RULE 126 – SEARCH AND SEIZURE

1. The constitutional provision on searches and seizures

2. Search Warrant vs. Warrant of Arrest
3. When searches and seizures allowed without warrants
4. Motion to Quash

Motion to Quash
Quillope
ABRAHAM MICLAT, JR. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 176077 August 31, 2011
Criminal Law; Searches and Siezures; Arrests; Estoppel; Criminal Procedure; An accused is estoppped
from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the
information against him on his ground before arraignment. –
It is apparent that petitioner raised no objection to the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. Considering
this and his active participation in the trial of the case, jurisprudence dictates that petitioner is deemed to have submitted
11
to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest. An accused is estopped from assailing any
irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this
ground before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed
waived.
Same; Same; Same; Warrantless Arrests; In Flagrante Delicto; Requisites. –
For the exception in Section 5 (a), Rule 113 to operate, this Court has ruled that two (2) elements must be present: (1) the
person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
Same; Same; Warrantless Searches and Seizures; What constitute a reasonable or unreasonable
warrantless search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the
circumstances involed, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable
cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of
the articles procured. –
No less than the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and consequent seizure must be carried out with a
judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable, and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding. The right against warrantless searches and seizure, however, is subject to legal and judicial
exceptions, namely: 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; 2. Search of evidence in "plain view"; 3. Search of
a moving vehicle; 4. Consented warrantless search; 5. Customs search; 6. Stop and Frisk; and 7. Exigent and emergency
circumstances. What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure is purely a judicial question,
determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the
presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing
searched, and the character of the articles procured.

FACTS
This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision of CA which in turn
affirmed in toto the Decision of the RTC convicting petitioner of Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No.
9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In an Information Miclat Jr. was charged for Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165. That on November
8, 2002, in Caloocan City, without the authority of law, did then and there willfully and feloniously have in his possession,
custody and control [Methamphetamine] Hydrochloride (SHABU) weighing 0.24 gram, knowing the same to be a
dangerous drug under the provisions of the above-cited law.
 When the group of SPO4 Palting arrived at Palmera Spring II, Caloocan City at around 3:50 o’clock that same
afternoon, they were [at] once led by their informant to the house of one Alias "Abe Miclat." PO3 Antonio then positioned
himself at the perimeter of the house, while the rest of the members of the group deployed themselves nearby. Thru a
small opening in the curtain-covered window, PO3 Antonio peeped inside and there at a distance of 1½ meters, he saw
"Abe" arranging several pieces of small plastic sachets which he believed to be containing shabu. Immediately placed the
suspect under arrest and brought him and the four (4) pieces of plastic sachets.
Upon arraignment, petitioner, with the assistance of counsel pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
ISSUE
Whether peeping through a curtain-covered window is within the meaning of "plain view doctrine" for a warrantless
seizure to be lawful.
HELD
In the present case, at the time of petitioner’s arraignment, there was no objection raised as to the irregularity of
his arrest. Thereafter, he actively participated in the proceedings before the trial court. In effect, he is deemed to have
waived any perceived defect in his arrest and effectively submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court trying his case.
At any rate, the illegal arrest of an accused is not sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a
sufficient complaint after a trial free from error. It will not even negate the validity of the conviction of the accused.
Verily, no less than the 1987 Constitution mandates that a search and consequent seizure must be carried out
with a judicial warrant; otherwise, it becomes unreasonable, and any evidence obtained therefrom shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding. The right against warrantless searches and seizure, however, is subject to legal and
judicial exceptions, namely:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
2. Search of evidence in "plain view";
3. Search of a moving vehicle;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances.
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure is purely a judicial question,
determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the
presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing
searched, and the character of the articles procured.
It is to be noted that petitioner was caught in the act of arranging the heat-sealed plastic sachets in plain sight of
PO3 Antonio and he voluntarily surrendered them to him upon learning that he is a police officer. The seizure made by
PO3 Antonio of the four plastic sachets from the petitioner was not only incidental to a lawful arrest, but it also falls within
the purview of the "plain view" doctrine.
Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject
to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The "plain view" doctrine applies when
the following requisites concur: (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 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 law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion
or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came
inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its
discovery inadvertent.
It is clear, therefore, that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. Since petitioner’s
arrest is among the exceptions to the rule requiring a warrant before effecting an arrest and the evidence seized from the
petitioner was the result of a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, which incidentally was in plain view of the
arresting officer, the results of the ensuing search and seizure were admissible in evidence to prove petitioner’s guilt of
the offense charged.

