RULE 126

SEARCH ANDSEIZURE

Section 1. Search warrant defined. --A search warrant is

an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the
Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace
officer, commanding him to search for personal property
described thherein and bring it before the court. (1)
WHAT ISASEARCH WARRANT?

A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the

name of the People of the Philippines, signed by ajudge and
irected to apeace officer, commanding him to search for personal
property described therein and bring it before the court.
Search warrant is not similar to a criminal action but is
rather a legal process that may be likened to a writ of discovery
employed by no less than the State to procure relevant
evidence of a crime. In that respect, it is an instrument or tool,
issued under the State's police power, and this is the reason
why it must issue in the name of the People of the Philippines.
Equally clear is that the swon application for the search
warrant and the search warrant itself were upon the behest of
the People of the Philippines. The immutable truth is that every
search warrant is applied for and issued by and under the authority
of the State, regardless of who initiates its application or
causes its issuance.e666 A search warrant is merely a judicial
process designed by the Rules to respond only to an incident
In the main case, if one has already been instituted, or in
anticipation thereof 7

667
Te vs. Breva, G.R. No. 164974, [August 5, 2015].
Khovs. Lanzanas,G.R. No. 150877, [May 4, 2006|.

451
 RULE 126
ON
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Search and Seizure 453
RULES ANNOTATED

452

03 igjunction against unreasonable searches and seizures.673 The

Web Coip. v. People, petitioners
the quashal contend
pupose of the exclusionary rule is to deter law enforcement
In
Worldide
personality to question of the
that PLDT
had no the coonfomity of the public engaging
in fishing expeditions, 8and ultimately, protect
5. Rule l10 off theprOSecutor, in
oftheepeople against i unreasonable
without 674
warrants Section searches and seizures.
search
Criminal that it
argueProcedure.
violated
However, the Supreme Court held thatof Rules theright
They The exclusionary rule is enunciated under Section 3 (2),
the public prosecutor is not III of the
1987 Constitution, to wit:
Section 3. xxx (2)
the
conformity of
moves for reconsideration necessary Article
in violation of this or the preceding
obtained
aggrieved party of an evidence
before an motion to quash
search warrants. Any shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
order granting a section
proceeding. This must be read in relation to Section 2, Article
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE
J I ,which provides:

The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
unreasonable
searches and
seizures,o0y Any evidence obtained searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
thus be inadmissible purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
said right shall for any
in violation ofproceeding.0 warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
pupose in any
unreasonable search and seizure is
to be determined personally by the judge after examination
The right against the under oath or affrmation of the complainant and the
immunity of one's person, whether citizen or alien, from
interference by government, included in which is his residence, witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
671 Indeed,
while the power
possessions.
nlace to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
his papers, and otber to the publie
to search and seize may at times be necessary Simply put, the exclusionary rule tells that any evidence
welfare, still it must be exercised and the law implemented ahtained in violation of the accused's constitutional right against
the citizens
without contravening the constitutional rights of
warrantless search and seizures and warrantless arrests, the
675
for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to same shall be inadmissible in court
justify indifference to the basic principles of government 672 Further, the provision excludes "any evidence" obtained
EXCLUSIONARY RULES UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION in transgression of the privacy of communication or comespondence
and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures
Exclusionary rule or the fruit of the poisonous tree evinces the intent of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution not
doctrine is the practical means of enforcing the constitutional to limit the exclusionary rule only to evidence directly
obtained in violation of those rights. So long as the evidence
sought to be presented is fairly traceable to the illegal search
os [Link]. 161106 &161266, [January 13, 2014).
s Section 2, Arucle II, 1987 Philippine Constitution.
670 67) Stonehill vs. Diokno, 126 Phil 738.
Section 3(2), Article I, 1987 Philipp1ne Constitution.
People vs. Marti, GR. No. 81561, January 18, 1991, citing Villanueva vs. Querub1n.
674
In re: Rogelio M. Salazar, Jr., A.M. Nos. I5-05-136-RTC & P-l6-3450, [December
GR. No. L-26177, December 27, 1972 4, 2018] [per curiam, concurring] ciling People vs. Cogaed 740 Phil 212
o2 People vs. Pastrana, G.R. No. I96045. [February 21, 2018] en People vs. Hermosura y De Guzman, G.R. No. 252552 (Notice), [June 23, 2021).
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 126
RULES
ON
ANNOTATED
Search and Seizure 455
454

the same
into privacy, then
paraphermalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated,
orthe no restrictions or limitations should must
intrusion

excluded.
seizure Indeed, be readbe seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in
or the following manner:
none: especially
there are So when what e
into the
law where such as
liberties, the right (1) The apprehending team having initial custody
at stake
are
fundamental

searches and
seizures.
676
against and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory and
unreasonable

TAKE N O T E :
the same in the presence of the
photograph
accused or the
It is elementarythat the exclusionary nule under person/s from whom such items were confiscated
Article II of the
Constitution only and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
Section 3(2), State and cannot
against the be representative from the media and the
applies as a
restraint extended Department of
by private individuals, save for Justice (D0), and any elected public official who
where
to
committed
acts such individuals are shown to have acted under the
677
instances shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
state-related
function. and be given a copy thereof;
color of a
EXCLUSIONARY RULES UNDER THE STATUTES (2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/
seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous
1. R.A. 91165: Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals.
of 2002 as well as instruments(paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA
Section 2l of RA 9165 issa statutory exclusionary
rule of evidence.o
678 Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative
examination;
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 details ths (3) Acertification of the forensic laboratory examination
procedure for the custody and disposition of results, which shall be done under oath by the
confiscated, seized, or surrendered drugs, thus: forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject
Seized, andor Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and controlled precursors and essential chemicals
and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall does not allow the completion of testing within the
take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, time frame, a partial laboratory examination report
plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors shall be provisionally issued stating therein the
and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/ quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by
the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a
Ofice of the Court Administrator vs. Guico, Jr., A.M. No. P-12-3049, [June 29, 2021). final certification shall be issued on the completed
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Atillo, Jr.,A.M. No. RTJ-21-018, (Seplember forensic laboratory examination on the same within
29, 2021].
People vs. Go yCruz, G.R. No. 256240 (Notice), [September 19, 2022). the next twenty-four (24) hours[.]
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 126
RULES
ON
ANNOTATED
Search and Seizure 457
456

connection to this. the Implementing 2.

R.A 4200: Wiretapping Act
and In
Regulations Rules
of Republic Act No. 9165 provides GENERAL RULE.679 It shall be unlawful
for any
person, not being authorized by all the parties to any
in part:
private communication or spoken word, to tap
Custody and Disposition of any wire
Dangerous Confiscated,
21.
SECTION
orcable,or by using any other device or arrangement, to
ControlledDrugs, Plant
Surrendered

Seized., and/or secretlyoverhear, intercept, or record such communication

Dangerous Drugs,
Sources of Precursors
and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/ Paraphernalia or spoken word by using a device commonly known
and'or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall 2s a Dictaphone or dictagraph or walkie-talkie or
take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, tape recorder, or however otherwise described:
plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursorS It shall be unlawful for any person,
and essential chemicals, as well as confiscated. instruments
and/or laboratory equipment so seized a. to knowingly possess any tape record, wire,
paraphernalia
andor surrendered, for proper disposition in the record, disc record, or any other such record
following manner:
or copies thereof, of any communication or
spoken word secured xXXX in the manner
(a) The apprehending team having initial custody prohibited by this law;or
and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph b. to replay the same for any other person or
the same in the presence of the accused or the persons; or
person/s from whom such items were confiscated C. to communicate the contents thereof, either
and/or seized, or hisher representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of
verbally or in writing, or to furmnish transcriptions
thereof, whether complete or partial, to any
Justice (D0J), and any elected public official who other person
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventony
and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the EXCEPTIONS:

physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted Any peace officer authorized by a written order
at the place where the search warrant is served: or at
of the Court, to execute any of the acts declared
the nearest police station or at the nearest office of unlawful in two preceding sections in cases involving
the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable. the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and
in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further.
disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high
that non-compliance with these requirements under seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shallnot to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items. 69 Section 1, R.A 4200.
 RULE 126
ON
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Search and Seizure 459
RULES ANNOTATED

