RULE 126 Section 8.
Search of house, room, or premise to be made in
Search and Seizure presence of two witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or
any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the
Section 1. Search warrant defined. — A search warrant is an lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the
order in writing issued in the name of the People of the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and
Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, discretion residing in the same locality. (7a)
commanding him to search for personal property described
therein and bring it before the court. (1) Section 9. Time of making search. — The warrant must direct
that it be served in the day time, unless the affidavit asserts
Section 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be
filed. — An application for search warrant shall be filed with searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be
the following: served at any time of the day or night. (8)
a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was Section 10. Validity of search warrant. — A search warrant
committed. shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter it shall
be void. (9a)
b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court
within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the Section 11. Receipt for the property seized. — The officer
place of the commission of the crime is known, or any court seizing property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt
within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced. for the same to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose
presence the search and seizure were made, or in the
However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least
application shall only be made in the court where the criminal two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the
action is pending. (n) same locality, leave a receipt in the place in which he found
Section 3. Personal property to be seized. — A search the seized property. (10a)
warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of personal Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to
property: court; return and proceedings thereon. — (a) The officer must
(a) Subject of the offense; forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued
the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly verified
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the under oath.
offense; or
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has been made, and
an offense. (2a) if none, shall summon the person to whom the warrant was
issued and require him to explain why no return was made. If
Section 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A search the return has been made, the judge shall ascertain whether
warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in section 11 of this Rule has been complained with and shall
connection with one specific offense to be determined require that the property seized be delivered to him. The judge
personally by the judge after examination under oath or shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may with.
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the (c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by
Philippines. (3a) the custodian of the log book on search warrants who shall
enter therein the date of the return, the result, and other
Section 5. Examination of complainant; record. — The judge actions of the judge.
must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the
form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of
oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on court.(11a)
facts personally known to them and attach to the record their
sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted. (4a) Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or
Section 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. — If the anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the
judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the commission of an offense without a search warrant. (12a)
application is based or that there is probable cause to believe
that they exist, he shall issue the warrant, which must be Section 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress
substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules. (5a) evidence; where to file. — A motion to quash a search warrant
and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in
Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. — and acted upon only by the court where the action has been
The officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed instituted. If no criminal action has been instituted, the motion
search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may may be filed in and resolved by the court that issued the
break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or search warrant. However, if such court failed to resolve the
any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant motion and a criminal case is subsequent filed in another
or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when court, the motion shall be resolved by the latter court. (n)
unlawfully detained therein. (6)
ARTICLE III
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Section 3.
1. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public
safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.
2. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
CONCLUSION
1. Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967 – (SEARCH WARRANT – SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED THE
OBJECTS)
FACTS: Petitioners received 42 warrants issued to search their home and company they are officers and seize anything that is related
to their business due to violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code), and Revised Penal Code.
COURT: The warrant was issued from mere allegation that petitioners committed a “violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and
Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code.” In other words, no specific offense had been alleged in said
applications. The averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were abstract.
To uphold the validity of the warrants in question would be to wipe out completely one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in
our Constitution. There was grave violation of the Constitution made in the application for the contested search warrants by its
description authorizing the search for and seizure of records pertaining to all business transactions of petitioners, regardless of
whether the transactions were legal or illegal.
Moreover, the Court abandoned the Moncado rule which that even if the searches and seizures under consideration were
unconstitutional, the documents, papers and things thus seized are admissible in evidence against petitioners herein.
2. People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991 – (THE VIOLATION OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE MUST BE
COMMITTED BY GOVERNMENT – NOT BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL)
FACTS: Job Reyes, opened the package (which contains drugs) and was to be sent by Marti to Switzerland and reported this to NBI.
He said that it is inadmissible as the act has violated his right against unreasonable search and seizure.
COURT: The Court said that it was valid as there is no government interference during the search of the illegal drugs from
his package. The Constitution does not govern relationships between private individuals but relationships between private
individuals and the Government. The modifications only relate to the issuance of either a search warrant or warrant of arrest vis-
a-vis the responsibility of the judge in the issuance thereof and in no manner deviated as to whom restriction or inhibition against
unreasonable search and seizure is directed against. Hence, the evidence is admissible for it does not violate the constitutional
safeguard against unreasonable searches and seizure for it was a private individual who effected the search and seizure.