Ramirez
PEOPLE VS BELEN MARIACOS, GR NO. 188611, JUNE 16, 2010
Searches and Seizures; Warrantless Searches and Seizures. - Law and jurisprudence have laid down the
instances when a warrantless search is valid. These are: (1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized
under Section 12 (now Section 13), Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; (2) Seizure of
evidence in “plain view”, the elements of which are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in
which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by
the police who had the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and (d) “plain view”
justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. (3) Search of moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the
government, the vehicle’s inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public
thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a
criminal activity; (4) Consented warrantless search; (5) Customs search; (6) Stop and frisk; and (8) exigent and
emergency circumstances.
Same; Same; Probable Cause; Words and Phrases; It is well to remember that in the instances recognized as
exceptions to the requirement of a judicial warrant, it is necessary that the officer effecting the arrest or seizure must have
been impelled to do so because of probable cause; Probable cause is defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to induce a cautious man to believe that a person accused
is guilty of the offense charged , and, the grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of actual belief of the
arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based on
actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the
person to be arrested. - It is well to remember that in the instances recognized as exceptions to the requirement of a
judicial warrant, it is necessary that the officer effecting the arrest or seizure must have been impelled to do so because of
probable cause. The essential requisite of probable cause must be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can
be lawfully conducted. Without probable cause, the articles seized cannot be admitted in evidence against the person
arrested. Probable cause is defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong
in themselves to induce a cautious man to believe that a person accused is guilty of the offense charged. It refers to the
existence of such facts and circumstances that can lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed, and that the items, articles or objects sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure
and destruction by law are in the place to be searched. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of
actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the
offense is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable
cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled
with good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest.
Same; Same; Same; Search of Moving Vehicles; A search warrant may readily be obtained when the search is
made in a store, dwelling house or other immobile structure, but it is impractical to obtain a warrant when the search is
conducted on a mobile ship, on an aircraft, or in other motor vehicles since they can quickly be moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction where the warrant must be sought. – Over the years, the rules governing search and seizure have been
steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the object of the search on the basis of practicality. This is so
considering that before a warrant could be obtained, the place, things, and persons to be searched must be described to
the satisfaction of the issuing judge – a requirement which borders on the impossible in instances where moving vehicle
is used to transport contraband from one place to another with impunity. This exception is easy to understand. A search
warrant may readily be obtained when the search is made in a store, dwelling house or other immobile structure. But it is
impractical to obtain a warrant when the search is conducted on a mobile ship, on an aircraft, or in other motor vehicles
since they can quickly be moved out of the locality or jurisdiction where the warrant must be sought. Given the discussion
above, it is readily apparent that the 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.
 Same; Same; Same; Search Incident to Lawful Arrest; A search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest
can precede the arrest if the police has probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search. This Court has also,
time and again, upheld as valid a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. Thus, Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules
of Court provides: SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. - A person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a
search warrant. For this rule to apply, it is imperative that there be a prior valid arrest. Although, generally, a warrant is
necessary for a valid arrest, the Rules of Court provides the exceptions therefor, to wit: x x x Be that as it may, we have
held that a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police has probable cause
to make the arrest at the outset of the search.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Belen Mariacos was charged in an Information of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
[No.] 9165. During the trial, the prosecution has established the following:
On October 27, 2005, in Barangay Balbalayang, PO2 Lunes B. Pallayoc met with a secret agent of the Barangay
Intelligence Network who informed him that a baggage of marijuana had been loaded on a passenger jeepney that was
about to leave for the poblacion. The agent mentioned three (3) bags and one (1) blue plastic bag. Further, 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.
Upon reaching the poblacion, PO2 Pallayoc alighted together with the other passengers. The said bag and three
(3) other bags, including a blue plastic bag, were already being carried away by two (2) women. He caught up with the
women and introduced himself as a policeman and that they were under arrest One was apprehended but one of the
women got away.
The RTC, Branch 29 of San Fernando, La Union found the accused guilty as charged.
Appellant appealed her conviction to the CA. She claimed that her right against unreasonable unreasonable
search was flagrantly violated by PO2 Pallayoc when the latter searched the bag, without a search warrant and without
permission from her. She averred that PO2 Pallayocs purpose for apprehending her was to verify if the bag she was
carrying was the same one he had illegally searched earlier. Moreover, appellant contended that there was no probable
cause for her arrest.
Further, appellant claimed that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crime. She alleged that the
apprehending police officers violated Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979, as amended by Board
Regulation No. 2, Series of 1990, which prescribes the procedure in the custody of seized prohibited and regulated drugs,
instruments, apparatuses, and articles. The said regulation directs the apprehending team having initial custody and
control of the drugs and/or paraphernalia, immediately after seizure or confiscation, to have the same physically
inventoried and photographed in the presence of appellant or her representative, who shall be required to sign copies of
the inventory. The failure to comply with this directive, appellant claimed, casts a serious doubt on the identity of the items
allegedly confiscated from her. She, likewise, averred that the prosecution failed to prove that the items allegedly
confiscated were indeed prohibited drugs, and to establish the chain of custody over the same.
The People, through the OSG, argued that the warrantless arrest of appellant and the warrantless seizure of
marijuana were valid and legal, justified as a search of a moving vehicle. It averred that PO2 Pallayoc had reasonable
ground to believe that appellant had committed the crime of delivering dangerous drugs based on reliable information
from their agent, which was confirmed when he peeked into the bags and smelled the distinctive odor of marijuana. The
OSG also argued that appellant was now estopped from questioning the illegality of her arrest since she voluntarily
entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment and participated in the trial and presented her evidence. The OSG brushed
aside appellants argument that the bricks of marijuana were not photographed and inventoried in her presence or that of
her counsel immediately after confiscation, positing that physical inventory may be done at the nearest police station or at
the nearest office of the apprehending team, whichever was practicable.
The CA dismissed appellants appeal and affirmed the RTC decision in toto. It held that the prosecution had
successfully proven that appellant carried away from the jeepney a number of bags which, when inspected by the police,
contained dangerous drugs. The CA ruled that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto of carrying and conveying the bag
that contained the illegal drugs, and thus held that appellants warrantless arrest was valid.
ISSUE
Whether or not the search was valid as well as the arrest.
HELD
Yes, the search was valid, appellants arrest based on the search was also valid.
DOCTRINES:
Article III, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution provides:
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.
Law and jurisprudence have laid down the instances when a warrantless search is valid. These are:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12 [now Section 13], Rule 126 of the
Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence;
2. Seizure of evidence in plain view, the elements of which are:
(a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be
where they are;
(c) the evidence must be immediately apparent[;] and;
(d) plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent mobility
reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly
reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.
Search of a moving vehicle is one of the doctrinally accepted exceptions to the Constitutional
mandate that no search or seizure shall be made except by virtue of a warrant issued by a judge after
personally determining the existence of probable cause.
This Court has also, time and again, upheld as valid a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest. Thus,
Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest.A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
For this rule to apply, it is imperative that there be a prior valid arrest. Although, generally, a warrant is necessary
for a valid arrest, the Rules of Court provides the exceptions therefore, to wit:
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
 (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he
is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith
delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.
Be that as it may, we have held that a search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the
arrest if the police has probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.