458

as detinedby the Revised Penal Code. and violations obtained is essential to the
conviction of any person
solution or prevention of such, crime.
for, or to the 683
Act No. 616. punishing
o f C

and other
o m o n w

offenses
e a l t h

against national security 680espionagc 4. RA 7438: RULES ON ARRESTED, DETAINED

communication
or spoken OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
Thus, any word, oror
the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, Any extrajudicial confession made by a person
same or any part thereof arrested, detained or under custodial
meaning of the
contained obtained or
or any investigation
shall be in writing and signed by such person in the
information
therein
any person in violation of the preceding secured byof
sections of his counsel or in the latter's
presence absence.
not be
admissible
in evidence upon valid waiver, and in the presence of any of
this Act shall
iudicial. quasi-judicial, legislative
681
or adminisny the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the
hearing or investigation.
municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school
3. RA 9995: Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as
chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession
of2009
shall be inad1nissible as evidence in any proceeding. 684
Any
record, photo or video, or copy thereof.
obtained or secured by any person in violation of the s NATIONAL INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1997
preceding sections shall not be admissible in evidence in An instrument, document or paper which is
quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative required by law to be stamped and which has been
anyyjudicial,investigation, 682
hearing or signed, issued, accepted or transferred without being
Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall duly stamped, shall not be recorded, nor shall it or
render it unlawful or punishable for any peace any copy thereof or any record of transfer of the
officer. who is authorized by a written order of the same be admitted or used in evidence in any court
court, to use the record r any copy thereof as until the requisite stamp or stamps are affixed thereto
and cancelled 685
evjdence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial
of the crime of photo or video voyeurism: Provided. 6. RA 9745: Anti-Torture Act of 2009
That such written order shall only be issued or
granted upon written application and the examination Any confession, admission or statement obtained
under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the as a result of torture shall be inadmissible in
witnesses he'she may produce, and upon showing evidence in any proceedings, except if the same is
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
photo or video voyeurism has been committed or is
about to be committed, and that the evidence to be
683
Section 3, R.A 4200. Section 6, RA 9995
Section 4, R.A 4200. o Section 2(d), RA 7438
Section 7, RA 9995. 45 Section 201, NIRC.
 RULE 126
CRIMINAL ,PROCEDURE Search and Seizure 461
RULES ON ANNOTATED

460

the search shall render the evidence

warrant
used as evidence against a person Or persons accuscd inadmissible for the prosecution of the obtained
of committing torture.
686

which the search warrant was applied6)

offense for
Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020
7.
RA11479: Section 2. Court where application for search warrant shall
torture and other cruel,
The use of
and degrading treatnent orr punishment, as defined in inhumane $ee An application tor search warrant shallbe filed
with the following:

5 of Republic Act no. 9745

Sections 4 and
the "Anti-Torture Act of 2009, otherwise a) Any court wiithin whose territorial jurisdiction a
known as at any crime was committed.
time during the investigation or interrogation of a
detained suspected terrorist is absolutely prohibited b) For compelling reasons stated in the application,
and shall be penalized under said law. Any evidence any court within the judicial region where the crime
obtained from said detained person resulting from was committed if the place of the commission of the
such treatment shall be. in its entirely, inadmissible crime is known, or any court within the judicial
and cannot be used as evidence in any judicial, quasi-
judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation, region where the warrant shall be enforced.
However, if the criminal action has already
687
inquiry, proceeding, or hearing. a been
shall only be made in the court where
application
and recorded filed, the
Any listened to, intercepted, discussione the criminal action is pending.
(n)
Communications, messages, conversations,
or spoken or written words, or any part or parts WHERE SHOULD SEARCH WARRANT BE FILED?
thereof., or any information or fact contained therein
including their existence, content, substance, purpont. An application for search warrant shall be filed with the
secured in
effect, or meaning, which have been following:
violation of the pertinent provisions of this Act, shal
be inadmissible and cannot be used as evidence against L Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a
crime was committed.
anybody in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or
administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding, 2. For compelling reasons stated in the application, any
688
or hearing. court within the judicial region where the crime was
8. RULES ON THE USE OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS committed if the place of the commission of the
crime is known, or any court within the judicial
Failure to observe the requirement of using region where the warrant shall be enforced.
body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices,
without reasonable grounds, during the execution of

68
Section 8, RA 9745.
Section 33, RA 11479.
68t Section 23, RA J1479.
9 Section 8, Rule ll, A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC, (June 29, 202).
 RULE 126
CRRIMINAL , PROCEDURE Search and Seizure 463
RULES ON ANNOTATED

462

action has already Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Anti-

been filed,
C o m p r e h e n s i v e

criminal
However, if the Laundering Act of 2001, the Customs
be made in the court Modermization
the
application
shall only where the
Money
TTariff Act,
and other relevant laws that may later be enacted
criminal action
is pending. and Congress and included in these Rules by the Supreme Court.
The wordings of the provisionis of a mandatory nature,
requiring a statement of compelling reasons if fthe application is The applications shall be personally endorsed by the
filed in a court which does not have territorial jurisdiction heads ofsuch agencies and shall particularly describe the places
Over the place of commission of the crime. Since Section 2, be
and/or the properties or things to be seized as
searched

to
prescribedin the Rules of Court. They shall also state the
Article II of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of
persons to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, compelling reasons for filing the application with these courts.
and search warrants constitute a limitation on this right, then The Executive Judges and Vice-Executive Judges concerned
Section 2. Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal shall issue the warrants, if justified, which may be served in
places outside theeterritorial jurisdiction but within the judicial
Procedure should be construed strictly against state: authorities
the search warrants 690 regions of these courts.
who would be enforcing
The Executive Judges and the authorized Judges shall
THE RULES ON THE USE OF BODY-WORN CAMERAS docket book listing names of Judges to whom
IN THE EXECUTION OF WARRANTS61 PROVIDED keep a special
the applicationsofare assigned,
the details of the applications,
RULE,VIZ:
AN EXCEPTION FOR THIS and the results the scarches and seizures made pursuant to
the warrants issued.
SECTION 2. Search Warrants in Special Criminal Ca ces
Courts.
by Executive Judges of Regional Trial Courts Except for Section 3. Personal property to be seized, - A search warrant
jurisdiction of the Special Commercial to issue seark may beisssued for the search and seizure of personal property:
the
warants involving intellectual property rights violations, the
Executive Judges and., whenever they are on official leave of (a) Subject of the offense:
absence or are not physically present in the station, the Vice. (b) Stolen or embezled and other proceeds, or fruits
Executive Judges of the Regional Trial Courts shall have of the offense; or
authority to act on applications for search warrants to be
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of
implemented within their judicial regions, filed by the National
Bureau of Investigation, the Philippine National Police, the committing an offense. (2a)
Anti-Crime Task Force, the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency, and the Bureau of Customs, for search warrants WHAT ARE THE PERSONAL PROPERTIES TO BE SEIZED?
involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession
of firearms and ammunitions, as well as violations of the A search warrant may be issued for the search and
seizure of personal property:
690
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. vs. Romars International Gases Corp., G.R. No.
69
189669, [February 16, 2015).
A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC. [June 29, 2021).
 RULE 126
ON C
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Search and Seizure 465
RULES ANNOTATED

464

Used or intended to be used as the means of

offense:
the committing an offense.
Subject of
1. In Lavd v. People, the Supreme Court held
that human remains may be valid subjects , of asearch In People v. Nuñez y Revilleza, 694 the Supreme
warrant. Personal property actually refers to the Court pointed out the iregularity in the scarch conducted.
In this case, the search warant specifically authorized the
thing's mobility, and not to its capacity to be owned
or alienated by a particular person. Article 416 of the taking of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu)
Civil Code states that in general, all things which can snd paraphernalia(s) ony. Certainly, the lady's wallet,
cash, grinder, camera, component, speakers, electric
from place to place are deemed to planer, jigsaw, electric tester, saws, hammer, drill,
property. Considering that human remainsbe
transported
be
personal and bolo were not encompassed by the word
generally be transported
from place to place,
can and paraphernalia as they bear no relation to the use or
considering further that they qualify under the phrase
"subject of the offense" given that they prove the manufacture of drugs. In seizing the said items then.
the police officers exercised their own discretion and
crime's corpus delicti, it follows that they may be
determined for themselves which items in
warrant. appellant's
valid subjects of a search residence they believed were "proceeds of the crime'"
embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits or "'means of committing the offense", This is
2. Stolen or absolutely impermissible.
of the offense; or
In Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staffo3 the Supreme Soetion 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. A
Court pronounced that the above rule does not require search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause
the
that the property to be seized shouldbe owned by in connection with one specific offense to be determined
person against whom the search warrant is directed personally by the judge after examination under oath or
It may or may not be owned by him. In fact, under firmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
subsection b] of the above-quoted Section 2, one of produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
the properties that may be seized is stolen property. nd the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the
Necessarily, stolen property must be owned by one Philippines. (3a)
other than the person in whose possession it may be
at the time of the search and seizure. Ownership, WHAT ARE THE REQUSITES FOR ISSUING
therefore, is of no consequence, and it is sufficient SEARCH WARRANT?
that the person against whom the warrant is directed has
controlor possession of the propety sought to be seized. search warrant shall be issued when:
A
1. There is a probable cause

