Search and Seizure (RULE 126) | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION ON SEARCH AND SEIZURE UNDER RULE 126 OF THE PHILIPPINE RULES OF COURT

I. CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

  1. Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

    • The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.
    • No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

  2. Exclusionary Rule (Section 3, Article III)

    • Any evidence obtained in violation of this right is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding (the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine).

The Constitution thus requires that searches and seizures be “reasonable,” usually effectuated via a validly issued search warrant that particularly describes the place to be searched and items to be seized. Warrantless searches are generally the exception and must fall under specific jurisprudentially recognized categories.

II. RULE 126 OF THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Rule 126 of the Rules of Court governs the procedural rules on Search and Seizure. Below is a section-by-section discussion, incorporating pertinent doctrines and considerations:

A. Section 1: Search Warrant Defined

  1. Definition

    • A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge, directing a peace officer to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court.

  2. Nature

    • Strictly construed against the State because it is an exception to the general guarantee of personal privacy under the Bill of Rights.
    • It is specific to a single offense only (subject to some recognized exceptions, e.g., special laws like Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act cases where multiple items related to the same offense may be listed).

B. Section 2: Court Where Application for Search Warrant Shall Be Filed

  1. Jurisdiction

    • Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.
    • In certain instances (e.g., Metro Manila courts), the Supreme Court allows Executive Judges of designated courts to issue search warrants that can be served outside the judge’s territorial jurisdiction, subject to special guidelines.

  2. Forum-Shopping Concerns

    • The law aims to prevent the practice of indiscriminate search warrant applications across multiple courts for the same offense (i.e., “judge shopping”).
    • If a judge denies an application, the applicant must disclose this fact in subsequent applications to other courts.

C. Section 3: Personal Property to Be Seized

The rule enumerates the following personal property subject of a valid search warrant:

  1. Subject of the offense – e.g., contraband, stolen items, etc.
  2. Stolen or embezzled property and other proceeds or fruits of an offense.
  3. Used or intended to be used as means for committing an offense, e.g., illegal firearms, forged documents, counterfeit currency plates, equipment used for forging documents, etc.

It must appear from the facts that these items are specifically connected to the crime.

D. Section 4: Requisites for Issuing Search Warrant

  1. Probable Cause

    • The judge must personally determine the existence of probable cause.
    • Probable cause for a search warrant refers to facts sufficient to convince a prudent and disinterested person that there is a fair probability that a crime was committed and that the objects sought in connection with that crime will be found in the place to be searched.

  2. Personal Examination

    • The judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and any witnesses the applicant may produce.
    • Mere affidavits are insufficient. There must be searching questions and answers reduced to writing as part of the record.

  3. Particular Description

    • The place to be searched and the items to be seized must be clearly and specifically described to avoid general warrants.
    • Any ambiguity in the description that results in a “roving commission” to search is unconstitutional.

  4. One Specific Offense Rule

    • A search warrant shall be issued only for one specific offense.
    • Several properties may be seized under one warrant if they are all used or intended to be used in the commission of the same offense, or are necessary evidence thereof.

E. Section 5: Examination of the Applicant and Witnesses

  1. Examination under Oath

    • The judge must record the sworn statements in writing.
    • He must propound searching questions and ensure the applicant’s knowledge is credible and based on personal knowledge or verifiable statements of fact.

  2. Purpose

    • To ensure that the judge does not merely “rubber-stamp” the application.
    • Protects citizens from baseless intrusions.

F. Section 6: Issuance and Form of Search Warrant

  1. Contents

    • Must be in writing, in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by the judge, and must include:
      a. The date and place of issuance;
      b. The name of the person/s against whom the warrant is directed (ordinarily the lawful enforcing officers);
      c. A particular description of the place(s) to be searched; and
      d. A particular description of the item(s) to be seized.

  2. Validity Period

    • The warrant is valid for ten (10) days from its date.
    • Thereafter, it becomes void if not served.

G. Section 7: Right to Break Door or Window to Effect Search

  1. Authority to Break

    • In case the lawful officers are refused admittance, they may use reasonable force to gain entry.
    • This must be done only after proper notice of authority and purpose has been made (e.g., “knock and announce” rule), unless circumstances justify non-compliance (e.g., the occupant might destroy evidence).

  2. Limits

    • The force used must be proportionate and strictly necessary to enforce the warrant.

H. Section 8: Search of House, Room, or Premises to Be Made in Presence of Two Witnesses

  1. Requirement

    • The search must be conducted in the presence of:
      • The lawful occupant or any member of his family; or
      • In their absence, at least two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion.

