ANNOTATION

SEEK AND YOU SHALL FIND

     The Dynamics of Search Warrants
By
DAVID ROBERT C. AQUINO, CSEE*
___________________
 
A man’s home is his castle — so the old adage reminds
us.
Yet the ramifications of this simple saying is now well-
entrenched in our statute books as well as in our
fundamental law brought about by the the common man’s
incessant effort to stem the incursion of kings into one’s
abode as told in our history books. This is just one of the
interventions made in our medieval past to put in place
statutory mechanisms that would keep the king’s penchant
for abuse of power in check.
In a landmark case,[1] Justice Puno’s separate opinion
outlined the historical development of the constitutional
guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizure from
its medieval roots in England carried through the
American experience and finally finding its niche in our
fundamental law.
Touching on the issue of searches and seizures, his
separate opinion illustrates its abuse, to wit — the power to
search in England was first used as an instrument to
oppress objectionable publications. Not too long after the
printing press was developed, seditious and libelous
publications became a concern of the Crown, and a broad
search and seizure power developed to suppress these
publications. General warrants were regularly issued that
gave all kinds of people the power to

* Atty. Aquino is a professor of law in various law schools and law book
author. Prior to returning to private practice, he held several Director-
level positions in government.
[1] Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 407 SCRA 10 (2003).

724
enter and seize at their discretion under the authority of the
Crown to enforce publication licensing statutes. In 1634, the
ultimate ignominy in the use of general warrants came
when the early “great illuminary of the common law,” and
most influential of the Crown’s opponents, Sir Edward
Coke, while on his death bed, was subjected to a ransacking
search and the manuscripts of his Institutes were seized and
carried away as seditious and libelous publications.
Considering that this separate opinion was written after
the wake of the First People Power Revolution, it further
emphasizes our nation’s love for our individual freedoms
and the reason for our adoption of our present system of
governance, as follows:
Two facts are easily discernible from our
constitutional history. First, the Filipinos are a
freedom-loving race with high regard for their
fundamental and natural rights. No amount of
subjugation or suppression, by rulers with the
same color as the Filipinos’ skin or otherwise, could
obliterate their longing and aspiration to enjoy
these rights. Without the people’s consent to submit
their natural rights to the ruler, these rights cannot
forever be quelled, for like water, seeking its own
course and level, they will find their place in the
life of the individual and of the nation; natural
right, as part of nature, will take its own course.
Thus, the Filipinos fought for and demanded these
rights from the Spanish and American colonizers,
and in fairly recent history, from an authoritarian
ruler. They wrote these rights in stone in every
constitution they crafted starting from the 1899
Malolos Constitution. Second, although Filipinos
have given democracy its own Filipino face, it is
undeniable that our political and legal institutions
are American in origin. The Filipinos adopted the
republican form of government that the Americans
introduced and the Bill of Rights they extended to
our islands, and
725

were the keystones that kept the body politic intact.

These institutions sat well with the Filipinos who had
long yearned for participation in government and were
jealous of their fundamental and natural rights.
Undergirding these institutions was the modern
natural law theory which stressed natural rights in
free, independent and equal individuals who banded
 together to form government for the protection of their
natural rights to life, liberty and property. The sole
purpose of government is to promote, protect and
preserve these rights. And when government not only
defaults in its duty but itself violates the very rights it
was established to protect, it forfeits its authority to
demand obedience of the governed and could be
replaced with one to which the people consent. The
Filipino people exercised this highest of rights in the
EDSA Revolution of February 1986.
From historical events, we find this intervention firmly
embedded not only in our legal system but in most
regulatory frameworks the world over. Thus, once
considered a historical hallmark of man’s societal
advancement, has now crossed over to the realm of law and
is now considered a benchmark in the protection of human
rights.  Today, the mechanisms in place are to hold in
check the vast powers no longer of kings of old, but of the
modern state — to protect the common man from its abuse.
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
guarantees the right of persons to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures.  Said provision
explicitly declares that 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
726

