G.R. No.

129651 – 344 SCRA 36 – Political Law – Constitutional

Law – Search and Seizure – Requisites of a Valid Search Warrant

In Sept 1993, Rodrigo Abos, a former employee of UPC reported

to the BIR that Uy Chin Ho aka Frank Uy, manager of UPC, was
selling thousands of cartons of canned cartons without issuing a
report. This is a violation of Sec 253 & 263 of the Internal
Revenue Code. In Oct 1993, the BIR requested before RTC Cebu
to issue a search warrant. Judge Gozo-Dadole issued a warrant on
the same day. A second warrant was issued which contains the
same substance but has only one page, the same was dated Oct
1st 2003. These warrants were issued for the alleged violation by
Uy of Sec 253. A third warrant was issued on the same day for the
alleged violation of Uy of Sec 238 in relation to sec 263. On the
strength of these warrants, agents of the BIR, accompanied by
members of the PNP, on 2 Oct 1993, searched the premises of the
UPC. They seized, among other things, the records and documents
of UPC. A return of said search was duly made by Labaria with
the RTC of Cebu. UPC filed a motion to quash the warrants which
was denied by the RTC. They appealed before the CA via
certiorari. The CA dismissed the appeal for a certiorari is not the
proper remedy.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid search warrant issued.

HELD: The SC ruled in favor of UPC and Uy in a way for it

ordered the return of the seized items but sustained the validity of
the warrant. The SC ruled that the search warrant issued has not
met some basic requisites of validity. A search warrant must
conform strictly to the requirements of the foregoing
constitutional and statutory provisions. These requirements, in
outline form, are:
(1) the warrant must be issued upon probable cause;

(2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself

and not by the applicant or any other person;

(3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must

examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such
witnesses as the latter may produce; and

(4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be

searched and persons or things to be seized.

The SC noted that there has been inconsistencies in the description

of the place to be searched as indicated in the said warrants. Also
the thing to be seized was not clearly defined by the judge. He
used generic itineraries. The warrants were also inconsistent as to
who should be searched. One warrant was directed only against
Uy and the other was against Uy and UPC. The SC however noted
that the inconsistencies were cured by the issuance of the latter
warrant as it has revoked the two others.

Section 2, Article III of the Constitution guarantees the right of the

people against unreasonable searches and seizures:

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.
Read full text here.

NOTES
Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provides:

SEC. 3. Requisite for issuing search warrant. A search warrant

shall not issue but 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.

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.