Motion to Quash
Santos
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ESTELA TUAN y BALUDDA
[G.R. Nos. 176066 August 1, 2010]

Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Act; Witnesses; In a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, the case
becomes a contest of credibility of witnesses and their testimonies.
–In a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, such as Criminal Case No. 17619-R, a case
becomes a contest of credibility of witnesses and their testimonies. In such a situation, this Court generally
relies upon the assessment by the trial court, which has the distinct advantage of observing the conduct or
demeanor of the witnesses while they were testifying. Hence, its factual findings are accorded respect–even
finality–absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime
have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.
Same; Same; Illegal Possession of Prohibited or Regulated Drugs; Elements.
–Illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs is committed when the following elements concur: (1) the
accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is
not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug.
Same; Same; Same; Witnesses; Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to
minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair their credibility–
testimonies of witnesses need only corroborate each other on important and relevant details concerning the
principal occurrence.
–These alleged inconsistencies and contradictions pertain to minor details and are so inconsequential that they
do not in any way affect the credibility of the witnesses nor detract from the established fact of illegal
possession of marijuana by accused-appellant at her house. The Court has previously held that discrepancies
and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon
the central fact of the crime, do not impair their credibility. Testimonies of witnesses need only corroborate
each other on important and relevant details concerning the principal occurrence. Inconsistencies as to minor
details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the witnesses nor the veracity or weight of their
testimonies. Such minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen their credibility as they negate any
suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Informants; Non-presentation of corroborative witnesses does not constitute
suppression of evidence and is not fatal to the prosecution’s case; The presentation of an informant in an
illegal drugs case is not essential for conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his
testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative.
–The prosecution has the exclusive prerogative to determine whom to present as witnesses. The prosecution
need not present each and every witness but only such as may be needed to meet the quantum of proof
necessary to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the other
witnesses may, therefore, be dispensed with if they are merely corroborative in nature. The Court has ruled
that the non-presentation of corroborative witnesses does not constitute suppression of evidence and is not
fatal to the prosecution’s case. Although Criminal Case No. 17619-R involves illegal possession of marijuana,
the following pronouncement of this Court in People vs. Salazar, 266 SCRA 607 (1997), relating to the illegal
sale of the same drug, still rings true: “Neither is her right to confront witnesses against her affected by the
prosecution’s failure to present the informer who pointed to her as a drug pusher. The presentation of an
informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful
prosecution because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative. In a case involving
the sale of illegal drugs, what should be proven beyond reasonable doubt is the fact of the sale itself. Hence,
like the non-presentation of the marked money used in buying the contraband, the non-presentation of the
informer on the witness stand would not necessarily create a hiatus in the prosecution’s evidence.”
Searches and Seizures; Search Warrants; Requisites.
–The validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the following factors: (1) it must be issued upon
probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or
any other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or
affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must
particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.
Same; Same; Probable Cause; Words and Phrases; Although probable cause eludes exact and concrete
definition, it generally signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong
in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which
he is charged; A magistrate’s determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid
great deference by a reviewing court, as long as there was substantial basis for that determination; Substantial
basis means that the questions of the examining judge brought out such facts and circumstances as would
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and the objects in
connection with the offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched.
–In People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626 (1998), the Court defined probable cause as follows: “Although probable
cause eludes exact and concrete definition, it generally signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported
by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person
accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. It likewise refers to the existence of such facts and
circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in connection with said offense or subject to
seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched. It ought to be emphasized that in determining
probable cause, the average man weighs facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of our
rules of evidence of which his knowledge is technically nil. Rather, he relies on the calculus of common sense
which all reasonable men have in abundance. The same quantum of evidence is required in determining
probable cause relative to search. Before a search warrant can be issued, it must be shown by substantial
evidence 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.” A magistrate’s determination of probable cause for the
issuance of a search warrant is paid great deference by a reviewing court, as long as there was substantial
basis for that determination. Substantial basis means that the questions of the examining judge brought out
such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed, and the objects in connection with the offense sought to be seized are in the place
sought to be searched. Such substantial basis exists in this case.
Same; Same; Same; A designation or description that points out the place to be searched to exclusion of all
others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of
definiteness.
–A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable
effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. A
designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry
unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness. In the case at
bar, the address and description of the place to be searched in the Search Warrant was specific enough. There
was only one house located at the stated address, which was accused-appellant’s residence, consisting of a
structure with two floors and composed of several rooms.
FACTS
On 24 January 2000, two male informants namely, Jerry Tudlong (Tudlong) and Frank Lad-ing (Lad-ing) arrived at the
th
office of the 14 Regional Criminal Investigation and Detention Group (CIDG) at DPS Compound, Marcoville, Baguio City,
and reported to SPO2 Fernandez, Chief of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit, that a certain Estela Tuan (Tuan) had been
selling marijuana at Barangay Gabriela Silang, Baguio City.
SPO2 Fernandez set out to verify the report of Tudlong and Lad-ing. On the same day, he gave Tudlong and Lad-ing
P300.00 to buy marijuana, and then accompanied the two informants to accused-appellant Tuan’s house. Tudlong and
Lad-ing entered Tuan’s house while SPO2 Fernandez waited at the adjacent house. After thirty minutes, Tudlong and
Lad-ing came out of Tuan’s house and showed SPO2 Fernandez the marijuana leaves they bought.
Thereafter, SPO2 Fernandez, together with Tudlong and Lad-ing, filed an application for a search warrant before Judge
Iluminada Cabato-Cortes (Judge Cortes) of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Baguio City. Judge Cortes
personally examined SPO2 Fernandez, Tudlong, and Lad-ing, after which, she issued a search warrant, being satisfied of
the existence of a probable cause.
Before going to Tuan’s house, SPO2 Fernandez invited barangay officials to be present when the search warrant was to
be served, but since no one was available, he requested one Eliza Pascual, Tuan’s neighbor, to come along. Even though
Tuan was not around, the CIDG team was allowed entry into the house by Magno Baludda, Tuan’s father, after he was
shown a copy of the search warrant.
The CIDG team searched the first and second floors of Tuan’s house. They saw a movable cabinet in Tuan’s room, below
which they found a brick of marijuana and a firearm. At around six o’clock that evening, Tuan arrived with her son. The
police officers asked her to open a built-in cabinet, in which they saw eight more bricks of marijuana.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Tuan guilty of illegal possession of marijuana and illegal possession of firearm.
Tuan appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but the latter affirmed the RTC’s decision. However, the CA modified the
RTC judgment, acquitting Tuan of the charge for illegal possession of firearm, stating that the absence of a firearm license
was simply presumed by the police officers.
The case was further elevated to the Supreme Court (SC), with Tuan alleging that the search warrant issued against her
was void for the following reasons: (1) the informants, Tudlong and Lad-ing, made misrepresentation of facts in the
application for search warrant filed with the MTCC; and (2) the search warrant failed to particularly describe the place to
be searched because the house was a two-storey building composed of several rooms.
ISSUE
Whether or not the search warrant issued against Tuan was void.