3. Valmonte v. De Villa, G.R. No. 83988, September 29, 1989 - (CHECKPOINT [WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE]
IS VALID)
FACTS: Petitioner Valmonte and ULAP Assocation filed for prohibition with preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order,
seeking the declaration of checkpoints in Valenzuela, Metro Manila or elsewhere, as unconstitutional and the dismantling and banning
of the same or, in the alternative, to direct the respondents to formulate guidelines in the implementation of checkpoints, for the
protection of the people.
COURT: Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to
be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case.
Furthermore, the Court stressed that the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right invocable
only by those whose rights have been infringed, or threatened to be infringed. What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search
and seizure in any particular case is purely a judicial question, determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved.
4. Burgos v. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. L-64261, December 26, 1984 – (GENERAL SEARCH WARRANT IS INVALID)
FACTS: The "Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum” newspapers were searched and its office and printing machines, equipment,
paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as well as
numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature alleged to be in the possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos,
Jr. publisher-editor of the "We Forum" newspaper, were seized based on the strength of the two [2] search warrants issued by
respondent Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano.
COURT: The search warrants were null and void. When the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher
or editor in connection with the publication of subversive materials, as in the case at bar, the application and/or its supporting affidavits
must contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged subversive material he has published or is intending to
publish. Mere generalization will not suffice.
5. Nala v. Barroso, G.R. No. 153087, August 7, 2003 – (WRONG NAME DOES NOT INVALIDATE SEARCH WARRANT
AS LONG AS THERE ARE FURTHER DETAILS)
FACTS: The warrant issued against the petitioner doesn’t have the correct name. first name was erroneously stated therein as
“Romulo” and not as “Bernard”.
COURT: The warrant is valid; however, the Nala was acquitted as the evidence seized were not included on the warrant that
was issued by the respondent judge. The failure to correctly state in the search and seizure warrant the first name of petitioner,
which is “Bernard” and not “Romulo” or “Rumolo”, does not invalidate the warrant because the additional description “alias Lolong
Nala who is said to be residing at Purok 4, Poblacion, Kitaotao, Bukidnon” sufficiently enabled the police officers to locate and identify
the petitioner. What is prohibited is a warrant against an unnamed party, and not one which, as in the instant case, contains a
descriptio personae that will enable the officer to identify the accused without difficulty
6. Roan v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 71410, November 25, 1986 - (THE ITEMS TO BE SEIZED MUST BE PARTICULARLY
IDENTIFIED)
FACTS: On May 10, 1984, respondent Judge Romulo T. Gonzales issued a search warrant (SW) against herein petitioner Josefino
S. Roan. • The petitioner's house was searched two days later but none of the articles listed in the warrant was discovered. o However,
the officers found on the premises one Colt Magnum revolver and eighteen live bullets which they confiscated, leading to petitioner’s
prosecution for illegal possession of firearms.
COURT: SC ruled that the search warrant was invalid. To be valid, a search warrant must be supported by probable cause to be
determined by the judge or some other authorized officer after examining the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. No
less important, there must be a specific description of the place to be searched and the things to be seized, to prevent arbitrary and
indiscriminate use of the warrant.
7. People v. Zhen Hua, G.R. No. 139301, September 29, 2004 – (PLAINVIEW DOCTRINE THROUGH LAWFUL
INTRUSION IS VALID)
FACTS: Police operatives received word from their confidential informant that Peter Chan and Henry Lao, and appellants Jogy Lee
and Huang Zhen Hua were engaged in illegal drug trafficking.
COURT: The Court ruled that evidence are admissible. Admittedly, Anciro, Jr. seized and took custody of certain articles belonging
to the appellant and Lao which were not described in the search warrants. However, the seizure of articles not listed in a search
warrant does not render the seizure of the articles described and listed therein illegal; nor does it render inadmissible in evidence.
An example of the applicability of the ‘plain view’ doctrine is the situation in which the police have a warrant to search a given area
for specified objects, and in the course of the search come across some other article of incriminating character. An object that comes
into view during a search incident to arrest that is appropriately limited in scope under existing law may be seized without a warrant.
Finally, the ‘plain view’ doctrine has been applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but
nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.
8. People v. Tudtud, G.R. No. 144037, September 26, 2003 – (CONSENTED SEARCH SHOULD BE A VALID
WARRANTLESS SEARCH PROVIDED THE ELEMENTS ARE PRESENT)
FACTS: Hearsay by Salier. Both Tudtud and Bolong claimed they were framed-up and only met each other at the police station after
their arrest.
