e) Specific-offense (One-offense rule)

STONEHILL v. DIOKNO
Facts:
Upon application of the officers of the government, Respondents-
Judges — issued on different dates a total of 42 search warrants against
petitioners and/or the corporations of which they were officers. The same
were issued upon applications stating that the natural and juridical person
therein named had committed a "violation of Central Ban Laws, Tariff and
Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code."
Issue:
Whether the search warrants are valid or not?
Ruling:
No. The questioned warrants are null and void because no specific
offense had been alleged in said applications. The averments thereof with
respect to the offense committed were abstract. 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.

TAMBASEN v. PEOPLE

Facts:
In August 1988, P/Sgt. Natuel applied for issuance of search warrant
alleging that he received information that Petitioner had in his possession at
his house “M-16 Armalite rifles, hand grenades, .45 Cal. pistols, dynamite
sticks and subversive documents”, which were “used or intended to be used”
for illegal purposes. The application was granted.

Petitioner contended that the search warrant covered three offenses:

"(1) illegal possession of armalite rifle and .45 cal. pistol; (2) illegal
possession of hand grenade and dynamite sticks; and (3) illegal possession
of subversive documents" in violation of Section 3 of Rule 126 of the Revised
Rules of Court.

Issue:
Is the search warrant valid?

Ruling:
No. On its face, the search warrant violates Section 3, Rule 126 of the
Revised Rules of Court, which prohibits the issuance of a search warrant for
more than one specific offense. The caption of Search Warrant No. 365
reflects the violation of two special laws: P.D. No. 1866 for illegal possession
of firearms, ammunition and explosives; and R.A. No. 1700, the Anti-
Subversion Law. Search Warrant No. 365 was therefore a "scatter-shot
warrant" and totally null and void.

COLUMBIA v. CA
Facts:
Complainants thru counsel lodged a formal complaint with the National
Bureau of Investigation for violation of PD No. 49, as amended, and sought
its assistance in their anti-film piracy drive. Agents of the NBI and private
researchers made discreet surveillance on various video establishments in
Metro Manila including Sunshine Home Video Inc. On November 14, 1987,
NBI Senior Agent Lauro C. Reyes applied for a search warrant with the court
a quo against Sunshine seeking the seizure, among others, of pirated video
tapes of copyrighted films all of which were enumerated in a list attached to
the application; and, television sets, video cassettes and/or laser disc
recordings equipment and other machines and paraphernalia used or
intended to be used in the unlawful exhibition, showing, reproduction, sale,
lease or disposition of videograms tapes.
Private respondent averred that the search warrant was made
applicable to more than one specific offense on the ground that there are as
many offenses of infringement as there are rights protected and, therefore,
to issue one search warrant for all the movie titles allegedly pirated violates
the rule that a search warrant must be issued only in connection with one
specific offense.
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Issue:
Does the warrant violate the one-offense rule?
Ruling:
No. As the face of the search warrant itself indicates, it was issued for
violation of Section 56, PD 49 as amended only. The specifications therein
(in Annex A) merely refer to the titles of the copyrighted motion
pictures/films belonging to private complainants which defendants were in
control/possession for sale, lease, distribution or public exhibition in
contravention of Sec. 56, PD 49 as amended. That there were several counts
of the offense of copyright infringement and the search warrant uncovered
several contraband items in the form of pirate 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.

PEOPLE v. SIMBAHON
Facts:
The search warrant issued by the judge against accused specifically
stated that it was for “violation of Sections 15 and 16, Article III of RA 6425,
as amended, and violation of PD 1866.” The body of the warrant contained a
directive to the peace officers to search for and seize “shabu,”
packaging/sniffing paraphernalia and a .38 caliber revolver.

Issue:
Is the search warrant valid?

Ruling:
No. In this case, the caption as well as the body of the warrant show
that it was issued for more than one offense. Under the law, it is highly
prohibited that a search warrant is issued for more than one specific offense.
The search warrant was a "scatter-shot warrant" and totally null and void.

VALLEJO v. CA

Facts:
 The opening statement of Search Warrant No. 2000-03 reads:

It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after

examining under oath NBI Head Agent Franklin M. Javier and his
witness that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
Falsification of Land Titles under Art. 171, Revised Penal Code,
Article 213, RPC and R.A 3019 (Anti-Graft) has been committed or
is about to be committed and that there are good and sufficient
reasons to believe that the Registry (sic) of Deeds, Provincial
Capitol, Alibagu, Ilagan, Isabela has in its possession and control…

Issue:
Is the warrant valid?

Ruling:

No. It is a scatter-shot warrant for having been issued for more than
one offense. A warrant must be issued upon probable cause in connection
with one specific offense. In fact, a careful perusal of the application for the
warrant shows that the applicant did not allege any specific act performed by
the petitioner constituting a violation of any of the aforementioned offenses.