HELD
No. The search warrant issued against Tuan was not void. Pursuant to Sections 2 and 3(2) of Article III of the Constitution
and Sections 4 and 5, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the validity of the issuance of a search
warrant rests upon the following factors: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be
determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause,
the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4)
the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.
The second and third factors for a validly issued warrant were complied with. What is contested in the case at bar are the
first and fourth factors.
Probable cause generally signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.
The SC ruled that Judge Cortes found probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant for Tuan’s residence after
said judge’s personal examination of SPO2 Fernandez, the applicant; and Lad-ing and Tudlong, the informants. Hence,
the first factor stated above was satisfied.
Next, a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. In the case at bar, the
address and description of the place to be searched in the search warrant was specific enough. There was only one
house located at the stated address, which was Tuan’s residence, consisting of a structure with two floors and composed
of several rooms. Thus, the fourth factor has been complied with.
With the foregoing facts, the SC upheld the validity of the search warrant for Tuan’s house issued by MTCC Judge Cortes,
and any items seized as a result of the search conducted by virtue thereof, may be presented as evidence against Tuan.

Motion to Quash
Aguinaldo
Esquillo v People
629 SCRA 370

Facts:

Susan Esquillo was convicted of the violation of the Dangerous Drugs Acts. Police officers were assigned in
Malibay, Pasay to conduct surveillance on a notorious snatcher named Ryan. It was during that time the police officers
noticed the petitioner. Two police officers came to Esquillo and another person while they were transacting. They saw the
latter place inside a yellow cigarette case a plastic sachet containing a white substance. They approached the petitioner
and introduced themselves as police officer. Subsequently, they inquired regarding the sachet the petitioner placed inside
the case. The petitioner acted suspiciously and even tried to flee. The police officers prevented her from doing so. They
apprised the petitioner of her constitutional rights and then they confiscated the sachet. They marked the sachet with
initials SRE and took the petitioner to the police station.
The petitioner contends against the police officer’s statement. The petitioner said that she was resting at home
when policemen barged inside and asked her whether or not she knew a certain Ryan. She replied in the negative.
Afterwards, she was forcibly taken to the police station and was detained there. During her detention, the police officers
were claiming that there was shabu inside the wallet they seized from her Esquillo argues that the arrest was invalid and
that the officers planted evidence against her.
The lower cause said that the officers had probable cause to search Esquillo under the stop-and-frisk doctrine.
Issue:
Whether or not the warrantless arrest was valid

Held:
The issue whether the arrest was valid was waived by the petitioner when she did not quash it before
arraignment. The issue was only raised the first time during appeal on the appellate court.
The circumstances before the eventual arrest gave the police officers a reasonable belief
that a search on her was warranted. The police officer saw IN PLAIN VIEW that the petitioner was placing a plastic sachet
containing a white substance inside her cigarette case. Given the training of police officers, they would likely be drawn to
curiosity and approach her to inquire regarding such matter. The petitioner’s reaction of attempting to flee after the police
officer introduced his self gave more reason for the officer to check the petitioner.
Warrantless searches are valid in these situations: a) consented searches, b) searches incident to a lawful arrest,
c) searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration, custom and drug laws, d) searches of moving vehicles, e)
searches of automobiles at borders, f) the prohibited articles are in plain view, g.) searches of buildings to enforce fire,
sanitary and other regulations, h.) stop and frisk situations
 On regards her arrest, when the officer saw the white substance from a distance, the plain view doctrine was
imposed. When searched the officers followed the definition and requirements of a valid stop-and-frisk as stated in People
v. Chua - that he should properly introduce himself and make initial inquiries, approach and restrain a person who
manifests unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check the latter’s outer clothing for possibly concealed weapons.

