Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

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 therein and bring it before the court. A search warrant is different from a warrant of arrest. A warrant of arrest is for the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. A search warrant and a warrant differs non only in nature, but also in the requirements for its issuance. For a search warrant to be issued the applicant must show that the items sought are in fact seizable by virtue of being connected with criminal activity; and that the items will be found in the place to be searched. For a warrant of arrest to be issued the applicant must show that theres probable cause that an offense has been committed; and that the person to be arrested committed it. In terms of the judges appreciation of the evidence in a search warrant the judge must conduct a personal, searching examination of the applicant and his witnesses, while in a warrant of arrest the judge need not conduct a personal examination of the applicant and his witnesses. He may rely on the affidavits of the witnesses and the recommendation of the prosecutor. The requirements for the issuance of a search warrant more stringent than the requirements for the issuance of a warrant of arrest because The violation of the right to privacy produces a humiliating effect which cannot be rectified anymore. This is why there is no other justification for a search, except a warrant. On the other hand, in a warrant of arrest, the person to be arrested can always post bail to prevent the deprivation of liberty. As a general rule, an information for a search warrant should be filed with the court within whose territorial jurisdiction the crime was committed. But for compelling reasons, it can be filed with the court within whose judicial region the offense was committed or where the warrant is to be served. But, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application for a search warrant can only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending. However, AM No. 99-20-09-SC declared that in heinous crimes such as illegal gambling, cases involving dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms, the executive judge/vice executive judge of the Manila and Quezon City RTC are authorized to act on such applications filed by the PNP, NBI, PAOC-TF, REACT-TF. What may be the subject of a search warrant? Personal property, which is: 1. subject of the offense, 2. stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense, or 3. used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.

What are the requisites for issuing a search warrant? 1. There must be probable cause 2. Which must be determined personally by the judge 3. upon personal examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers on facts personally known to them 4. the probable cause must be in connection with one specific offense 5. particularly describing the place to be searched and the items to be seized 6. the sworn statements together with the affidavits of the witnesses must be attached to the record.

The Constitution does not prohibit all kinds of searches and seizures. It only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A search and seizure is unreasonable if it is made without a warrant, or the warrant was invalidly issued. A search and seizure without a warrant is still reasonable if conducted under the following circumstances: a. Incident to a lawful arrest It must be made AFTER the arrest. The objective is to make sure that the life of the peace officer will not be endangered. It must be contemporaneous with the arrest in both time and place. b. Search of moving vehicles c. Consent searches Only the person whose right may be violated can give the consent; it is a personal right. The requisites are: (1) The person has knowledge of his right against the search; (2) He freely gives his consent in spite of such knowledge. d. Objects in plain view Requisites: (1) There must have been a prior valid intrusion, and the officer must have had a right to be at the place searched at the time of the search; (2) The evidence was inadvertently discovered; (3) The evidence must be immediately apparent;

(4) There was no need for further search. e. Customs searches f. Stop and Frisk/ Exigent circumstances g. Emergency

In Stonehill v. Diokno wherein the warrants authorized the search for and seizure of records pertaining to all business transactions of Stonehill et al, regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal. The warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of Stonehill et al and the aforementioned corporations, whatever their nature, thus openly contravening the explicit command of the Bill of Rights that the things to be seized be particularly described as well as tending to defeat its major objective: the elimination of general warrants. The Moncado doctrine is likewise abandoned and the right of the accused against a defective search warrant is emphasized. In Bache v. Ruiz the court held that a search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow or when the description expresses a conclusion of fact not of law by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. In People v. Salanguit wherein the court held that searching authorities can forcibly enter the premises when they are refused. In this case accused-appellant, refused to open the door despite the fact that the searching party knocked on the door several [mes. Furthermore, the agents saw the suspicious movements of the people inside the house. These circumstances jus[fied the searching partys forcible entry into the house, founded as it is on the apprehension that the execu[on of their mission would be frustrated unless they do so. It was also held in the same case that one warrant would suffice since all acts were covered under Republic Act No. 6425, a special law that deals specifically with dangerous drugs which are subsumed into prohibited and regulated drugs and defines and penalizes categories of offenses which are closely related or which belong to the same class or species. In this case the accused avers that one warrant should be issued for shabu, one warrant should be issued for marijuana and one warrant should be for drug paraphernalia. In Alghoul v. Court of Appeals the court held that the place to be searched cannot be changed, enlarged nor amplified by the police. Policemen may not be restrained from pursuing their task with vigor, but in doing so, care must be taken that constitutional and legal safeguards are not disregarded. Exclusion of unlawfully

seized evidence is the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures. In Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board wherein the constitutionality of an act requiring mandatory drug tests on persons charged before the prosecutors office was questioned. The court found no valid justification for mandatory drug testing for persons accused of crimes. In the case of students, the constitutional viability of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing for students emanates primarily from the waiver by the students of their right to privacy when they seek entry to the school, and from their voluntarily submitting their persons to the parental authority of school authorities. In the case of private and public employees, the constitutional soundness of the mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing proceeds from the reasonableness of the drug test policy and requirement. In the case of persons charged with a crime before the prosecutor's office, a mandatory drug testing can never be random or suspicionless. The ideas of randomness and being suspicionless are antithetical to their being made defendants in a criminal complaint. They are not randomly picked; neither are they beyond suspicion. When persons suspected of committing a crime are charged, they are singled out and are impleaded against their will. The persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled before the prosecutors office and peaceably submitting themselves to drug testing, if that be the case, do not necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone waive their right to privacy. To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of RA 9165. In Nala v. Barroso the court stated the requisites of the Plain view doctrine: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The plain view doctrine finds no application here not only because the police officers had no justification to search the house of petitioner (their search warrant being void for lack of probable cause), but also because said officers failed to discharge the burden of proving that subject articles were inadvertently found in petitioners house. In People v. Musa wherein the appellant assails the seizure and admission as evidence of a plastic bag containing marijuana which the NARCOM agents found in the appellant's kitchen. The court held that The plastic bag was not within their "plain view" when they arrested the appellant as to justify its seizure. The marijuana contained in the plastic bag was seized illegally and cannot be presented in evidence. The "plain view" doctrine may not, however, be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures nor to extend a general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant's guilt. In People v. Burgos wherein the accused was invalidly arrested. The question posted in this case is whether a search and seizure of items made after an invalid arrest was

valid? The court held that If an arrest without a warrant is unlawful at the moment it is made, generally nothing that happened or is discovered afterwards can make it lawful. In Terry v. Ohio The doctrine of staop and frisk was discussed. In this case an arresting officer seized firearms he found in the Pockets of Terry et al who was later on arrested based on the arresting officers suspicion. The court held it as a valid search and seizure. In his concurring opinion Justice White stated that "There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." In Posadas v CA wherein the accused ran when the police tried to talk to him who searched his bag afterwards was held as a valid search. The court opined that in the case at bar, there is no question that, indeed, it is reasonable considering that it was effected on the basis of a probable cause. The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to inspect the same. Finally, in People v. Ancheta wherein the court held that the Court ruled that the failure of the arresting officers to follow Sec. 21, Art. II, RA 9165 without stating a (1) justifiable cause and (2) its failure to protect the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items invalidates the arrest process and the evidences seized.