CHAPTER IV

THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROVISION

Section 2. 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.

Requisites of a valid search warrant

UY VS. BIR, 344 SCRA 36
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.