Motion to Quash
Bobiles
G.R. No. 158467 October 16, 2009
SPOUSES JOEL AND MARIETTA MARIMLA, Petitioners,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND HON. OMAR T. VIOLA, RTC Judge, Branch 57, Angeles City, Respondents.
Searches and Seizure; A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC; Hierarchy of Courts; The general rule is that a party is mandated to
follow the hierarchy of courts, but, in exceptional cases, the Court, for compelling reasons or if warranted by the
nature of the issues raised, may take cognizance of petitions filed directly before it, such as one involving the
application of the rules promulgated by this Court in the exercise of its rule-making power under the
Constitution.—
The general rule is that a party is mandated to follow the hierarchy of courts. However, in exceptional cases, the Court, for
compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues raised, may take cognizance of petitions filed directly
before it. In this case, the Court opts to take cognizance of the petition, as it involves the application of the rules
promulgated by this Court in the exercise of its rule-making power under the Constitution.
At the heart of the present controversy are A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC, Clarifying the Guidelines on the Application for the
Enforceability of Search Warrants, which was enacted on January 25, 2000; and A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, the Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, specifically, Section 2, Rule 126 thereof.
Same; Same; A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC authorizes the Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of the Regional
Trial Courts (RTCs) of Manila and Quezon City to act on all applications for search warrants involving heinous
crimes, illegal gambling , dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms on application filed by the
Philippine National Police (PNP), National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task
Force (PAOC-TF), and Reaction Against Crime Task Force (REACT-TF).—

From the above, it may be seen that A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC authorizes the Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of
the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City to act on all applications for search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal
gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms on application filed by the PNP, NBI, PAOC-TF, and
REACT-TF. On the other hand, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that the application for
search warrant shall be filed with: (a) any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed, and (b) for
compelling reasons, 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.

Same; Same; Administrative Law; Nothing in A.M. No. 99-09-SC prohibits the heads of the Philippine National
Police (PNP), National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOC-TF),
and Reaction Against Crime Task Force (REACT-TF) from delegating their ministerial duty of endorsing the
application for search warrant to their assistant heads. –

Nothing in A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC prohibits the heads of the PNP, NBI, PAOC-TF and REACT-TF from delegating their
ministerial duty of endorsing the application for search warrant to their assistant heads. Under Section 31, Chapter 6,
Book IV of the Administrative Code of 1987, an assistant head or other subordinate in every bureau may perform such
duties as may be specified by their superior or head, as long as it is not inconsistent with law. The said provision reads:

Chapter 6 – POWERS AND DUTIES OF HEADS OF BUREAUS AND OFFICES

Sec. 31. Duties of Assistant Heads and Subordinates. – (1) Assistant heads and other subordinates in every bureau or
office shall perform such duties as may be required by law or regulations, or as may be specified by their superiors not
otherwise inconsistent with law.

(2) The head of bureau or office may, in the interest of economy, designate the assistant head to act as chief of
any division or unit within the organization, in addition to his duties, without additional compensation, and

(3) In the absence of special restriction prescribed by law, nothing shall prevent a subordinate officer or employee
from being assigned additional duties by proper authority, when not inconsistent with the performance of the
duties imposed by law.

Same; Same; The guidelines in A.M. No. 99-10-SC are reiterated in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC entitled Guidelines on their
Selection and Designation of Executive Judges and Defining their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties, which explicitly stated
that the guidelines in the issuance of search warrants in special criminal cases by the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) of
Manila and Quezon City shall be an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. –

Petitioners also assert that the questioned Search Warrant was void ab initio. They maintain that A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC,
which was enacted on January 25, 2000, was no longer in effect when the application for search warrant was filed on
February 15, 2002. They argue that the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000,
should have been applied, being the later law. Hence, the enforcement of the search warrant in Angeles City, which was
outside the territorial jurisdiction of RTC Manila, was in violation of the law.

The petitioners’ contention lacks merit.

