Dear PAO,
What is essential before a search warrant can be issued? If a search warrant has been issued, can it be effected in a place that is not indicated in the warrant?
Joey
 

Dear Joey,
Before a valid search warrant is issued, the following requisites must first be satisfied: (1) there is probable cause; (2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant of such warrant and his witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized. This is in consonance with Section 2, Article 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

If a search was done in the absence of any of the aforementioned requisites, the same may be questioned by the person against whom the said warrant is being enforced for being a violation of his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition thereto, any object or thing taken by reason of the said search may not be used as evidence against him for it is considered as a fruit of a poisonous tree.

Accordingly, a search warrant may not be implemented in a place other than that which is particularly indicated therein. It is worth emphasizing that the search must only be done in the place specifically described in the warrant in order for such search to be considered legal and constitutional. In one case, the Supreme Court acquitted the defendant on account that there was reasonable doubt as to his guilt because the evidence used against him during trial, to wit, several articles including four plastic packs containing white crystalline substance, were found in a place not indicated in the search warrant. The Court ruled that, “x x x The confiscated items, having been found in a place other than the one described in the search warrant, can be considered as fruits of an invalid warrantless search, the presentation of which as an evidence is a violation of petitioner’s constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure. x x x” (Ruben Castillo @ Boy Castillo vs. People of the Philippines, G. R. No. 185128, January 30, 2012)

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.