issue a search warrant, the elements of the informant’s “credibility/reliability” and
“basis of knowledge” are to be used as guides when considering the “totality of the circumstances” and are not to be
exclusive requirements applied in every case.
People vs Estrada The facts and circumstances that would show probable cause must be the best evidence that could be obtained under
the circumstances. The introduction of such evidence is necessary especially in cases where the issue is the existence
of the negative ingredient of the offense charged - for instance, the absence of a license required by law, as in the
present case - and such evidence is within the knowledge and control of the applicant who could easily produce the
same. But if the best evidence could not be secured at the time of application, the applicant must show a justifiable
reason therefor during the examination by the judge. The necessity of requiring stringent procedural safeguards before a
search warrant can be issued is to give meaning to the constitutional right of a person to the privacy of his home and
personalties.
DESCRIPTION OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED
Kho vs Macalintal
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED
Paper Industries vs Asuncion
It was within the discretion of the examining Judge to determine what questions to ask the witnesses so long as the
questions asked are germane to the pivot of inquiry - the existence or absence of a probable cause.
Unlicensed firearms
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. Otherwise, it would be virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain a
warrant as they would not know exactly what kind of things they are looking for. Since the element of time is very crucial
in criminal cases, the effort and time spent in researching on the details to be embodied in the warrant would render the
purpose of the search nugatory.
On Motion to Quash
The question of whether there was abuse in the enforcement of the challanged 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.
The requisite of particularity is related to the probable cause requirement in that, at least under some circumstances, the
lack of a more specific description will make it apparent that there has not been a sufficient showing to the magistrate
that the described items are to be found in a particular place.
The warrant identifies only one place, and that is the Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines, located at PICOP
Compound, Barangay Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur. The PICOP compound, however, is made up of 200
offices/buildings, 15 plants, 84 staff houses, 1 airstrip, 3 piers/wharves, 23 warehouses, 6 POL depots/quick service
outlets and some 800 miscellaneous structures, all of which are spread out over some one hundred fifty-five hectares.
In their Opposition, the police state that they complied with the constitutional requirement, because they submitted
sketches of the premises to be searched when they applied for the warrant. They add that not one of the PICOP
Compound housing units was searched, because they were not among those identified during the hearing.
Supreme Court:
The sketches allegedly submitted by the police were not made integral parts of the search warrant issued by Judge
Asuncion. Moreover, the fact that the raiding police team knew which of the buildings or structures in the PICOP
Compound housed firearms and ammunitions did not justify the lack of particulars of the place to be searched.
Otherwise, confusion would arise regarding the subject of the warrant the place indicated in the warrant or the place
identified by the police. Such conflict invites uncalled for mischief or abuse of discretion on the part of law enforcers.
The place to be searched cannot be changed, enlarged or amplified by the police. What is material in determining the
validity of a search is the place stated in the warrant itself, not what the applicants had in their thoughts, or had
represented in the proofs they submitted to the court issuing the warrant.
The particularization of the description of the place to be searched may properly be done only by the Judge, and only in

PROPERTY TO BE SEIZED
People vs Syjuco
Burgos vs Chief of Staff
FORM AND CONTENT OF WARRANT
People vs Veloso
Bache vs Ruiz
Mustang Lumber vs CA
the warrant itself; it cannot be left to the discretion of the police officers conducting the search.
The true test of the sufficiency of an affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in
such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon in case the allegations contained therein prove false.
The rule does not require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person against whom the search
warrant is directed. It may or may not be owned by him. In fact, under subsection [b] of the above-quoted Section 2, one
of the properties that may be seized is stolen property. Necessarily, stolen property must be owned by one other than
the person in whose possession it may be at the time of the search and seizure. Ownership, therefore, is of no
consequence, and it is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the
property sought to be seized, as petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. was alleged to have in relation to the articles and property
seized under the warrants.
The judge must issue the warrant which must be substantially in the following form:
You are, therefore, commanded, . . . to make immediate search on the person of ............................, or in the house
situated ...................................... (describing it or any other place to be searched with reasonable particularity, as the
case may be) for the following property: . . . ." (Section 99.) It is finally provided that "a person charged with a crime may
be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the crime. (Section
105).
A search warrant must conform strictly to the requirements of the constitutional and statutory provisions under which it is
issued. Otherwise it has rightly been held, must be absolutely legal, "for there is not a description of process known to
the law, the execution of which is more distressing to the citizen. Perhaps there is none which excites such intense
feeling in consequence of its humiliating and degrading effect." The warrant will always be construed strictly without,
however, going the full length of requiring technical accuracy. No presumptions of regularity are to be invoked in aid
of the process when an officer undertakes to justify under it.
The law, constitutional and statutory, requires that the search warrant shall not issue unless the application "particularly"
describe the person to be seized. A failure thus to name the person is fatal to the validity of the search warrant. To justify
search and arrest, the process must be legal. Illegal official action may be forcibly resisted.
The reading of the stenographic notes to respondent Judge did not constitute sufficient compliance with the
constitutional mandate and the rule; for by that manner respondent Judge did not have the opportunity to observe the
demeanor of the complainant and his witness, and to propound initial and fol-low-up questions which the judicial mind,
on account of its training, was in the best position to conceive.
A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized:
a. When the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow
b. When the description expresses a conclusion of fact - not of law - by which the warrant officer may be guided in
making the search and seizure
c. When the things describes are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is
being issued
Parenthetically, it may be stated that under an administrative seizure the owner retains the physical possession of the
 seized articles. Only an inventory of the articles is taken and signed by the owner or his representative. The owner is
prohibited from disposing them until further orders.

That the search on 4 April 1990 was a continuation of the search on 3 April 1990 done under and by virtue of the search
warrant issued on 3 April 1990 by Executive Judge Osorio. Under Section 9, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, a search
warrant has a lifetime of ten days. Hence, it could be served at any time within the said period, and if its object or
purpose cannot be accomplished in one day, the same may be continued the following day or days until completed.
Thus, when the search under a warrant on one day was interrupted, it may be continued under the same warrant the
following day, provided it is still within the ten-day period.
WARRANTLESS ARREST: SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST
US vs Verdugo-Urquidez