A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC provides that the guidelines on the enforceability of search warrants provided therein shall continue
until further orders from this Court. In fact, the guidelines in A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC are reiterated in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC
entitled Guidelines On The Selection And Designation Of Executive Judges And Defining Their Powers, Prerogatives And
Duties, which explicitly stated that the guidelines in the issuance of search warrants in special criminal cases by the RTCs
of Manila and Quezon City shall be an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court

Facts
Special Investigator (SI) Ray C. Lagasca of the NBI Anti-Organized Crime Division filed two (2) applications for search
warrant with the RTC of Manila seeking permission to search: (1) petitioners’ house located on RD Reyes St., Brgy. Sta.
Trinidad, Angeles City and (2) the premises on Maria Aquino St., Purok V, Brgy. Sta. Cruz, Porac, Pampanga, both for
Violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425, as amended. The said applications uniformly alleged
that SI Lagasca’s request for the issuance of the search warrants was founded on his personal knowledge as well as that
of witness Roland D. Fernandez (Fernandez), obtained after a series of surveillance operations and a test buy made at
petitioners’ house.
Executive Judge Mario Guariña III (Judge Guariña III) examined in writing and under oath SI Lagasca and Fernandez, in
the form of searching questions and answers, and found that based on facts personally known to SI Lagasca and
Fernandez, petitioners had in their possession and control, inside their house located on RD Reyes St., Brgy. Sta.
Trinidad, Angeles City, an undetermined amount of as shabu and marijuana. Pursuant these findings, Judge Guariña III
issued a search warrant.
On the strength of this warrant, members of the NBI Anti-Organized Crime Division with SI Lagascain coordination with
the Philippine National Police of Angeles City, searched petitioners’ house. Therein, they were able to seize, among
others, dried marijuana leaves.
An Information for Violation of Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, was filed against
petitioners before the RTC of Angeles City, Branch 57. Subsequently, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant
and to Suppress Evidence Illegally Seized arguing, among others, that (1) the application for search warrant was filed
outside the territorial jurisdiction and judicial region of the court where the alleged crime was committed; (2) the court
which issued the questioned search warrant committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued the same because under
the law it cannot issue a search warrant outside its territorial jurisdiction; (3) the evidence illegally seized by virtue of the
questioned search warrant is therefore inadmissible in evidence.
In its Comment/Opposition to the Motion to Quash, the Office of the City Prosecutor, Angeles City claims that the
questioned search warrant does not fall within the coverage of Sec. 2 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure, but under A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC, which authorizes the Executive Judges and Vice Executive Judges of the
RTCs of Manila and Quezon City to act on all applications for search warrants involving dangerous drugs, among others,
filed by the NBI, and provides that said warrants may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the RTCs of
Manila and Quezon City.
The motion to quash by petitioners was denied by the RTC Angeles. Petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration
which was likewise denied.
Petitioners claiming that the search warrant was issued in violation of A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC and Section 2 of Rule 126 of
the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure filed this petition.
Issue
Whether or not the Executive Judges and Vice Executive Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City in all
applications for search warrants involving dangerous drugs, among others, filed by the NBI, and issue warrants to be
served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction, such as in Angeles City, of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City.
Held
At the heart of the present controversy are A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC, Clarifying the Guidelines on the Application for the
Enforceability of Search Warrants, which was enacted on January 25, 2000; and A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, the Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, specifically, Section 2, Rule 126 thereof. We quote the
pertinent portions of the two issuances below:
Administrative Matter No. 99-10-09-SC
Resolution Clarifying the Guidelines on the Application for the Enforceability of Search Warrants
In the interest of an effective administration of justice and pursuant to the powers vested in the Supreme Court
by the Constitution, the following are authorized to act on all applications for search warrants involving heinous
crimes, illegal gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms.
The Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of Regional Trial Courts, Manila and Quezon City filed by the
Philippine National Police (PNP), the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Presidential Anti-Organized
Crime Task Force (PAOC-TF) and the Reaction Against Crime Task Force (REACT-TF) with the Regional Trial
Courts of Manila and Quezon City.
The applications shall be personally endorsed by the Heads of the said agencies, for the search of places to
be particularly described therein, and the seizure of property of things as prescribed in the Rules of Court, and
to issue the warrants of arrest, if justified, which may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of
said courts.
xxx
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
Rule 126
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Sec. 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. – An application for search warrant shall be
filed with the following:
(a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.
(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.
 However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be made in the court where
the criminal action is pending.
From the above, it may be seen that A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC authorizes the Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of
the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City to act on all applications for search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal
gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms on application filed by the PNP, NBI, PAOC-TF, and
REACT-TF. On the other hand, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that the application for
search warrant shall be filed with: (a) any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed, and (b) for
compelling reasons, 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.
Petitioners also assert that the questioned Search Warrant was void ab initio. They maintain that A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC,
which was enacted on January 25, 2000, was no longer in effect when the application for search warrant was filed on
February 15, 2002. They argue that the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000,
should have been applied, being the later law. Hence, the enforcement of the search warrant in Angeles City, which was
outside the territorial jurisdiction of RTC Manila, was in violation of the law.
The petitioners’ contention lacks merit.
A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC provides that the guidelines on the enforceability of search warrants provided therein shall continue
until further orders from this Court. In fact, the guidelines in A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC are reiterated in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC
entitled Guidelines On The Selection And Designation Of Executive Judges And Defining Their Powers, Prerogatives And
Duties, which explicitly stated that the guidelines in the issuance of search warrants in special criminal cases by the RTCs
of Manila and Quezon City shall be an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
Chapter V. Specific Powers, Prerogatives and Duties of Executive Judges in Judicial Supervision
Sec. 12. Issuance of search warrants in special criminal cases by the Regional Trial Courts of Manila and
Quezon City. – The Executive Judges and, whenever they are on official leave of absence or are not
physically present in the station, the Vice-Executive Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City shall
have authority to act on applications filed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Philippine
National Police (PNP) and the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF), for search warrants involving heinous
crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions as well as violations of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti-Money Laundering
Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, and other relevant laws that may hereafter be
enacted by Congress, and included herein by the Supreme Court.
The applications shall be personally endorsed by the heads of such agencies and shall particularly describe
therein the places to be searched and/or the property or things to be seized as prescribed in the Rules of
Court. The Executive Judges and Vice-Executive Judges concerned shall issue the warrants, if justified,
which may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said courts.
The Executive Judges and the authorized Judges shall keep a special docket book listing names of Judges
to whom the applications are assigned, the details of the applications and the results of the searches and
seizures made pursuant to the warrants issued.
This Section shall be an exception to Section 2 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.
In sum, we cannot find any irregularity or abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Omar T. Viola for denying petitioners’
Motion to Quash Search Warrant and to Suppress Evidence Illegally Seized. On the contrary, Judge Guariña III had
complied with the procedural and substantive requirements for issuing the questioned search warrant.