692 G.R. No. 199032, [November 19, 2014.

693 G.R. No. 64261, [December 26, 1984]. M G.R. No, 177148, [June 30, 2009].
 PROCEDURE
RULES ON CRIMINAL RULE 126
ANNOTATED
466 Search and Seizure 467

2. Such probable cause has connection with CAU^E IN

specific ofense
PROBABLE
SEARCH WARRANT
Probable cause for a search
probable cause will
be determincd that warrant requires such facts
3. the
after under oath or
examination personally by circumstances would lead a reasonably
to believe that an offense has been comnitted andprudent
and
the objects
man
the judge
ofthe complainant and the witnesses he
may affimaion
produce, sOught in connection with that offense are in
the place to be
searched698 Probable cause does
A on the basis of their personal knowledge of the &. not mean actual and positive
they are testifying to; nor does it import absolute
certainty. The determination
with theof
cause,
the existence of probable cause is not concerned
in describing
5. there must be particularity the of whether the offense charged has
be seized which place to been or
in fact, or whether the accused is is being
question

be searchedand the things to

may be committed
guilty or
anywhere in the Philippines. innocent, but only whether the affiant has
reasonable
for his belief The requirement is less than certainty orgrounds
proof,
PROBABLE CAUSE
but more than suspicIon or possibility 699
Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates The determination of probable cause does not call for the
carried out that a
application ofrrules
search and seizure must be through or on the and standards of proof that a
judgment of
conviction requires after trial on the merits. As implied by the
strength ofa judicial warrant predicated upon the existence nt
695
probable cause. words themselves,"probable cause" is concemed with probability,
Probable cause necessary prior to the issuance of a
not absolute or even moral certainty. The prosecution need
search warrant is defined as the existence of such facts and not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. The
circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man.
Drudent man to believe that an offense has been committed not the exacting calibrations of ajudge after afull-blown rial. 0
and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in connection ONE SPECIFIC OFFENSE
with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by lay
is in the place to be searched. Implicit in this statement /s U One of the constitutional requirements for the validity of
the recognition that an underlying offense must, in the first a search warrant is that it must be issued based on probable
place, exist. In other words, the acts alleged, taken together, cause which, under the Rules, must be in connection with one
701
must constitute an offense and that these acts are imputable specific offense to prevent the issuance of ascatter-shot warrant.
to an offender in relation with whomn a search warrant is
applied for. 697

698 Kho vs. Lanzanas, G.R. No. 150877, [May 4, 2006], 523 PHIL 110-133
citingMicrosoft Corporation vs. Maxicorp. Inc. G.R. No. 140946, 13 September 2004.
99 Kho vs. Lanzanas, G.R. No. 150877, (May 4, 2006]. S23 PHIL 110-133 cting
6*s Comerciante v Gonzales vs. People. G.R. No. 205926. [July 22, 2015].
696
Columbia Pictures, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals 329 Phil. 875, 918-919 (1996).
697
Surban yGallardo vs. People, G.R. No. 231045 (Notice). [March 18, 2021]. Century Chinese Medicine Co. vs. People, G.R. No. 18852ó. [November l1, 2013].
Coca-Cola Botlers, Phils, Inc. vs. Gomez, G.R. No. I54491, [November 14, 2008]) People vs. Pastrana, [Link]. 196045, [February 21, 2018).
 RULE 126
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Search and Seizure 469
RULESONA N N O T A T E D

468

Moreove, reasonable minds may differ on the

Rules require that a search warrant should be issued"i question
affidavit/deposition or testimony of the
p r o d u c e .

particular
connection with one specific offense" to prevent the 0ssuance fwhether a
establishes probable cause.
warant. The
one-specific-offense
afYiantdeponent

However,704great
deference is to be accorded to the Judge's determination."
reinforces
of a the constitutional
scatter-shot
Irequirement that asearch warrant requirement
should issue only on the basis of probable cause. Since the In determining probable cause in the issuance of a search
applying for a
search warrant is warrant, the oath required must refer to the truth of the facts
objective of to obtain
evidence to be usedinnasubsequent prosecution for an offense
primary within the personal knowledge of the applicant or his
for which the search warrant was applied, ajudge issuing a witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the
particular warrant must satisfy himself that the evidence presented committing mmagistrate, not the individual making the affidavit
by the applicant establishes the facts and circumstances relating the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of
which the warrant is and seeking 705
offense for sought and probable cause.
to this specific
Accordingly, in a subsequent challenge against the When the law speaks of facts, the reference is to facts,
issued.
validity of the warrant, the applicant cannot be allowed to
based on facts and circumstances that o or information personally known to the applicant and the
maintain its validity warrants buut are witnesses he may present. Absent the element of personal
to other search extrinsic to the
may be related 702 knowledge by the applicant or his witnesses of the facts upon
warrant in question. which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified, the
In Tambasen v. People, 703 the Supreme Court held that warrant is deemed not based on probable cause and is a
searok 706
the search warrant was null and vOid. Here, the nlity, its issuance being, in legal contemplation, arbitrary.
the Revised Rules
warrant, on its face, violates Rule 126 of
Court. which prohibits the iSsuance of a search warant
for PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE
offense. The caption of Search
more than one specific The Constitution also requires that the search warrant
Warrant No. 365 reflects the violation of two Special lauwer
P.D. No. 1866 for illegal possesSIon of firearms, ammunition must particularly describe the place to be searched and the
and explosives; and R.A. No. 1700, the Anti-Subversion Law things to be seized. This requirement of particularity in the
Search Warrant No. 365 was therefore a "scatter-shot warrant" description, especially of the things to be seized, is meant to
and totally null and void. enable the law enforcers to readily identify the properties to
he seized and, thus, prevent the seizure of the wrong items. It
PERSONALLY DETERMINED BY JUDGE seeks to leave the law enforcers with no discretion at all
regarding these articles and to give life to the constitutional
707
In this regard, for a search warrant to be valid, the provision against unreasonable searches and seizures.
determination of the existence of probable cause shall be done
personaly by the judge after examination under oath, or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
* Surbany Gallardo vs. People, G.R. No. 231045 (Notice). [March 18, 202 1].
Kho vs. Lanzanas, supra.
702

703
Phil. Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Razon Alvarez, GR. No. 179408, [March 5,2014) 707
Century Chinese Medicine Co, vs. People, supra.
G.R. No. 89103, [July J4, 1995), 316 PHIL 237-245. Phil. Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Razon Alvarez, supra.
 RULE 126
PROCEDURE 471
RULES ON
CRIMINAL
ANNOTATED
Search and Seizure
470

are limited to those which bear direct relation to

Sweeping authority the
not a
cmpowerng a
described

for which the warrant is being issued||

warant is
A search a fishing expedition to
relating to confiscate
offense

undertake
to articles
Notably, a description ofaa place to be searched is sufficient
raiding party or a
of evidence which were not specified crime,
anyand all kinds
Accordingly, the objects taken in the
ficer with the warrant can ascertain and identify with
appellant 708 reasonable effort the place intended, and distinguish it from
warrant
Ibe restored to
should
search
places in the community. Adesignation that points out
warrant is defined as a search or other
general arrest be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on
A as to the place to
arrested that
warrant or
particular
person allowsbe
theis property to be seized. It is one that to
not the unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the
requirement of definiteness. 712
inquiry

the seizure of
one thing
nder a
warrant
describing another
warrant the
constitutional

the officer
whichgives
and items
executingthe

to take. Ageneral
discretion over
warrant is proscribed by both RULES ON THE USE OF BODY WORN CAMERAS IN
Constitution.
709 EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANTS
jurisprudence and the 1987 THE