COURT: Arrest is not valid. The rule is that a search and seizure must be carried out through or with a judicial warrant; otherwise,
such search and seizure becomes "unreasonable" within the constitutional provision enshrined in Section 2 Article III, and any
evidence secured thereby, will be inadmissible in evidence "for any purpose in any proceeding." (Sec. 3, Art. III).
As the search of appellant’s box does not come under the recognized exceptions to a valid warrantless search, the marijuana leaves
obtained thereby are inadmissible in evidence. And as there is no evidence other than the hearsay testimony of the arresting officers
and their informant, the conviction of appellants cannot be sustained.
Finally, there is an effective waiver of rights against unreasonable searches and seizures if the following requisites are present:
It must appear that the rights exist;
The person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such right;
Said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
Here, the prosecution failed to establish the second and third requisites. Records disclose that when the police officers introduced
themselves as such and requested appellant that they see the contents of the carton box supposedly containing the marijuana,
appellant Tudtud said it was alright. He did not resist and opened the box himself.
9. People v. Exala, G.R. No. 76005, April 23, 1993 – (CHECKPOINT IS A VALID WARRANTLESS ARREST)
FACTS: On November 2, 1982, around 8:15 p.m., a jeep driven by Restituto Bocalan was stopped at a police checkpoint in Cavite
City. o Accompanying Bocalan were Jaime Fernandez and Rodelio Exala. • A routine inspection was conducted by Pfc. Ricardo
Galang, who noticed a black leather bag with bulging sides. • Upon questioning, no one answered what the bag contained, and all
three appeared nervous and uneasy. o Pfc. Galang ordered to open the bag and found over 2 kilos of marijuana.
COURT: There are indeed instances where search and seizure can be effected without necessarily being preceded by an arrest. An
illustration would be the "stop-and-search" without a warrant at military or police checkpoints, the constitutionality of which has
already been upheld by this Court.
According to the Court, lest it be misunderstood, the foregoing doctrine is not intended to do away with the general rule that no person
shall be subjected to search of his person, personal effects and belongings, or his residence except of virtue of a search warrant or
on the occasion of a lawful arrest. This case, however, is an incident to or an offshoot of a lawful “stop-and-search” at a military or
police checkpoint.
Elements of Checkpoints:
(1) Must be well-lighted, properly identified, and manned by uniform personnel
(2) Reason for the checkpoint
(3) Only visual search (look) is allowed
10. Posadas v. CA, G.R. No. 89139, August 2, 1990 – (STOP AND FRISK – AS VALID WARRANTLESS ARREST)
FACTS: On October 16, 1986 at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra Umpar, both members of the
Integrated National Police (INP) of the Davao Metrodiscom assigned with the Intelligence Task Force, were conducting a surveillance
along Magallanes Street, Davao City o They spotted petitioner, a minor, carrying a "buri" bag and they noticed him to be acting
suspiciously.
COURT: The Court ruled that the arrest is valid. 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.
The assailed search and seizure may still be justified as akin to a "stop and frisk" situation whose object is either to determine the
identity of a suspicious individual or to maintain the status quo momentarily while the police officer seeks to obtain more information.
11. People v. Veloso, G.R. No. 23051, October 20, 1925 – (SEARCH WARRANT MUST HAVE A NAME NOT JUST JOHN
DOE)
FACTS: Search warrant has John Doe instead of Veloso.
COURT: Blank warrants, that a warrant for the apprehension of a person whose true name is unknown, by the name of "John Doe"
or "Richard Roe," "whose other or true name in unknown," is void, without other and further descriptions of the person to be
apprehended, and such warrant will not justify the officer in acting under it. Such a warrant must, in addition, contain the best
description personae (description of person) possible to be obtained of the person or persons to be apprehended, and this description
must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper person or persons upon whom the warrant is to be served; and should state his
personal appearance and peculiarities, give his occupation and place of residence, and any other circumstances by means of which
he can be identified.
12. People v. Macarios, G.R. No. 188611, June 16, 2010- (SEARCH AND SEIZURE – VALID IN IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO)
FACTS: Mariacos apprehended. the agent described a backpack bag with an “O.K.” marking. PO2 Pallayoc then boarded the said
jeepney and positioned himself on top thereof. While the vehicle was in motion, he found the black backpack with an “O.K.” marking
and peeked inside its contents. PO2 Pallayoc found bricks of marijuana wrapped in newspapers. He then asked the other passengers
on top of the jeepney about the owner of the bag, but no one knew.