Motion to Quash
Alim
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JERRY PUNZALAN AND PATRICIA PUNZALAN
G.R. No. 199087 | November 11, 2015 | THIRD DIVISION | VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC clearly authorizes the Executive Judges and Vice Executive Judges of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila and Quezon City to issue warrants to be served in places outside their territorial
jurisdiction in special criminal cases such as those involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of
firearms and ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as in this case, for
as long as the parameters under the said section have been complied with. – We find no merit in accused-appellants’
claim that the RTC of Manila, Branch 17, had no authority to issue assailed search warrant since the place to be searched
is outside territorial jurisdiction. As aforecited, Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC clearly authorizes the
Executive Judges and the Vice Executive Judges of the RTC Manila and Quezon City to issue search warrants to be
served in places outside their territorial jurisdiction in special criminal cases such as those involving heinous crimes, illegal
gambling, illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002, as in this case, for as long as the parameters under the said section have been complied with.
There is no exact test for the determination of probable cause in the issuance of search warrants. It is a matter wholly
dependent on the finding of trial judges in the process of exercising their judicial function. – In the issuance of a search
warrant, probable cause requires such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that
an offense has been committed and the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched.
There is no exact test for the determination of probable cause in the issuance of search warrants. It is a process of
exercising their judicial function. When a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is made by a trial
judge, the finding is accorded respect by reviewing courts.
FACTS
Intelligence Agent 1 Liwanag Sandaan (IA1 Sandaan) and her team implemented a search warrant issued by then Manila
RTC Judge Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. to (i) make an immediate search of the premises/house of Jerry and Patricia
Punzalan, Vima Punzalan, Jaime Punzalan, Arlene Punzalan-Razon and Felix Razon who are all residents of 704 Apelo
Cruz Compound, Barangay 175, Malibay, Pasay City; and (ii) to seize and take possession of an undetermined quantity of
assorted dangerous drugs, including the proceeds or fruits and bring said property to the court.
Since there are three houses or structures inside the compound believed to be occupied by Jerry and Patricia Punzalan, a
sketch of the compound describing the house to be searched was prepared and attached to the search warrant.
The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Team tasked to conduct the search was composed of IA1 Sandaan as
team leader, SI2 Esteban and IO2 Jessica Alvarado (IO2 Alvarado) as arresting officers and IO1 Pagaragan as seizing
officer. IO1 Pagaragan made lateral coordination with the Southern Police District, Tactical Operations Unit, as evidenced
by the Pre-Operation Report dated November 3, 2009 and Authority to Operate.
Before proceeding to the target area, they passed by the barangay hall to coordinate with Barangay Chairman Reynaldo
Flores, Kagawad Larry Fabella and Kagawad Edwin Razon. The team likewise brought with them a media representative
affiliated with "Sunshine Radio" to cover the operation. From the barangay hall, they walked toward the target place using
as a guide the sketch they prepared.
When they were already outside the house of the Punzalans, which is a three-storey structure, IA1 Sandaan knocked on
the door. A woman, later identified as Patricia Punzalan, slightly opened the door. When they introduced themselves as
PDEA agents and informed the occupant that they have a search warrant, Patricia immediately tried to close the door but
was not successful since the PDEA agents pushed the door open. The team was able to enter the house of Jerry and
Patricia Punzalan who were both surprised when found inside the house. IO1 Pagaragan showed and read the search
warrant infront of the Punzalans.
Inside the house, the team immediately saw plastic sachets placed on top of the table. I01 Pagaragan was able to seize
nine (9) heat-sealed plastic sachets, two (2) square-shaped transparent plastic containers and a small round plastic
container. All three (3) plastic containers contained smaller heat-sealed plastic sachets of white crystalline substance of
suspected shabu. There were also other paraphernalia, guns, money and a digital weighing scale. Accordingly, SI2
Esteban and IO2 Alvarado effected the arrest of accused-appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan after informing them of
their constitutional rights. I01 Pagaragan immediately marked the seized items by placing the marking "ADP". After
searching and marking the evidence found on the first floor, the team, together with the barangay officials and accused-
appellants, proceeded to, and conducted the search on the second and third floors but found nothing. They went
downstairs where they conducted the inventory of recovered items. I01 Pagaragan prepared the Receipt/Inventory of
Property Seized and a Certification of Orderly Search which were later signed by the barangay officials.
After their arrest, the Punzalans were brought to the PDEA Office in Quezon City for investigation. IO1 Pagaragan
presented the seized evidence to Atty. Benjamin Gaspe, who prepared the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report, Request for
Drug Test/Physical and Medical Examination. They likewise caused the preparation of their respective affidavits.
Photographs were also taken during the actual search and inventory. Laboratory examination of the seized pieces of drug
evidence gave positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, a
dangerous drug.
Thereafter, the Punzalans were charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for illegal possession of
40.78 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu, a dangerous drug.
The trial court convicted the Punzalans. The trial court held that the issuance of a search warrant against the premises of
different persons named therein is valid as there is no requirement that only one search warrant for one premise to be
searched is necessary for its validity. Also, the address of the Punzalans was clearly and adequately described. A sketch
that specifically identifies the places to be searched was attached to the records and such description of the place was
unquestionably accurate that the PDEA agents were led to, and were able to successfully conduct their operation in the
premises described in the search warrant.
The trial court also ruled that the implementation of the search warrant sufficiently complied with the requirements of the