The test of whether the requirement of i definiteness or Issuance of Warrant and Requirement to Use Body-Worn
particularity has been met is whether the description of Cameras

searched under the warrant is sufficient

the place to be of other premises If the judge finds probable cause, he or she shall iSsue
to prevent a search which shall include an order requiring the
and descriptive enough
located within the surrounding area or community. A the search warrant,
use of
at least one body-wom camera and one alternative
"place" may refer to asingle building or structure, or a house
710 recording device, or a minimum of1two devices, or such number
or residence.
as necessary to capture and record the relevant incidents
713
during its execution.
REQUIREMENT OF SPECIFICITY

Notification to Persons in Place to be Searched

The requirement of specificity, however, does not
fhe
require technical accuracy in the description of When conducting a search by virtue of a warrant, the
property to be seized. Specificity is satisfied if the personal officers wearing the body-worn cameras or altermative recording
properties' description is as far as the circumstances will devices shall, as early as practicable, notify the lawful
ordinarily allow it to be so described. The nature of the Occupants of the premises to be searched that the execution of
description should vary according to whether the identity of are conducting
the search warrant is being recorded and that they 714
the property or its character is a matter of concern. One of the asearch pursuant to a warrant issued by a court.
tests to determine the particularity in the description of objects
to be seized under a search warrant is when the things

11 Phil. Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Razon Alvarez, supra.

T People vs. Nuñez yRevilleza, G.R. No. 177148, [June 30, 2009]. 12 Dimal vs. People,G.R. No. 216922. [April I8, 2018).
709 Worldwide Web Corp. vs. People, supra. 713 Section 3, Rule III, A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC. [June 29, 2021].
710
Diaz vs. People, G.R. No. 213875, [July 15, 2020). 14 Section 4, Rule III, Ibid.
 PROCEDURp
RULE 126
CRIMINAL
RULES ON A N N O T A T E D
Search and Seizure 473

472

interferes with the

body-worn cameras'
and video recordings of theability to
Search15 intentionally

Camera during capture audio

Use of
Body-Worn
and
accurately

manipulates such
search,
one
body-worn camera one alternatiyeand o t h e r w i s e

after the recording during or

At least
recording device or such nunber as neceSsary to capture search
or may be liable for contempt of court. Liability for
recordthe relevant incidents during execution of the waITant contempt of shall not apply if the body-worn cameras
court

of the team conducting the activated due to their malfunction and the
by members
search not law
shall be worn
were
body-worm officers were not aware of the malfunction prior
warant. Should a
virtue ofat aleast two alternative recording devices must be camera be e n f o r c e m e n t

byunavailable, This is without prejudice to any administrative,

the incident.
used. The officers having such cameras shall ensure that they to
civil, or criminal proceedings that may be initiated against
conspicuous location
and in a manner or her for
the same acts or omissions.
that
are worm in a
him
abilityy to capture arecording of the search.
maximizes their Failure to timely file the affidavit as required under
Unless justified under Rule 4, Section 10 of these Rules, Section 6 of this Rule may likewise render the law enforcement
recording functions of the cameras shall officer liable for contempt
of court.
both video and audio arTive at the place of
as the officers search,
be activated as soon be deactivated until the search Section 5. Examination of complainant; record. The judge
cameras shall not has
and the must, before 0ssuing the warrant, personally examine in
been fully concluded and the officers conducting the search
the police station the form of searching questions and answers, in writing
have left the premises and returned to and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may
In case of malfunction, damage, or unavailabilitvy of produce on facts personally known to them and attach to
body-worn cameras, a resort to alternative recording devices record their SWorn statements, together with the
the
may be allowed. Reasons for resorting to such altemative affidavits submitted. (4a)
submitted t
devices shall be explained in the affidavit to be
this Rule.
the court under Section 6 of EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT

Effect of Failure to Observe the Requirements for Bodv. Before issuing the warrant, the judge must personally
Conducted"16
Worn Cameras on Search examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in
Failure to observe the requirement of using body-worm writng and under oath, and together with the afidavits submitted.
cameras or alternative recording devices, without reasonable
grounds, during the execution of the search warrant shalI WHAT ARE SEARCHING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS?
render the evidence obtained inadmissible for the prosecution Searching questions and answers is a form of personal
of the offense for which the search warrant was applied. exarmination by the judge of the complainant and the wimesses he
717
A law enforcement officer who fails to adhere to the may produce on facts personally known to them.
requirements during the execution of a search warrant, or
115 Section 5, Rule III, Ibid.
16 Section 7, Rule II, Ibid. " Rules of Court, Section 5, Rule 126.
 CRIMINAL , PROCEDURE RULE 126
RULES ON Search and Seizure 475
ANNOTATED

474

Inan applicationfor search warrant, the mandate of the ddetermination

of
probable cause iS a personal task of the
conduct a
full and searching judge beefore whom the application for search warrant
the is filed,
judgeis for
him to
and the witnesses he may
examination of to examine under oath or affirmation the
searching questions propounded to the applicant and The
the
complainant
theproduce. as
he
and his
has
applicant
or her witnesses in the form of "searching questions
witnesses must depend on a large extent upon the discretion and answers" in writing and under oath. The warrant, if
Alhough there
is no hard-and-fast rule as issued, must particularly describe the place to be searched and
the judge. to how seized 719
of conduct his examination, it is axiomatic that the things
to be
said
ajudge may
examination must be probing and exhaustive and thenot
merely routinary. general, peripheral or perfunctory. He must AFFIDA VIT O
OF SEARCH AND SUBMISSION OF
make his own inquiry on the intent and factual and legal UNDER THE RULE ON THE USE OF
R E C O R D I N G S

BODY-WORN CAMERAS20
justifications for a search warrant. The questions should
not
of the averments stated in the
merely be repetitious and the witnesses.
718 affidavits/ Upon filing of the return under Rule 126, Section 12 of
deposition of the applicant Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, all recordings from
the
Section 6. Issuance and form of search Warrant. -If the cameras or alternative recording devices used
the body-worn
judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the the execution of the warrant shall be stored in an
during
application is based or that there is probable cause to external media storage device and simultaneously deposited in
the issuing court. In case of redaction
believe that they exist, he shall issue the warrant, which asealed package with
musttbe substantiallyin the form prescribed by these Rules. (5a) personal jdentifiers in the recordings pursuant to Rule 4,
ofSection 4 of these Rules, both the unredacted and the redacted
ISSUED) files shall be submitted
to the court. The returm shall be
WHEN SHOULD SEARCH WARRANT BE accompanied by affidavits of the officers whose body-wom
The judge shall issue the warrant, which must he cameras or alternative recording devices were used to capture
substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules: the recordings, and the affidavits shall state:
1. if the judge is satisfied of the existence of facts Inon 1. The date, time, and place of the recording:
which the application is based or
2. The manner by which the recording was taken and
2. that there is probable cause to believe that they exist. stored, and when applicable, the fact of unavailability of
0 0 body-worn cameras and that a resort to alternative
To paraphrase this rule, a search warrant has substantive
recording devices was necessary, and the circumstances
and procedural aspects. It may be issued only if there is detailing the non-activation, interruption, or sudden
probable cause in connection with a specific offense alleged
in an application based on the personal knowledge of the termination of the recording:
applicant and his or her witnesses. This is the substantive
requirement in the issuance of a search warrant. Procedurally,
719 Coca-Cola Bottlers, Phils,, Inc. vs. Gomez, supra.
Dimal vs. People, G.R. No. 216922, [April 18, 2018. 120 Section 7, Rule III, A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC, [June 29, 2021]
 RULE 126
PROCEDURE
CRIMINAL Search and Seizure 477
RULES ON ANNOTATED

476

Iinquest pIroceedings, if any including possibly those

3. The fact that persons subject of the recording werc againstthe officer or officers causing the death together
r e l a t e d

infomed of the use ofl body-wom cameras Or altemative withother relevant documents, shall likewise be submitted.
recording devices;
Itis the duty of the issuing judge to ascertain if the return
4. The date, time, place, and other circumstances surrounding Section 12 of the
under Rule 126, Revised Rules
the first instance of retrieval or download of the Criminal Procedure is accompanied by the required affidavits,of
filed
cameras; if none, to issue a show cause order against the responsible
recordings from the
5. The names and positions of the persons who had andto require the submission. If the officer fails to
with such order, he or she may be held liable for
officer

possession of. and access to the recordings, including

access, from the time of
comply
of court until the proper submission is mnade.
details of such their taking Contempt

with the court:

until their deposit
Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search.
6. The fact of redaction of personal identifiersS appearing in oofficer, if
refused admittance to the place of
directed
The
the recording whenever applicable, the special circumstances search after giving notice of his purpose and authority,
justifying such redaction, and the details redacted, open any outer or inner door or window of a
pusuantto Rule 4, Section 4 ofithese Rules; may break
house or any part of a house or anything therein to
execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person
Whenever applicable, a certification that both unredacted
7. and him when unlawfully detained therein. (6)
redacted files containing the recordings are lawfully aiding
submitted to the court; RIGHT TO BREAK DOOR OR WINDOow TO EFFECT
officers who will k.
8. The names and positions of the SEARCH

delivering the recordings to the court;

