Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

__th Judicial Region
Branch __
_________ City, _____________

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES SEARCH WARRANT NO.

_______
Plaintiff,

-versus- FOR: Violation of R.A. 10591

___________________________
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------x

MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT

AND SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

COMES NOW, __________________, through the undersigned

counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully moves for the quashal of
Search Warrant No. ___________ issued by the Regional Trial Court,
Branch __, _________ City, _____________ on ____________ based on
the following considerations:

Search Warrant No. _________ was applied for and issued by

Honorable Presiding Judge _________________ Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch __ situated in _________ City, _____________ after finding
probable cause that a crime subject of the said search warrant was
committed;

1. The search warrant is seriously

defective for being insufficient
in form and substance.

The search warrant, on its face, suffers from a serious defect for the
reason that the abovementioned Honorable Judge issued the same without
examining personally through searching questions and answers the applicant
_____________ and his unidentified witnesses.

During the proceedings conducted by the abovementioned Honorable

Judge in the issuance of the said search warrant, she did not interpose any
searching questions to determine probable cause. It is, thus, clear that the
search warrant was issued in violation of Section 5. Rule 126 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure,1 to quote:

Section 5. 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 the
witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to
them and attach to the record their sworn statements,
together with the affidavits submitted. (4a)

In effect the determination of probable cause was without basis as the

same was not determined personally by the abovementioned Honorable
Judge. Apart from the statement in the search warrant itself, there is nothing
in the records of the application and proceedings conducted thereafter
indicating that the issuing Honorable Judge personally and thoroughly
examined the applicant and his unidentified witnesses.2

The records, therefore, bear no evidence from which it can be inferred

that the requisite examination was made, and from which the factual basis
for probable cause to issue the search warrant was derived. A search warrant
must conform strictly to the constitutional requirements for its issuance;
otherwise, it is void. Based on the lack of substantial evidence that the
search warrant was issued after the requisite examination of the complainant
and his witnesses was made, it humble conceded that the said search warrant
is a nullity.3

2. The evidence presented in support

of the application for a search warrant
is merely hearsay.

The evidence presented by search warrant applicant

__________________________ and his unidentified witnesses are merely
hearsay. The facts and circumstances presented in the application for search
warrant were not within the personal knowledge of said
___________________ and his unidentified witnesses. They merely stated,
essentially, that they were informed that in the ___________ are kept
firearms and that the said farm house is allegedly owned by
______________.

1
Honesto Oga Yon y Diaz vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 188794, September 2, 2015.
2
Id.
3
Id.
 There is also nothing in the application that would show how and
when said applicant _________________ verified the information acquired
by him as to justify his conclusion that he found such information to be a
fact. He might have clarified this point if there had been searching questions
and answers, but there were none. In fact, the records yield no questions and
answers, whether searching or not, vis-a-vis the said applicant.

Premised from the above, the finding of probable is again defective

and without basis. The "probable cause" for a valid search warrant, has been
defined "as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet arid prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and
that objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to
be searched."4 This probable cause must be shown to be within the personal
knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not
based on mere hearsay.5

The determination of probable cause based from the personal

knowledge of an applicant and his witnesses is a mandatory requirement
since the purpose is to assure that the constitutional right of the individual
against unreasonable search and seizure shall remain both meaningful and
effective.6 For these reasons, the said search warrant is, again, a nullity.

3. The search warrant failed to describe the place and things

to be seized with particularity.

In the said search warrant, it is stated therein, to quote, “e. Other

unknown Firearms, Magazines and Ammunitions for the above-described
Firearms”. This clearly violates Section 2, Article III of the 1987
Constitution which requires that a search warrant should particularly
describe the things to be seized. From the quoted statement above, it is
obvious that there is no specific description provided as it merely states
other firearms, magazines and ammunitions. The search warrant is therefore
defective for this reason alone.7

4. The application failed to state the compelling reasons

why said application was not filed in a within whose territorial
jurisdiction the alleged crime was committed.

Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

4
Quintero vs, NBI, et al., G.R. No. L-35149, 23, June 1988; 20th Century Fox Film Corporation vs. CA, et
al., G.R. Nos. 76649- 51, 19 August 1988.
5
People vs. Sy Juco, 64 Phil. 667; Alvarez vs. CFI, 64 Phil. 33; US vs. Addison, 28 Phil. 566.
6
Supra.
7
People of the Philippines vs. Annabelle Francisco y David and Annabelle Tablan, G.R. No. 129035,
August 22, 2002.
 Section 2. Court where application for search warrant
shall be filed. — 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. (n)

The application for search warrant must be filed in the court within
whose territorial jurisdiction the alleged crime was committed. In this instant
case, it is the Municipal Circuit Trial Court Branch __ or RTC Branch __ all
located in _________ City, _____________ which has territorial jurisdiction
where the crime was allegedly committed. Thus, it was incumbent upon the
applicant to state in his application for a search warrant the compelling
reasons why such application was filed in a different court (RTC Branch __,
_________ City, ____________).

The above provision is clear enough. Under paragraph (b) thereof, the
application for search warrant in this case should have stated compelling
reasons why the same was filed in RTC Branch __, _________ City,
____________and not MCTC Branch __ or even RTC Branch __ of
_________ City, ____________considering that it is the latter court that has
territorial jurisdiction over the place where the alleged crime was committed
and also the place where the search warrant was enforced. The wordings of
the provision is of a mandatory nature, requiring a statement of compelling
reasons if the application is filed in a court which does not have territorial
jurisdiction over the place of commission of the crime. Since Section 2,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of persons to be free
from unreasonable searches and seizures, and search warrants constitute a
limitation on this right, then Section 2, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure should be construed strictly against state authorities who
would be enforcing the search warrants. On this point, then,
__________________ application for a search warrant was indeed
insufficient for failing to comply with the requirement to state therein the
compelling reasons why they had to file the application in a court that did
not have territorial jurisdiction over the place where the alleged crime was
committed.8

5. The search warrant being a nullity,

the evidence obtained under such search warrant
must be excluded and/or supressed.

From the above discussions, it is, therefore, only proper to exclude

and/or supress any evidence seized under the said search warrant. All told,
the exclusionary rule necessarily comes into play, to wit:

Art. III, Sec. 3 (2), 1987 Constitution. -- ANY

EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THIS OR
THE PRECEDING SECTION SHALL BE
INADMISSIBLE FOR ANY PURPOSE IN ANY
PROCEEDING.9

Consequently, all the items seized during the illegal search under the
void search warrant are prohibited from being used in evidence.

WHEREFORE, based from the foregoing considerations, it is

respectfully and humbly prayed that Search Warrant No. ___________
issued by Honorable Presiding Judge ______________ of RTC Branch 7,
_________ City, ____________ on ____________ be declared null and
void. Consequently, all pieces of evidence or things seized in connection and
under the said warrant be excluded and suppressed.

Respectfully submitted this ______________________.

By:

Atty. ________________
Counsel for _________________
PTR No. _______________________
IBP Lifetime Membership No. ______________
Roll of Attorneys No. _________
MCLE Exemption No. ______________________

8
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Romars International Gases Corporation, G.R. No. 189669,
February 16, 2015.
9
Id.
 NOTICE OF HEARING

THE BRANCH CLERK OF COURT

Regional Trial Court, Branch __
_________ City, _____________

MA’AM/SIR

Greetings!

Please submit the foregoing motion to the Honorable Court on

___________________ at ____________________ in the morning for its
favorable consideration and approval.

Copy Furnished:

OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR

_________ City, _____________

OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR

_________ City, _____________

Honorable Presiding Judge

RTC, Branch __, _________ City, _____________