My lecture given with KP participants hosted by DILG Office of Carmen, Agusan Del Norte.

1. EIZURES
A Primer on Rule 126 by Atty. Jo Edward F. Yecyec © 2021
EARCHES
and

2. Basis
Article 3, (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.
U.S. Constitution – Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things
to be seized.

3. Every man’s house is his castle.
Semayne's Case (January 1, 1604) 5 Coke Rep. 91
“In all cases when the King is party, the sheriff may break the party's house,
either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the K[ing]'s process, if
otherwise he cannot enter. But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the
cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors.”
“the house of every one is to him as his castle and
fortress, as well for his defence against injury and
violence as for his repose.”
William Pitt (1763)
The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the force of
the Crown. It may be frail----its roof may shake---- the wind may
blow through it----the storm may enter, the rain may enter---- but
the King of England cannot enter----all his force dares not cross the
threshold of the ruined tenement.

4. What is a
SEARCH WARRANT?
A search warrant is an order in writing, issued in the
name of the People of the Philippine Islands, signed by
a judge or a justice of the peace, and directed to a
peace officer, commanding him to search for personal
property and bring it before the court. [Alvarez vs.
Court of First Instance of Tayabas, G.R. No. 45358, 29
January 1937]

5. WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF A VALID
SEARCH WARRANT?
1. There must be PROBABLE CAUSE.
2. The probable cause must be determined personally by a judge;
3. It must be issued after examination, under oath or affirmation, of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce;
4. The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized.

6. What the heck is ‘Probable Cause’?
“More than a hunch but less
than the burden of truth”
“refers to such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed and that the objects sought in connection
with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.”
Search Warrant, Warrant of Arrest, Criminal Information, Warrantless Searches

7. WHERE TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR
A SEARCH WARRANT?
 General Rule: (a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.
 Exception: (b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial
region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is known, or
any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.
 Exception to the Exception: However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application
shall only be made in the court where the criminal action is pending.

8.  RULE 3, Section 2, AM No. 21-06-08-SC
“Sec. 2. Search Warrants in Special Criminal Cases by Executive Judges of Regional Trial
Courts. ---for search warrants involving: heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms
firearms and ammunitions, as well as violations of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002, the Anti-
Money Laundering Act of 2001, the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act, and other relevant laws that
may later be enacted by Congress and included in these Rules by the Supreme Court.
Rule: Where to file: RTC Executive Judge sala, if on-leave or not physically present,
Executive Judge of RTC within their judicial regions.
Sec. 3. – if Judge finds probable cause, issue search warrant which includes an order requiring
requiring the use of at least one body-worn camera and one alternative recording device, or a
minimum of two devices.
IMPORTANT UPDATES:
A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC, June 29, 2021

9. IMPORTANT UPDATES:
A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC, June 29, 2021
 Applicants for the search warrant shall indicate the availability or unavailability of the body cameras. In
case of unavailability, request for the use of alternative recording devices.
 The cameras’ video and audio recording functions shall be activated as soon as the law enforcers arrive
at the place to be searched.
 It shall be deactivated only upon reaching the police station.
 In both instances, the high court said the recordings shall be stored in an external media storage and
simultaneously deposited in a sealed package with the issuing court.
 It will be accompanied by an affidavit detailing the date, time, place of recording, and other
circumstances surrounding the implementation of either the arrest warrants or search warrants.

10. Other Rules & Related Principles
 Sec. 5. Examination of Complainant; record.
 Sec. 6. Issuance and Form
 Sec. 7. Right to break door or window to effect search.
KNOCK-AND-ANNOUNCE PRINCIPLE  The officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed
search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door or
window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant to liberate
himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.

11. Other Rules & Related Principles
 Sec. 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses.
No search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the
lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
 Sec. 9. Time of making the search.
General Rule: Day time. Exception: If judge directs any time.
 Sec. 10. Validity of Search Warrant.
Valid for 10 days from date issued. After that, void.