  2. Purpose

    • To prevent planting or tampering of evidence.
    • To preserve the integrity and reliability of the search process.

I. Section 9: Time of Making Search

  1. Daytime Service

    • A search warrant should generally be served in the daytime (i.e., from sunrise to sunset).
    • However, if the affidavit states that the property is on the person or in the place to be searched at night, or other compelling reasons, the judge may insert a direction that it can be served at any time of the day or night.

  2. Policy

    • Minimizes unreasonable intrusions on privacy during nighttime.
    • Judges must issue such permission only if justified by the facts.

J. Section 10: Validity of Search Warrant; Return Thereof

  1. Validity

    • Effective for ten (10) days from issuance.
    • Must be served within that period or it expires.

  2. Return

    • The officer serving the warrant shall, within the same period, deliver to the issuing court the warrant together with an inventory of the property seized.

K. Section 11: Receipt for Property Seized

  1. Receipt Requirement

    • The officer taking property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt to the lawful occupant of the premises or the person from whom it was taken.
    • In absence of the occupant, the receipt must be left in the place where the property was seized.

  2. Policy

    • Ensures transparency and accountability for every item seized during the search.

L. Section 12: Delivery of Property Seized to Court; Inventory

  1. Duty to Deliver and Inventory

    • The seizing officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the issuing court together with an inventory duly verified under oath.
    • This fosters chain of custody safeguards and serves as evidence of the seized property’s existence and condition.

  2. Custody and Disposition

    • The court shall retain custody or direct the safekeeping of the property pending the termination of the case or as otherwise provided by law.

M. Section 13: Search Incident to Lawful Arrest

  1. Scope

    • A person lawfully arrested may be searched without a warrant to discover weapons or evidence to prevent its concealment or destruction.
    • The search must be contemporaneous with the arrest and confined to the area within the arrestee’s immediate control.

  2. Limitations

    • If the arrest is invalid, the incidental search is likewise invalid.
    • The officer cannot expand the search beyond the arrestee’s person and the area where he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.

N. Section 14: Motion to Quash Search Warrant or to Suppress Evidence

  1. Grounds

    • The warrant is invalid (lack of probable cause, defect in form, multiple offenses, etc.).
    • Irregularity in service (e.g., served beyond the 10-day period).
    • Non-compliance with constitutional or procedural safeguards leading to an unreasonable search and seizure.

  2. Effect

    • If granted, the evidence seized may be suppressed (excluded) from the proceedings.
    • If the motion is denied, the seized items remain admissible, subject to other evidentiary rules.

III. EXCEPTIONS TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT (WARRANTLESS SEARCHES)

Although the focus is Rule 126, it is integral to understand that not all searches require a warrant. The Supreme Court of the Philippines recognizes specific instances when a search without a warrant is deemed reasonable:

  1. Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest

    • Limited to the person arrested and the immediate surrounding area.

  2. Consented Search

    • Valid only if the consent is voluntary, express or implied, and given by one with authority over the premises or object.

  3. Search of Moving Vehicles

    • Based on the mobility of vehicles and the impracticality of securing a warrant in time.
    • Still requires probable cause (e.g., checkpoint searches if limited to visual inspection or compliance checks; extensive search requires clear probable cause).

  4. Customs and Immigration Searches

    • Regulatory measures at borders or airports, based on state’s power to protect public welfare and revenue.

  5. Stop and Frisk (Terry Search)

    • Limited pat-down search for weapons when there is a genuine reason to fear for officer safety.

  6. Plain View Doctrine

    • Lawful presence + inadvertent discovery + incriminating nature of the object is immediately apparent.

  7. Exigent Circumstances

    • Under urgent and immediate conditions (e.g., imminent danger of destruction of evidence, hot pursuit).

IV. LEGAL ETHICS IMPLICATIONS IN SEARCH AND SEIZURE

  1. Duty of Lawyers in Applying for Warrants

    • Lawyers assisting law enforcement or private complainants must ensure compliance with constitutional and procedural requirements, avoiding misrepresentations or omissions.
    • They must disclose previous applications for the same offense and refrain from “forum shopping.”

  2. Candor Before the Court

    • Legal practitioners must encourage clients or law enforcement agents to provide complete and truthful information to the judge.
    • Submission of false affidavits or evidence to secure a search warrant is unethical and may lead to administrative or criminal liability.

  3. Respect for Rights of the Accused

    • Defense counsel must diligently move to quash or suppress illegally obtained evidence, safeguarding the constitutional rights of citizens.