law. Despite the Punzalans' assertion that they were arrested outside their house and were made to board a van parked
along the street beside the river and were not allowed by the PDEA agents to witness the search conducted inside the
house, the trial court was convinced that the Punzalans were in fact inside their house and were physically present during
the conduct of the search.
In its findings, the trial court observed that there were actually two phases of the search done in the Punzalan house. The
first or initial search was done at the ground floor of the house, immediately after the PDEA agents gained entry and was
beyond doubt made in the presence of both accused. This is where the bulk of illegal drugs were found, confiscated and
consequently marked. The trial court further stated that it is of no moment that the barangay officials were not able to
witness the said initial search and their failure to arrive on time to witness the first or initial search at the ground floor of
the Punzalan house, or even their total absence thereat, will not render the subject search invalid and unlawful inasmuch
as their presence is not required. The trial court held that the prosecution successfully and sufficiently established that the
two accused were present during the initial search, thus, satisfying the requirement of a lawful and valid search.
The second phase of the search was conducted at the upper floors of the house after the markings on the 293 sachets of
confiscated specimens were completed by I01 Pagaragan. This was witnessed and participated in by the barangay
officials. Finally, after the search of the entire house was concluded, it is not disputed that an inventory of all the items
seized was conducted by I01 Pagaragan in compliance with the provisions of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. In
fact, it was admitted by the barangay officials that they were requested to wait for the DOJ representative, to which they
willingly acceded.
The Punzalans filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of the Punzalans. The CA held that there was a valid search and seizure
conducted and the seized items are admissible in evidence. The prosecution was able to prove all the elements of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited
drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the search warrant and the subsequent search were valid
HELD
Yes, the search warrant and the subsequent search were valid.
Valid search warrant
A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, entitled "Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of Executive Judges and Defining their
Powers, Prerogatives and Duties" as approved by the Court in its Resolution of January 27, 2004, as amended, provides:
SEC. 12. Issuance of search warrants in special criminal cases by the RTC of Manila and Quezon City. - The
Executive Judges and, whenever they are on official leave of absence or are not physically present in the station,
the Vice-Executive Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City shall have authority to act on applications filed
by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Anti-Crime Task Force
 (ACTAF), for search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Intellectual Property
Code, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, and other relevant
laws that may hereafter be enacted by Congress, and included herein by the Supreme Court.
The applications shall be endorsed by the heads of such agencies or their respective duly authorized officials and shall
particularly describe therein the places to be searched and/or the property or things to be seized as prescribed in the
Rules of Court. The Executive Judges and Vice-Executive Judges concerned shall issue the warrants, if justified, which
may be served outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said courts.
The search warrant issued by the RTC of Manila, Branch 17 satisfactorily complies with the requirements for the issuance
thereof as determined by the issuing court, thus:
Pursuant to Section 2, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution, Sections 2 to 5, Rule 126 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal
Procedure, modified by Section 12 of Supreme Court En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 03-08-02-SC dated January
27, 2004, and Certification dated October 28, 2009, it appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after
personally examining under oath Agent Liwanag B. Sandaan and Agent Derween Reed both of Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency Metro Manila Regional Office, that there is probable cause, there are good and sufficient
reasons, to believe that undetermined quantity of assorted dangerous drugs, particularly shabu, including the
proceeds or fruits and those used or intended to be used by the respondents as a means of committing the
offense, you are hereby commanded to make an immediate search at any time in the day or night of the premises
above described and forthwith seize and take possession of the undetermined quantity of assorted dangerous
drugs including the proceeds and fruits and bring said property to the undersigned to be dealt with as the law
directs.
As aforecited, Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC clearly authorizes the Executive Judges and the Vice-
Executive Judges of the RTC of Manila and Quezon City to issue search warrants to be served in places outside their
territorial jurisdiction in special criminal cases such as those involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession
of firearms and ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as in this case, for
as long as the parameters under the said section have been complied with.
In the issuance of a search warrant, probable cause requires such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and the objects sought in connection with that offense are in
the place to be searched. There is no exact test for the determination of probable cause in the issuance of search
warrants. It is a matter wholly dependent on the finding of trial judges in the process of exercising their judicial function.
When a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is made by a trial judge, the finding is accorded
respect by reviewing courts.
Valid search
Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
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.
As correctly ruled by the CA, even if the barangay officials were not present during the initial search, the search was
witnessed by the Punzalans themselves, hence, the search was valid since the rule that "two witnesses of sufficient age
and discretion residing in the same locality" must be present applies only in the absence of either the lawful occupant of
the premises or any member of his family.

RULE 127 – PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

1. Relate to Rules 57-61
2. What provisional remedies are not applicable in criminal cases
3. Is petition for relief from judgment available in criminal cases? Yes, according to Hilario vs. People, 551 SCRA 191,
April 14, 2008