12. Other Rules & Related Principles
 Sec. 11. Receipt for the property seized.
The officer seizing the property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to the
lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and seizure were made, or in the
absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in which he found the seized
property.
 Sec. 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and proceedings thereon.
-after 10 days, judge will look for return. Logbook return.
-effect if no return was made: contempt of court

13. VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH?
1. Search Incidental To A Lawful Arrest (Sec. 13, Rule 126)
2. PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE (Rule 113, Sec. 5)
3. Valid Waiver of The Right
- Must be genuine and sincere. The one waiving must understand the full consequences of
his waiver because it might violate a person’s right not just to privacy but his right to remain
silent or right against self-incrimination.
Aniag, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, 307 Phil. 437 (1994) [Per J. Bellosillo, En Banc].
SC: “In the face of fourteen (14) armed policemen conducting the operation, driver Arellano
being alone and a mere employee of petitioner could not have marshalled the strength and the courage
to protest against the extensive search conducted in the vehicle. In such scenario, the "implied
acquiescence," if there was any, could not be more than a mere passive conformity on Arellano's part to
the search, and "consent" given under intimidating or coercive circumstances is no consent within the
purview of the constitutional guaranty.”

14. VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH?
4. Stop-and-Frisk Situations
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)  probable cause again. borne from training or experience in
police work.
Terry Search has been defined as the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
interrogate him and pat him for weapons whenever he observes unusual conduct which leads him
to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot.
People v. Mengote, G.R. No. 87059 June 22, 1992
At the time of the arrest in question, the accused-appellant was merely "looking from side to side" and "holding his
abdomen," according to the arresting officers themselves. There was apparently no offense that had just been committed or was being
actually committed or at least being attempted by Mengote in their presence.
These are certainly not sinister acts. And the setting of the arrest made them less so, if at all. It might have been different if
Mengote bad been apprehended at an ungodly hour and in a place where he had no reason to be, like a darkened alley at 3 o'clock
in the morning. But he was arrested at 11:30 in the morning and in a crowded street shortly after alighting from a passenger jeep with
his companion. He was not skulking in the shadows but walking in the clear light of day. There was nothing clandestine about his
being on that street at that busy hour in the blaze of the noonday sun.

15. VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH?
5. Search of a Moving Vehicle
For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and
the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot be regarded as
violative of an individual’s right against unreasonable search. [Valmonte v. General de Villa, G.R. No.
83988, 24 May 1990]
Checkpoints vs. General Stops
6. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances
In times of war and within military operations, airports, schools, etc. where there is less
expectation of privacy.

16. FAQs
 ARTICLE III, SECTION 3, 1987 CONSTITUTION
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of [the right against unreasonable searches and
seizures] shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
"Evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is
tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree."
What is the EXLUSIONARY RULE?

17. FAQs
No. In Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP [133 SCRA 800], the Supreme Court enunciated that it is
sufficient that the property is under the control or possession of the person sought to be searched.
Doctrine of Constructive Possession
Is it required that the property to be searched should be
owned by the person against whom the search warrant is
directed?

18. FAQs
Yes, the address in the search warrant must match the actual place to be searched. In People vs.
Court of Appeals [ 291 SCRA 400], the Supreme Court ruled that the place to be searched, as set out
in the warrant, cannot be amplified or modified by the officers’ own personal knowledge of the
premises, or the evidence they adduced in support of their application for the warrant. The
particularization of the description of the place to be searched may properly be done only by the
Judge, and only in the warrant itself; it cannot be left to the discretion of the police officers
conducting the search.
Should the address in the search warrant
match the actual place to be searched?

19. FAQs
No, there is no violation of your right. Private search is not covered by the constitutional
guarantee. In the case of People vs. Marti [193 SCRA 57], the Supreme Court ratiocinated that in the
absence of governmental interference, the constitutional right against unreasonable search and
seizure cannot be invoked against the State. The protection against unreasonable search and seizure
cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of
alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.
If the security guard in a mall wants to open my bag and
check the inside thereof, isn’t there a violation of my right
against unreasonable search?