and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly

describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized. The purposes of the constitutional
provision against unlawful searches and seizures are to: (i)
prevent the officers of the law from violating private
security in person and property and illegally invading the
sanctity of the home; and (ii) give remedy against such
usurpations when attempted or committed.
So today, the truism that a man’s home is his castle,
rings more resonantly as guaranteed no less than by our
own fundamental law. Gone are the days that the state or
any of its instrumentalities can simply enter your premises
and conduct random searches. Gone are the days when a
search is flimsily based on speculation, rumor or worse —
suspicion.
 Yet observe that the constitutional prohibition does not
totally deprive the state from conducting searches and
seizures. It allows such action provided that it should not
be unreasonable. Thus, it is the government who needs to
apply and establish first before a judge that the search
satisfies this constitutionally imposed criterion. The 1987
Constitution states that a search and consequent seizure
must be carried out with judicial warrant; otherwise, it
becomes unreasonable and any evidence obtained
therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.[2]
Thus, proving that the pen is indeed mightier than the
sword — a valid search of one’s abode may only be
conducted not through the force and intimidation of a gun
or violence but through a simple court-issued document
duly signed by a judge — the search warrant.
Note, however, that the constitutional requirement for
the issuance of a search warrant is reiterated under
Sections 4 and 5, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. These sections lay down the following
requirements for the issuance of a search warrant: (1) the
existence of probable

_______________
[2] Sy vs. People, 655 SCRA 395 (2011).

727

cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined

personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in
writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and
the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and
the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to
them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to
be searched and the things to be seized. Should any of
these requisites be absent, the party aggrieved by the
issuance and enforcement of the search warrant may file a
motion to quash the search warrant with the issuing court
or with the court where the action is subsequently
instituted.
 
Probable Cause
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such
facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a
reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge
of the prosecutor; A finding of probable cause merely binds
over the suspect to stand trial — it is not a pronouncement
of guilt.[3]  Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a
criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are
sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime
has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty
thereof — a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on
evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has
been committed by the suspects; In determining probable
cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances
without resorting to the calibrations of the rules of
evidence of which he has no technical knowledge — he
relies on common sense.[4] Probable cause is understood as
having reference to such facts and circumstances which
could lead a reasonable, discreet, and prudent man to
believe and conclude as to the commission of an of-

_______________
[3] Gonzalez vs. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, 537
SCRA 255 (2007).
[4] Reyes vs. Pearlbank Securities, Inc., 560 SCRA 518 (2008).

728

fense, and that the objects sought in connection with the

offense are in the place sought to be searched.[5]
In the case of searches and seizures, the application for
a search warrant must convince the judge of the need for a
search as well as the items that would be the subject
matter of the search.
 
Determination of Probable Cause

The determination of probable cause for the issuance of

arrest and search warrants is vested in the courts, but the
conduct of preliminary investigations is entrusted to the
executive branch, with the exception of inferior court
judges.
The determination of probable cause does not call for the
application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment
of conviction requires after trial on the merits. As implied
by the words themselves, “probable cause” is concerned
with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The
prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond
reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a
reasonably prudent man, not the exacting calibrations of a
judge after a full-blown trial.[6]
The procedure is clear — probable cause, in connection
with the application of a search warrant, is to be
determined personally by the judge. Thus, the application,
duly written and affirmed shall be examined personally by
the judge if the same shall be given due course.
It is presumed that a judicial function has been
regularly performed, absent a showing to the contrary. A
magistrate’s determination of probable cause for the
issuance of a search

_______________
[5] People vs. Montilla, 285 SCRA 703 (1998).
[6] Century Chinese Medicine Company vs. People, 709 SCRA 177
(2013).

729

warrant is paid great deference by a reviewing court, as

long as there was substantial basis for that determination.
[7]
 
Witnesses
In order to assist the judge in his determination of
probable cause, the Rules provide that the application shall
be accompanied by witnesses who in turn shall be
examined as to the veracity of their statements.
A core requisite before a warrant shall validly issue is
the existence of a probable cause, meaning “the existence of
such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place to be searched.”
And when the law speaks of facts, the reference is to facts,
data or information personally known to the applicant and
the witnesses he may present. Absent the element of
personal knowledge by the applicant or his witnesses of the
facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be
justified, the warrant is deemed not based on probable
cause and is a nullity, its issuance being, in legal
contemplation, arbitrary.[8]
Affidavits/depositions for search warrants must be
tested and interpreted by Judges in a common-sense and
realistic fashion — it is sufficient if the information put
forth in the affidavit/deposition or testimony of the
affiant/deponent are believed or appropriately accepted by
the affiant/deponent as true.[9]
 
Specificity
Aside from the requirement of probable cause, the
Constitution also requires that the search warrant must
particularly

_______________
[7] Woldwide Web Corporation vs. People, G.R. No. 161106, January 13,
2014, 713 SCRA 18.
[8] Century Chinese Medicine Company vs. People, 709 SCRA 177
(2013).
[9] Abuan vs. People, 505 SCRA 799 (2006).