The offcer, if refused admittance to the place of directed
9. Reasonable ground in case of noncompliance with Gearch after giving notice of his purpose and authority. may
any of the requirements on the use of body-wom break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or
cameras or alternative record1ng deVices, including any part of ahouse or anything therein to execute the warrant
all acts undertaken showing genuine and sufficient Dr liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when
efforts exerted to ensure compliance with these Rules. unlawfully detained therein.
In case of death, physical disability, resignation, or This provision is also known as the "knock and announce"
severance of ties with the agency of the officers whose body principle. Generally, officers implementing a search warrant
worn cameras or alternative recording devices were used in must announce their presence, identify themselves to the
the execution of the search warrant, any member of the team accused and to the persons who rightfully have possession of
conducting the search shall make the affidavit. the premises to be searched, and show to them the search
When death results from the execution of the search warrant to be implemented by them and explain to them said
warrant, an incident report detailing the implementation of the warrant in a language or dialect known to and understood by
search, the reasons why such death occurred, the result of
 PROCEDURE RULE 126
RULES ON
CRIMINAL
ANNOTATED
Search and Seizure 479
478

mere procedural fo they knocked on the door and called out

provision whichformality bu
is not a
petitioner,

of but nobody answered.

them. The
requirement
naime Thus, they bumped the
safeguards
substantial petitioner's

the
individual [Link] No precise forn of words is required. It is
essence on the ground floor to be able to enter
is of the house.
door
open petitioner's
However., the second floor, where petitioner and his
notice of the
authority and
sufficient
the
that the
accused has
purpose of the search and the objecttheirto
officers, children were staying, also had a locked door., Also, in the
case of Mascariñas v. People,' petitioner failed to prove that
beseized ?21
of)olice officers in his house was unreasonable. The
"no-knock"
entry, the polic must theentry
Court held that the ules on knock and announce principle
justify a
In order to suspicion that knocking and in this case. When the police arrived at the
have a
reasonable
under the
particular circumstances,
would be
announcing were
observed

accused, PO2 Rosales knocked the door and informed

presence, house of
dangerous
their or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective were police officers armed with asearch warrant but
investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the that they
occupants refused to open the door so the police forcibly
destruction of evidence. This standard - as opposed to a the
the. door and entered.
probable-cause requirement strikes the appropriate balance opened

law enforcement concerns at issue in burisprudernce provides when an unannounced intrusion

between
the the legitimate
execution of search warrants and the individual privacy permissible.726
722
into the premises is
no-knock entries. 1. a party whose premises or is entitled to the
interest affected by
warrant possession thereof refuses, upon demand, to open it:
As to how long an officer implementing a search
open any door cannot be distilled
Must wait before breaking 2. when such person in the premises already knew of the
stopwatch. Each case has to be decided identity of the officers and of their authority and persons;
into a constitutional examination of all
requiring an
on acase-to-case basis 3. when the officers are justified in the honest belief
circumstances. The proper trigger point in determining, under
the "knock and announce" rule, whether the police waited that there is an imminent peril to life or limb; and
a
long enough before entering the residence to execute 4. when those in the premises, aware of the presence of
warrant, is when those inside should have been alerted that the
a warrant 23
someone outside (because, for example, there has
police wanted entry to execute been a knock at the door), are then engaged in
In the case of Tumabini v People,'* the Supreme Court activity which justifies the officers to believe that an
held that the police officers followed Sec. 7, Rule 126 when escape or the destruction of evidence is being
they forcibly opened the door of the first floor because they attempted. Suspects have no constitutional right to
were refused admittance despite giving notice to petitioner. destroy evidence or dispose of evidence.
As testified by SPO2 Matillano, when they went to the house Note that the exceptions above are not exclusive or
conclusive 727
" People vs. Huang Zhen Hua, G.R. No. 139301, [September 29, 2004).
Ibid.
723

24
Ibid. 75 G.R. No. 257486 (Notice), (December 7, 2022].
GR. No. 224495, (February 19, 2020]. ?20 People vs. Huang Zhen Hua, supra.
 RULE 126
CRIMINAL PIROCEDURE Search and Seizure 481
RULESON A N N O T A T E D

480

the lawful occupant of the premises or any

house, room, or premise to be member
of made of his family.
house, in
Search
Section 8. - No search of a
of hvo
witnesses,

shall be made except in the room, 4. Likewise, in Panuncio v. People, "the Court sustained
presence

or any other
premise
occupant
thereof or any member presence
of his the validity of the search conducted in petitioner's
lawful
absence of the latter, two residence. Here, even assuming that
of the
or in the
discretion residing in the same
witnesses of petitioner or any
Jawful occupant of the house was not present when
family
sufficient age and locality. (7a) the search was conducted, the search was done in the
HOW TO CONDUCT SEARCH OF HOUSE, ROOM, presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age
OR PREMISES?
and discretion residing in the same locality. Manalo
1. No search of a house, room, or any other premise was the barangay chairman of the place while
shall be made except in the presence of(1) the lawful
Velasco was petitioner's employee. Petitioner herself
Occupant thereof or any member of his family or in signed the certification of orderly search when she
arrived at her residence. Clearly, the requirements of
the absence of the latter, (2) two witnesses of sufficient
Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court were
discretion residing in the same locality.
age and complied with by the police authorities who conducted
2. This rule clearly and explicitly establishes a hierarchy the search.

whose presence the search of

among the witnesses in conducted.
be Thus, a search 5. However, in Tabingo y Ballocanag v. People, the
the premises must Supreme Court ruled that the conduct of the search
under the strength of a warrant is requiredto be
was not done in accordance with Section 8, Rule 126
witmessed by the lawful occupant of the premisoe of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Here,
Sought to be searched. Only upon their absence nma. although the petitioner was in his house, he did not
two (2) persons of sufficient age and discretion witness the actual search because he was ordered to
residing in the same locality be made to stand as stay at the main door while the search in his bedroom
728
their replacements.
was on-going. It is as if the search was conducted
3. In People v. Punzalan, 729 the Supreme Court held without his presence. Petitioner was effectively
that even if the barangay officials were not present precluded from witnessing the search conducted by
during the initial search, the search was witnessed by the police officers in his bedroom where the illegal
accused-appellants themselves, hence, the search was drugs and paraphernalia were allegedly found.
valid since the rule that "two witnesses of sufficient
age and discretion residing in the same locality" Section 9. Time of making search. - The warrant must
must be present applies only in the absence of either direct that it be served in the day time, unless the affidavit
asserts that the property is on the person or in the place
Tbid
Estores yPecardal vs. People, G R. No. 192332, [January 11, 2021] citing People vs.
Go, G.R No. 144639, [September 12, 2003). 7390 G.R. No. 165678, (July 17, 2009].
729
GR No. 199087, [November J1, 2015]. G.R. No. 241610, [February 1, 2021).
 PROCEDURE RULE 126
RULES ON CRIMINAL Search and Seizure 483
ANNOTATED

482

ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be onthe deposition of PO3 Arturo C. Enriquez and PO3 Jesus
insertedthat it beserved at any time of the day or night. (8) which stated that they allegedly bought
Manulat,
petitioner at about 9:00 in the evening. shabu from
SEARCH