V. PROCEDURAL AND PRACTICAL POINTS

  1. Application Preparation

    • The applicant (usually a police officer or private complainant) must coordinate the supporting affidavits, documentary evidence, and witnesses who can testify on the existence of probable cause.

  2. Judicial Inquiry

    • The judge must conduct a probing examination. A mere pro forma application or reliance on hearsay is insufficient.

  3. Service of the Warrant

    • Must typically be done in the daytime unless authorized otherwise.
    • Officers must give notice of their authority and purpose (knock-and-announce rule), unless special circumstances justify immediate forcible entry.

  4. Inventory and Return

    • Officers must document and inventory each seized item on site.
    • A copy of the inventory and receipt must be furnished to the person from whom items were taken, and returned to the issuing court together with the warrant itself.

  5. Post-Seizure Proceedings

    • If seized items are alleged contraband, stolen, or are essential to the prosecution of a crime, they remain in custodia legis until disposal by the court.
    • Parties may file motions (to quash, to release property, etc.) as warranted.

VI. REMEDIES AND CONSEQUENCES OF ILLEGAL SEARCHES

  1. Motion to Quash Search Warrant

    • Filed before arraignment or as soon as the illegality is discovered.
    • If granted, the warrant is nullified and items seized are inadmissible in evidence.

  2. Motion to Suppress Evidence

    • If items were seized in violation of constitutional guarantees, they are excluded from trial under the Exclusionary Rule.

  3. Administrative and Criminal Liabilities

    • Law enforcement officers or private individuals who violate procedural safeguards may be held liable.
    • Lawyers found to have aided in illegal methods may face sanctions under the Code of Professional Responsibility.

VII. KEY SUPREME COURT DOCTRINES

  1. People v. Sy Juco (G.R. No. 33252) – Emphasized the requirement of particularity in describing both the place and items to be seized.
  2. Malaloan v. Court of Appeals (232 Phil. 249) – Reiterated the personal examination requirement of judges in determining probable cause.
  3. Nolasco v. Pano (147 SCRA 509) – Clarified the concept of probable cause as the basis for issuing a search warrant.
  4. Stonehill v. Diokno (G.R. No. L-19550) – Landmark case invalidating multiple-offense search warrants as “general warrants.”
  5. People v. Marti (G.R. No. 81561) – Distinguished private searches from government searches and recognized the potential effects of consenting to inspection.
  6. People v. Nuevas (G.R. No. 170233) – Affirmed that strictly following procedures in the chain of custody is crucial, especially in drug cases.
  7. Valeroso v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 164815) – Demonstrated the strict interpretation of the “one specific offense” rule and the personal determination of probable cause by the judge.

VIII. LEGAL FORMS AND SAMPLE CLAUSES

While actual legal forms vary depending on court requirements and individual case specifics, typical documents include:

  1. Application for Search Warrant

    • Caption indicating court and parties.
    • Affidavit containing allegations of facts constituting probable cause.
    • Prayer for issuance of the warrant.

  2. Search Warrant (Template)

    • Title: “Search Warrant No. ___”
    • Addressed to: The law enforcement officer/s named.
    • Commands: “[Officer’s Name/Designation] is hereby ordered to search the premises located at (full address) and to seize the following described articles/items…”
    • Signature and seal of issuing judge.

  3. Supporting Affidavit

    • Recitation of personal knowledge or circumstantial basis for believing that the items subject of the offense are found in the place to be searched.
    • Must be subscribed and sworn to before the judge.

  4. Return and Inventory Form

    • Listing each item seized, date and time of seizure, and the signature of the occupant or witnesses.
    • Certification under oath by the officer serving the warrant.

IX. CONCLUSION

Search and seizure under Rule 126 of the Rules of Court is a critical aspect of Philippine criminal procedure, balancing the State’s interest in law enforcement against citizens’ constitutional rights to privacy and due process. Key principles include:

  • Strict Construction – Warrants must strictly conform to constitutional and procedural mandates.
  • Probable Cause – The cornerstone of issuing a valid search warrant.
  • Judicial Oversight – Judges play an active role in ensuring a thorough examination of applicants and witnesses.
  • Particularity – Both the place to be searched and the items to be seized must be described with specificity.
  • Remedies – Illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible, and legal practitioners must rigorously protect their client’s constitutional rights.

A meticulous approach to these rules not only ensures the admissibility of evidence but also upholds the fundamental guarantees enshrined in the Bill of Rights. For practitioners and law enforcers alike, strict observance of Rule 126 preserves the integrity of criminal proceedings and the administration of justice.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login