730

describe the place to be searched and the things to be

seized. This requirement of particularity in the description,
especially of the things to be seized, is meant to enable the
law enforcers to readily identify the properties to be seized
and, thus, prevent the seizure of the wrong items. It seeks
to leave the law enforcers with no discretion at all
regarding these articles and to give life to the
constitutional provision against unreasonable searches and
seizures. In other words, the requisite sufficient
particularity is aimed at preventing the law enforcer from
exercising unlimited discretion as to what things are to be
taken under the warrant and ensure that only those
connected with the offense for which the warrant was
issued shall be seized.
A search warrant issued must particularly describe the
place to be searched and persons or things to be seized in
order for it to be valid, otherwise, it is considered as a
general warrant which is proscribed by both jurisprudence
and the 1987 Constitution.[10] A search warrant should
particularly describe the place to be searched and the
things to be seized. The evident purpose and intent of this
requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and
only those, particularly described in the search warrant —
what articles they shall seize, to the end that
“unreasonable searches and seizures” may not be made, —
that abuses may not be committed.
Additionally, the Rules require that a search warrant
should be issued “in connection with one specific offense” to
prevent the issuance of a scatter-shot warrant. A search
warrant may be issued only if there is probable cause in
connection with a specific offense alleged in an application
based on the personal knowledge of the applicant and his or
her witnesses, a substantive requirement in the issuance of
a search warrant.
The one-specific-offense requirement reinforces the
constitutional requirement that a search warrant should
issue only
_______________
[10] HPS Software and Communication vs. PLDT, 687 SCRA 426
(2012).

731

on the basis of probable cause. Since the primary objective

of applying for a search warrant is to obtain evidence to be
used in a subsequent prosecution for an offense for which
the search warrant was applied, a judge issuing a
particular warrant must satisfy himself that the evidence
presented by the applicant establishes the facts and
circumstances relating to this specific offense for which the
warrant is sought and issued. Accordingly, in a subsequent
challenge against the validity of the warrant, the applicant
cannot be allowed to maintain its validity based on facts
and circumstances that may be related to other search
warrants but are extrinsic to the warrant in question.
A search warrant may be said to particularly describe
the things to be seized when the description therein is as
specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow; or 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; or when the things described are
limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for
which the warrant is being issued. If the articles desired to
be seized have any direct relation to an offense committed,
the applicant must necessarily have some evidence, other
than those articles, to prove the said offense and the
articles subject of search and seizure should come in handy
merely to strengthen such evidence.[11] Note, however, that
the requirement of specificity, does not require technical
accuracy in the description of the property to be seized.
Specificity is satisfied if the personal properties’ description
is as far as the circumstances will ordinarily allow it to be
so described. The nature of the description should vary
according to whether the identity of the property or its
character is a matter of concern. One of the tests to
determine the particularity in the description of objects to
be seized under a search warrant is when the things
described are limited to those which bear direct relation to
the offense for which the warrant is being issued.

_______________
[11] Bache & Co. (Phil.), Inc. vs. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 (1971).

732
 In the case, under annotation, the High Court observed
that — one of the constitutional requirements for the
validity of a search warrant is that it must be issued based
on probable cause which, under the Rules, must be in
connection with one specific offense. In search warrant
proceedings, probable cause is defined as such facts and
circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed
and that the objects sought in connection with the offense
are in the place sought to be searched. In the determination
of probable cause, the court must necessarily determine
whether an offense exists to justify the issuance or quashal
of the search warrant because the personal properties that
may be subject of the search warrant are very much
intertwined with the “one specific offense” requirement of
probable cause.
The Constitutional guarantee against unreasonable
searches and seizures traces its roots from man’s historic
experience with tyranny. Born out of the need to preserve
the common man’s inherent right to be free and to live
without fear of being subjected to an invasive search at the
mere whim or fancy of a abusive monarch. From such
tenuous
medieval beginning evolved a concept of law that has its
foundation rooted in history yet fueled non other but the
desire to protect and guarantee man’s inherent right. 
To quote a now famous line from the past — “The
poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the
forces of the Crown. It may be frail — its roof may shake —
the wind may blow through it — the storm may enter — the
rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all
his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined
tenement.”[12]

——o0o——

_______________
12 William Pitt.

© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.