TIME OF
MAKING
Section 10. Validity of search warrant. - Asearch warrant
GENERAL RULE: The waIrant must direct that it be served shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter it
void. (9a)
time. shall be
in the day
EXCEPT: when the affidavit asserts that the property is on VALIDITY OF SEARCH WARRANT
the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which
case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time shall be valid for ten (10) days from
Asearch warrant
Thereafter it shall be void.
of the day or night. its date.
The rule on issuance of a search warrant allows for the In the case of Lacadin v. Mangino, the Supreme Court
exercise of judicial discretion in fixing the time within which held that extending the lifetime of the search warrant was not
the warrant may be served, subject to the statutory requirement made by respondent with ignominy and ill will. While it is
fixing the maximunm time for the execution of a warTant. settled that search warrants are effective for 10 days and
Absent any abuse of discretion, a search conducted at night thereafter it shall be void, to the mind of respondent, a valid
improper.732 question of law existed: may a judge extend the effectivity of
where so allowed, is not considered as
733 the Supreme Court ruled that the asearch warrant upon motion duly filed before the expiration
In People v. Legaspi, ofsaid period? Constrained to make a decision on the last day
findings of the lower courts that the search conducted by the
af the effectivity of the search warrants and with the desire
police officers was not marred by irregularities. The searth not to unnecessarily repeat the procedure of ascertaining the
warrant expressly contained a directive for the polise offices
nropriety of another application that would cause the delay of
to search appellant's house at any time of the day or nigkt the execution of the warrants, since time is of the essence in
Thus. the contention that the search warrant was iregularly the execution of search warrants, respondent resolved the
enforced as the search was conducted at an unreasonable time
(between 1:25 and 2:30 in the morning) has no merit.
uestion in the affirmative and extended the lifetime of the
search warrants issued by him with the expressed reservation
Also, in the case of Tumabini v. People,* the Supreme that the final resolution of the question may be pursued in the
Court held that the Regional Trial Court had basis to state that higher courts.
the search warrant may also be implemented at dawn or carly
morning. Here, the search warrant stated that the scarch shall The acts of a judge which pertain to his judicial
be made at "ANY TIME OF THE DAY OR NIGHT" functions are not subject to disciplinary power unless they are
Notably, the RTC Cebu City issued the scarch warrant based committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith.
Absent any proof that herein respondent was motivated by
People vs. Court of Appeals, GR. No. 117412, (December 8, 2000).
3 [Link]. 179718 (Resolution), (September 17, 2008).
734
GR No. 224495, [February 19, 2020). $ A.M. No. MTJ-01-1346 (formerly OCA I P.L.99-695-MTJ) (Resolution), [July 9, 2003]
 RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDUR
484 ANNOTATED RULE 126
Search and Seizure
485
accord him the
ignominy or ill will, we
faith,"56
presumplion that he
admitted
being an actual
occupant/residentv. of
acted in good Hence, 1n the case of
AI-Ghoul Apartment
property seized.
2. 30
found no violation of Section Court of Appeals, 138No.
Section 11. Receipt for the
court

under the warrant must give a

The officer the
Revised Rules
of Court. 10, Rule 126
of the
seizing property
receipt for the
same to the lawful occupant of the detailed Section 12. Delivery of property and
in whose presence
the search and seizure were premises
made, court; return and proceedings thereon. inventory thereof to
occupant, must, in the or in
the absence of such presence
least two witnesses of
sufficient age and
discretion of at (a) The officer must forthwith deliver
residing seized to the judge who the
in the same locality, leave a receipt in warrant, property
the place in issued the
he found the seized property. (10a)
which with a truue inventory
thereof duly verified together
under oath.
RECEIPT FOR THE PROPERTY SEIZED
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search
the issuing judge shall ascertain if the warrant,
been made, and if none, shall summon return has
The officer seizing property under the waIrant must whom the warrant was the person to
give OO issued and
a detailed receipt for the same to the (1) lawful OCcupant of
require him to
explain why no return was made. If the
the premises in whose presence the search and seizure were return bas
been made, the judge shall ascertain whether
made. or (2) in the absence of such occupant, must, in the Rule has been complained section
two witnesses of sufficient 11 of this with and shall
presence of at least age and require that the property seized be delivered
discretion residing in the same locality, leave areceipt in The iudge to him.
the shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has
place in which he found the seized property. been complied with.
In People v. Del Castillo, the raiding team failed t (o) The return on the search warrant
shall be filed
comply with the procedures on search and seizures. The nules and kept by the custodian of the log book on search
provide that the detailed receipt of the inventory must be warrants who shall enter therein the date of the
given to the lawful occupant. In this case, however, PO3 return, the result, and other actions of the judge.
Petallar admitted that the inventory receipt was given to the
barangay tanod despite the presence of the appellant and her Aviolation of this section shall constitute contempt of
grandmother which is a violation of the rule. court. (1la)
As to the two-witness rule, it applies only in the absence DELIVERY OF PROPERTY AND INVENTORY
of the lawful occupants of the premises searched. In the case
at bar, petitioners were present when the search and seizure 1. The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized
operation was conducted by the police at Apartiment No. 2. to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a
More importantly, petitioner Nabeel Al-Riyami y Nasser true inventory thereof duly verified under oath.

"36 Ihid
GR. No. IS3254, [September 30, 2004). G.R. No. 126859, (September 4, 2001].
 PROCEDURR RULE 126
RULES ON
CRIMINAL
ANNOTATED
Search and Seizure 487
486

2. Ten (l10) days after issuance of the search warrant. the seized items to the
failed to deliver
the issuing judge shall ascertain if the retum has issued the search warrant. lt was commanded incourt
officers
which
the search
that the seized articles be
and if none,
shall sumimon
the brought to the court which
0ssueditto be dealt with as the law directs. Under the rule, the
and requireperson to
warrant

been made,
warrant was issued
whom the him to seized property must be delivered by the officer to the judge
return was made. If the
explain why no has return who issued the warrant. It must be accompanied with a true
shall
made, the judge ascertain whether
been
1l of this Rule has been complained with andsection
shall inventory
thereof duly verified. Moreover, the
inventoryof
require that the property seized be delivered to him. receipt was not certified under oath by any of the members
the raiding team as required by the rule but was signed only
see to it that subsection (a)
The judge shall hereof and her brother.
complied with.
appellant

has been by
3. The return on the search warrant shall be filed and pUTY T O DELIVER

kept by the custodian of the log book on search

who shall enter therein the
The duty to deliver the items seized by the officers to the
date of
of the judge. the
warrants
return, the result, and other actions COurt which issued the search warrant is mandatory in
character. This is evident by the use in the rule of the word
Aviolation of this section shall constitute contempt
"must. The rule is not merely a piddling procedural rule. The
of court requirement is to preclude substitution of the items seized by
This rule expressly mandates the delivery of the seized interested parties or the tampering thereof, or the loss of such
items to the judge who issuedthe search warrant to be kept in goods due to the negligence of the officers effecting the
acts. 741
custodia legis in anticipation of the criminal proceedings seizure or their deliberate
of the items seized to the Court
against petitioner. The delivery a
The approval by the court which issued the search
which issued the warant together with a true and accurate warrant is necessary before police officers can retain the
inventory thereof, duly verified under oath, is mandatory in property seized and without it, they would have no authority
order to preclude the substitution of said items by interestod to retain p0ssession thereof and more so to deliver the same to
parties. The judge who issued the search warrant is mandated another agency. Mere tolerance by the trial court ofa contrary
to ensure compliance with the requrements for () the practice does not make the practice right because it is
issuance of a detailed receipt for the property received, (2)
violative of the mandatory requirements of the lavw and it
delivery of the seized property to the court, together with (3) a thereby defcats the very purpose for the enactment."
verified true inventory of the items seized. Any violation of
the foregoing constitutes contempt of court, 39 Section 13. Search incidentto lawful [Link] lawfully
In People v. Del Castillo, * there was a failure to arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or
comply with the requirements under the rule. The police
739
Santos vs. Pryce Gases, Inc, G.R. No. 165122, [November 23, 2007]. 711 Tenorio vs. Court of Appeals,G.R. No. I10604, [October 10, 2003].
H0 G.R. No. 153254, [September 30, 2004J. *2 Mallillin y Lopez vs. People, G.R. No. 172953, [April 30, 2008).
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 126
RULES ONA N N O T A T E D Search and Seizure 489
488

anything which may have been used or constitute proof in Agravantey De Oca v. People,"" the Supreme
Court
without a search as a consequcnce of petitioner's unlawful warrantless
the
commission of an offense warrant. (12a) that
arrest, it necessarily follows that there could have been no
held