COURT: Search in this case is valid. The vehicle that carried the contraband or prohibited drugs was about to leave. PO2 Pallayoc
had to make a quick decision and act fast. It would be unreasonable to require him to procure a warrant before conducting the search
under the circumstances. Time was of the essence in this case. The searching officer had no time to obtain a warrant. Indeed, he
only had enough time to board the vehicle before the same left for its destination. Also, the arrest is lawful as there is a probable
cause. The night before appellant’s arrest, the police received information that marijuana was to be transported and had set up a
checkpoint around the area to intercept the suspects.
13. Fajardo v. People, G.R. No. 190889, January 10, 2011
FACTS:
COURT:
14. People v. Calantiao, G.R. No. 203984, June 18, 2014 – (WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE INCIDENTAL TO A
LAWFUL ARREST)
FACTS: Edwin Lojera narrated that while driving a towing truck and traversing along EDSA, Balintawak, Quezon City, he had a traffic
dispute (gitgitan) with a white taxi cab prompting him to follow said vehicle until they reached along 8th avenue street. Thereat, the
passengers of said taxicab, one of them is Medario Calantiao (accused), alighted and fired their guns.
COURT: The arrest was valid. Searches and seizure incident to a lawful arrest are governed by the revised rules of criminal
procedure. In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not
only on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area within the latter’s reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the
seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control.
15. People v. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014
FACTS:
COURT:
16. People v. Alagaban, G.R. No. 244842. January 16, 2023
FACTS:
COURT:
17. Lopena v. People, G.R. No. 234317, May 10, 2021 (PROBABLE CAUSE
FACTS: This Court resolves the Petition for Review assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed
the conviction6 of petitioner Virgilo Evardo y Lopena (Evardo) for violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
COURT: ACQUIT THE ACCUSED. Probable cause should precede an extensive search; it cannot come after an extensive search
has commenced or been completed. The cause must occur prior to the effect. By sheer chronological logic then, Algozo's supposed
attempt could not have been the probable cause to induce the police officers' resolve to conduct an extensive search and have
passengers disembark in order to facilitate such a search.
18. People v. O’cochlain, G.R. No. 229071, December 10, 2018
FACTS: In the final security checkpoint inside the Laoag City International Airport, the Security Screening Officer conducted a pat
down search on the accused, a 53-yearl old Irish national married to a Filipina. Two rolled sticks of dried marijuana leaves, weighing
less than a gram was seized from his possession. Eanna was charged with and convicted of illegal possession of marijuana under
Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165, or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
COURT: Whether or not the warrantless search and seizure at the airport premises was valid. YES, However the accused
was acquitted. In general, airport screening search is a constitutionally reasonable administrative search. The search and seizure
of an illegal drug during a routine airport inspection made pursuant to the aviation security procedures has been sustained by this
Court in a number of cases. However, the instant case does not qualify as a legitimate administrative search in an airport. What was
seized from the accused were illegal drugs, not explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous substances or materials, or dangerous
elements or devices that may be used to commit hijacking or acts of terrorism. Airport search is reasonable when limited in scope to
the object of the Anti-Hijacking program, not the war on illegal drugs.
19. Manibog v. People, G.R. No. 211214, March 20, 2019 (STOP AND FRISK)
FACTS: Manibog was standing Municipal Tourism office with gun in his waistband.
COURT: The Supreme Court ruled that the search conducted was a valid “stop and frisk” search. In the present case, the
Dingras policemen searched the accused not only because of a tip - a very specific one - that he was at that moment standing in
front of the nearby Municipal Tourism Office with a gun on his waist. More importantly, PCI Beniat testified that at a distance of about
two to three meters from the accused, he saw the latter's bulging waistline indicating the "distinct peculiar contour" of a firearm tucked
on his waist. Citing his experience as a police officer, PCI Beniat testified that he could distinguish a firearm from any other object
tucked on the waist of a person. In the language of Justice Panganiban's separate opinion in People v. Montilla, the Court finds that
the bulging waistline of herein accused constituted "an outward indication" that clearly suggested he was then carrying a firearm.