TO ALAWFUL validsearch incidental to a lawful arrest. Further, it is ernphasized

SEARCH
INCIDENTAL
ARREST was made even before petitioner was
the search arrested,
A person lawfully arrested may be searched for violating the cardinal rule that there must first be alawful
that

dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or arrest before a search can be made. Absent the requisite
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a lawful arrest that must precede the search, such search cannot
search warrant.
743
considered legal and the pieces of evidence obtained
be
therefrom are inadmissible
In a search incidentalto a lawful arrest, as the precedent
arrest determines the validity of the incidental search, the
OTHER EXCEPTIONS TO SEARCH WARRANT
legality of the arrest is questionedin a large majority of these
cases, e.g., whether an arrest was merely used as a pretext for REQUIREMENT

conducting a search. In this instance, the law requires that 1 CONSENTED SEARCH
a lawful arrest before a search can be made
first becannot
thereprocess
the be reversed. At bottom, assuming a valid There is a consented search when there is a waiver of the
the arresting officer may search the person of tha constitutional guarantee against obtrusive searches, it must
arrest.
arrestee and the area within which the latter may reach for a
first appear that the right exists; secondly, that the person
weapon or for evidence to destroy, and seize any monev or
involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence
property found which was used in the commission
of of Such a right; and lastly, that said person had an actual
747
crime, or the fruit of the crime, or that which may be sed intention to relinquish the right.
evidence, or which might furnish the arrestee with the means
case is examined
The consent must be voluntary in order to validate an
of escaping or committing violence. The 744 otherwise illegal detention and search, i.e., the consent is
based on the existence of probable cause.
unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated
A search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest by any duress or coercion. Consent to a search is not to be
can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to lehtly infered, but must be shown by clear and convincing
make the arrest at the outset of the search. Probable cause evidence. 748 It must be noted that silence cannot be construed
749
signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by as an implied acquiescence to the warrantless search. A
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent or
cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of
the offense with which he is charged. 745

41
746 G.R. No. 257450, (July l1,2022]
Section 13, Rule 126. Polangcos yFrancisco vs. People, G.R. No. 239866, (September l1, 2019].
# Gamil yManalo vs. People, G.R. No. 239816 (Notice), (September 29, 2021).
745 # Valdez vs. People, G.R. No. 170180, [November 23, 2007|
People vs. Jumarang yMulingbayan, G.R. No. 250306, (August 10, 2022). People vs. Nuevas y Garcia, G.R. No. 170233, [F¢bruary 22, 20071.
749
 RULE 126
ON
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Search and Seizure 491
RULES ANNOTATED

490

one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his

nnerely
but is 750
a demonstration immediate control 753
of
an
invitation
thereto,

of thelaw. regard
forthe
supremacy

a consent to a Search
An object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly
whether was in exposed to sight. Where the object seized was inside a closed
The is aquestion of fact to be. detennined from the totalty factof
question
voluntary
the object itself is not in plain view and therefore
Relevant to tlhis determination are package,
cannot be seized without a warrant. However, if the package
giving consent and thethe
circumstances.

all the of the person

following
characteristics

is given:
proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its
which consent
environment in transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an observer,
defendant: contents are in plain view and may be seized. In other
1. the age of the thenthe
package is such that an experienced observer
in a public or secluded words, if the
2. whether he was location; could infer
from its appearance that it contains the prohibited
3. whether he objected tothe search or passively looked on:
article, then
the article is deemed in plain view. 754
4. the education and intelligence of the defendant; Obiects in the "plain view" of an officer who has the
procedures: right to
be in the position to have that view are subject to
5. the presence of coercive police seizure and may be presented as evidence. The "plain view"
6. the defendant's belief that no incriminating evidence doctrine may not, however, be used to launch unbridled searches
seizures nor to extend a general exploratory
will be found; and indiscriminate 755

questioning: search made solely to find evidence of de fendant's guilt.

7. the nature of the police
WARRANTLESS SEARCH
8. the environment in which the questioning took place: and
9. the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person In plain view doctrine, warrantless search is valid if the
consenting. following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in
search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion
It is the State which has the burden of proving, by clear or is in a position from which he can view a particular area:
and positive testimony, that the necessary consent was (b)the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and
obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given.52 item he
(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that theotherwise
2. PLAINVIEW D0CTRINE observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or
756
subject to seizure.
The warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a
suspect's lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person of the The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an
initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can

133 People vs. Musay Hantatalu, G.R. No. 96177, [January 27, 1993].
People vs. Burgos yTito, G.R. No. L-68955, (September 4, 1986]. TS4 Caballes y Taiño vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. l36292, [January Is, 2002).
People vs. Musa y Hantatalu, G.R. No. 96177, [January 27, 1993].
755
15 Tbid.
T2 Jbid. Sioco vs. People, G.R. No. 234333 (Notice), (January 8, 2018.
 PROCEDURE
RULES ON CRIMINAL RULE 126
492 ANNOTATED
Search and Seizure
493

particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful thal

could76! unexpectedlly and
intrusion, he must
come inadvertently acrOss a
weapon

officer. fatally be used

accused. The object must piccc of thepolice against
evidence incriminating the inadvertent 757 be Accordingly, to
open sustain the
officer shouldvalidity
discOvery
to eye and hand and its Unla wful the arresting
of a stop and frisk
of an officer who has
objects within the plain vicw view are the right have
lo
search,

or more suspicious personally observed

in the position to have
be
that
evidence
subjcct to
758 seizure and
two (2)
would then create a reasonable circumstances, the totality of
in
the arresting officer to inference of criminal
which
may be presented compel
activityto investigate further."62
FRISK
3. STOP AND Suspicion alone is not sufficient to
"Stop and frisk"
searches (sometimes referred
to as
constitutional
right to privacy. Mere hunch, indefeat petitioner's
the absence of
necessary for law enforcement. That other circumstance of which the
Terry searches) are any officer had personal
law enforcers should be given
the legal arsenal to is, knowledge, does not satisfy the
759 prevent the requirements
search. It must be supported for a valid stop
commission of offenses. and frisk by evidence such that
the totality
of the suspicious circumstances
Astop and frisk search
refers to the act
of a police officer led him or her to believe
observed by the
the street, arresting that an accused was
officer of stopping a citizen on interrogating committing an illicit act. A warrantless arrest not based on
him/her, and patting him/her for weapons or contrabands. this is a violation of the accused's basic right to privacy. 763
limited to a
The allowable scope of the search is thus protective
search of outer clothing for weapons, While probable cause iS nStop and frisk" searches should thus be allowed
not required, a stop and frisk search cannot be validated only in the specific and limited instances contemplated in
the basis of suspicion or hunch. The law enforcers must have Terry: (1) it should be allowed only on the basis of the police
agenuine reason to believe, based on their experience and the cer's reasonable suspicion, in light of his or her experience,
circumstances of each case, that criminal activity may be hat criminal activty may be afoot and that the persons with
afoot 760Such a "stop-and-frisk practice serves a dual purpose: bom he/she is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous; (2)
(1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and the search must only be a carefully limited search of the outer
detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer clothing; and (3) conducted for the purpose of discovering
may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate weapons which m1ght
764
be used to assault him/her or other
persons in the area.
manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating
possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and 4, SEARCH OF A MOVING VEHICLE
(2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation
which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself The rules goverming searches and seizures have been
that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly liberalized when the object ofa scarch is a vehicle for practical

758
People vs. Lagman, 593 Phil. 617 (2008). Esquillo y Romines vs. People, G.R. No. 182010, [August 25, 20101.
People vs. Aspiras, G.R. Nos. 138382-84, [February 12, 2002]. 702 Manibog vs. People, supra.
Manibog vs. People, G.R. No. 211214. [March 20, 2019]. 3764 Telen yIchon vs. People, G.R. No. 228107, [October 9, 20191
People vs. Fred y Layogan, G.R. No. 243022, [July 14, 2021]. People vs. Cristobal yAmbrosio,G.R. No. 234207, [June 10, 2019).
 RULE 126
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Search and Seizure 495
RULESONA N N O T A T E D

494

purposes. Police officers cannot be expected to appear beforc 5. where the inspcction of the vehicles is limited to a
warrant when
Visual search or visual inspection; and
essence apply for ascarch is of the
considering the efficiency of vehicles in facilitating
time
ajudge and 6. where the routine check is conducted in afixed area.
contraband or dangerous
involving articles 768 officers in such cases, however, are
transactions
Awarrantless, intrusive search of a moving vehicle cannot
Peace limited to
rOutine checks where the examination of the vehicle is limited
be premised solely on an initial tip. It must be founded on inspection. On the other hand, an extensive
probable cause where there must be a confluence of several to
visual
search of
vehicleis permissible, but only when he officers made it
suspicious circumstances. As the cause for the search, each a probable cause, i.e., upon a belief,,reasonably
1 arising ouf
such circumstance must occur before the search is Commenced. upon
circumstances known to-the seizing officer, that an
Further, they must each be independently suspicious. Thus. automobile or other vehicle contains an item, article or object
predisposed to perceive guilt law is subject to seizure and destruction."
768
when law enforcers are as
when specific persons are the targets of checkpoints, patrols, which by

and similar operations - their subjective perception cannot dIn People v. Musa y sawabi, cases were enumerated
766 the Supreme Court found that as to facts, there is a
anchor probable cause. were
probable cause justifying warantless arrests and searches, i.e.
Avariant of searching moving vehicles without warrant distinct odor of marijuana, reports about drug transporting,
may entail the setting up of military or police checkpoints,. suspicious behaviou, failure to produce identification papers.
The setting up of such checkpoints is not illegal per se for as attended the arrests and searches because
Moreover, urgency
long as its necessity is justified by the exigencies of public each of the
above-mentioned cases involved the use of motor
order and connducted in a way least intrusive to motorists. In vehicles and thus, the great likelihood that the accused would
order for the search of vehicles in a checkpoint to be non- before a warrant can be procured.
violative of an individual's right against unreasonable searches get away long

the search must be limited to the following:767 However, in People v. Comprado y Bronola, "0 the
search could not be classified as a search of a moving vehicle.
1. where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a In this particular type of search, the vehicle is the target and
vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds: not a specific person. Further, in search of a moving vehicle,
2. where the officer simply looks into a vehicle: the vehicle was intentionally used as ameans to transport
illegal items. It is worthy to note that the information relayed
3. where the officer flashes a light therein without to the police officers was that a passenger of that particular
opening the car's doors:
bus was carrying marijuana such that when the police officers
4. where the occupants are not subjected to a physical boarded the bus, they searched the bag of the person matching
or body search; the description given by their informant and not the cargo or
contents of the said bus. Moreover, in this case, it just so

T0 Peopie vs. Musa ySawabi, G. R. No. 240450 (Notice), (December 6, 202 I]. 768 Tbid.
6t
Evardo yLopena vs. People, G.R. No. 2343 17, (May 10, 2021). 769 G.R. No. 240450 (Notice), [December 6, 2021).
16 People vs. Sapla yGuerrero, G.R. No. 244045, [June 16, 2020]. 70 G.R. No. 213225, [April 4, 2018].
 RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 126
496 ANNOTATED Search and Seizure
497

alleged drug courier was a bus IN THE MOTION TO

happened that the breadth QUASH SEARCH
To extend to
such the scope of searches
floodgates to unbridled on
passenger, RULES
WARRANT OR TOS SUPPRESS EVIDENCE?
vehicles would open the movng
expedicntlcssof
warrant 1. A motion toobtained
be conducted by the mere quash asearch warrant and/or to
searches which can

waiting for the target person to ride a motor

vehicle,
evidence thereby may be filed sSuppress
acted upon only by the court where the
vehicle, andsetling
route of that and in
up a checkpoint along the
when it arrives at the (hen been instituted. action has
stopping such vehicle
order to scarch the target person.
checkpoint in 2. If no criminal action has been instituted, the
771
may be filed in and resolved by the motion
in People v. Del Mundo,
of the immediateaccused-appellant's
Also, the search warrant. court that issued
argument that inspection premises must be
limited to a visual search finds no application in this case. 3. However, if such court failed to resolve the
the The
search of a moving vehicle is one of doctrinally accepted and a criminal caseis subsequent filed in motion
exceptions to the constitutional mandate that no search
another
the motion shall be resolved by the latter court. court,
or
seizure shall be made except by virtue of a warrant issued
by
ajudge after personally determining the existence of IN MØTION TO QUASH A
search of a moving vehicle is probable
GUIDELINES

cause. The warrantless OR SUPPRESS

SEARCH
justified WARRANT
EVIDENCE
on the ground that it 1s not practicable to secure a war
because the vehicle carrying the prohibited drugs can be ate 1. A motionto quash a search warrant may be based on
quickly mnoved out of the area or jurisdiction in which the CWsgrounds extrinsic of the search warrant, such as
warrant must be sought. Therefore, the warrantless searoh s (1) the place searched or the property seized are not
accused-appellant's tricycle, which he used in transporting the those specified or described in the search warrant:
marijuana, and by which he attempted to escape, was valid. and (2) there is no probable cause for the issuance of
the search warrant. Thus, a search warrant is valid as
Section 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppres long as it has all the elements set forth by the
evidence; where to file. - A motion to quash a search Constitution and may only be quashed if it lacks one
warrant and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby or some of the said elements, or on those two
may be filed in and acted upon only by the court where grounds abovementioned, 72
the action has been instituted. If no criminal action has
been instituted, the motion may be filed in and resolved by o 2. A motion to suppress evidence is filed when objects
the court that issued the search warrant. However, if such NiD and properties are seized illegally pursuant to the
court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is oG exclusionary rule. The EXCLUSIONARY RULE
subsequent filed in another court, the motion shall be tells that any evidence obtained in violation of the
resolved by the latter court. (n) accused's constitutional right against warrantless search
and seizures and warrantless arrests, the same shall

772
G.R. No. 138929. October 2, 20011, 418 PHIL 740-758. Ibid.
 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULE 126
RULES ON A N N O T A T E D Search and Seizure 499
498

Thus, the
in court. while the goods procured by virtue thercof
be
inad1missible

cannot use
the results his of
drug test for
of the poisonous tree. 113 hesc arc
proscculon subject of apreliminary investigation."%
are

'fruits Where a scarch warrant is issued by one court and

considered as
against erring officers who
5.
protection
disregard the proper procedure in ordeliberately a criminal action based on the results of the search
ie afterwards commenced in another court, it is not
negligently
would so
searches, and 774
recklessly trample cffecimg
On onc's the rule that a motion to quash the warrant (or to
right to privacy. retrieve things thereunder seized) may be filed only
3. All grounds and objections then available, existent or with the issuing Court. Such a motion may be filed
raised in the original or for the first time in either the issuing Court or that in
known shall be
proceedings for the
quashal of the warrant,subsequent which the criminal action is pending. However, the
they shall be deemed waived. Omnibus motion rule otherwise remedy is alternative, not cumulative. The Court first
is applicable to motions to quash search warrants. taking cognizance of the motion does so to the
The motion to quash the search warrant which the exclusion of the other, and the proceedings thereon
accused may file shall be governed by the are subject to the Omnibus Motion Rule and the rule
provided, however, that omnibus against forum-shopping.
777
motion rule,
available., existent or known
objections
during the proceedingsnot A Where no motion to quash the search warrant was
for the quashal of the warrant may be raised in the
fled in or resolved by the issuing court, the interested
hearing of the motion to suppress. Thus, the trial party may move in the court where the criminal case
court could only take cognizance of an issue that was
is pending for the suppression as evidence of the
not raised in the motion to quash if: personal property seized under the warrant if the
i. said issue was not available Or existent when they Same is offered therein for said purpose. Since two
filed the motion to quash the search warrant; separate courts with different participations are
involved in this situation, a motion to quash a search
ii. the issue was one involving jurisdiction over the warrant and a motion to suppress evidence are
subject matter. 775 778
alternative and not cumulative remedies.
4 The court that issued the warTant cannot entertain 7. Although Section 14 of Rule 126 states that a motion
motions to suppress evidence while a preliminary to quash a search warrant and/or to suppress
investigation is ongoing. Such erroneous interpretation o evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and acted
would place aperson whose property has been seized upon only by the court where the action has been
by virtue of an invalid warrant without a remedy instituted, the purpose for which such provision was

76 Solid Triangle Sales Corp. vs. Sheriff of RTC 0C, Br. 93, G.R. No. 144309,
People vs. Hermosura yDe Guzman, G.R. No. 252552 (Notice), [June 23, 2021), [November 23, 2001).
175
Zafe IIl y Sanchez vs. People, G.R. No. 226993, [May 3, 2021). 717
People vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126379, [June 26, 1998].
Surban yGalardo vs. People, G.R. No. 231045 (Notice), [March 18,20211. T8 Malaloan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104879, [May 6, 1994]