REPORT ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

RULE 126 – SEARCH AND SEIZURE

SECTION 1 – 6

By: Alexander D. Besa

ADB2017 Page 1
RULE 126 - SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Sec. 1 – Search Warrant defined - A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the
People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to
search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court.

Sec. 2 – Court where application for search warrant shall be filed with the following:

• Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was

committed.

• For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within

the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of
the commission 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.

Malaloan v CA
G.R. No. 104879, 06 May 1994 232 SCRA 249

FACTS:
Members of the CAPCOM, armed with a search warrant issued by respondent RTC Judge of
Kalookan City in connection with an alleged violation of P.D. 1866 perpetrated in Quezon City,
proceeded to the site where a labor seminar was then taking place. Firearms, explosive materials
and subversive documents, among others, were seized and taken during the search. Petitioners, all
EILER Instructors, were indicted.

ISSUE(S):
Can a search warrant issued by let’s say a Davao City court be enforced in any other place outside
of Davao City?

RULING:
Yes, because a search warrant is merely a court process. It should not be confused with the correct
venue for the filling of the case. But here there is no case. We are only talking about search and
seizure which is a mere court process. It has nothing to do with the filing of a criminal case. So you
cannot limit the power of the search warrant only within the place where the same was committed.
Furthermore, search warrants are usually applied by law enforcement officers and it is too much to
require peace officer to know in advance where is the probable venue of the criminal case. And
based on the interim rules, there is a statement there that “ xxx writs of certiorari, prohibition,
habeas corpus, etc… of the RTC are enforceable only within the region. All other writs or processes
are enforceable throughout the country. And search warrant falls under the general provision “all
other writs xxx”

SUPREME COURT CIRCULARS AND ORDERS

TO: ALL JUDGES OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL
COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS

SUBJECT: SESSION HOURS OF COURTS

For the information and guidance of all concerned, and in compliance with the Resolution of the
Court En Banc, dated October 3, 1985, in Administrative Matter No. 85-9-8203-RTC. — Re:
Resolution No. 11 of the Pasay City Trial Lawyers Association requesting that the practice of setting

ADB2017 Page 2
hearing of cases and court sessions of 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. by the judges in the country . . . be
forthwith enjoined and stopped and that said judges be concomitantly ordered to comply with the
Supreme Court's resolution of January 11, 1983, quoted hereunder is the Resolution of the Court En
Banc of January 11, 1983, to wit:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

RESOLUTION OF THE COURT EN BANC, DATED JANUARY 11, 1983 PROVIDING FOR THE INTERIM OR
TRANSITIONAL RULES AND GUIDELINES RELATIVE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDICIARY
REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980 (B.P. Blg. 129)

RESOLUTION

Considering the enactment of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (B.P. Blg. 129) which
provides for the reorganization of all the courts except the Supreme Court, the Sandiganbayan and
the Court of Tax Appeals and some changes in the present rules on procedures; realizing the
necessity of harmonizing the provisions of the Rules of Court with the changes thus affected; and
pending a more thorough revision of the Rules of Court which is now in progress, the Court
Resolved to promulgate the following interim or transitional rules and guidelines relative thereto
for all inferior courts according to the Constitution:

A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. Designation of courts. — The reference to the (a) Court of Appeals, (b) courts of first instance,
and (c) "inferior courts" in the Rules of Court shall be deemed changed to (a) the Intermediate
Appellate Court, (b) the regional trial courts, and (c) the metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial
courts and municipal circuit trial courts, respectively.

B.P. Blg. 129 creates thirteen judicial regions corresponding to the thirteen administrative regions
of the country in place of the sixteen judicial district under the Judiciary Act of 1948.

2. Territorial jurisdiction of courts. — (a) Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and
Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise their jurisdiction in the city, municipality or circuit for
which the judge thereof is appointed or designated.

(b) A regional trial court shall exercise its jurisdiction within the area defined by the Supreme Court
as the territory over which the particular branch concerned shall exercise its authority, in
accordance with Section 18 of B.P. Blg. 129.

3. Writs and processes. —

(a) Writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, habeas corpus and injunction issued
by a regional trial court may be enforced in any part of the region.

(b) All other processes, whether issued by a regional trial court or a metropolitan trial court,
municipal trial court or municipal circuit trial court may be served anywhere in the Philippines,
and, in the last three cases, without a certification by the judge of the regional trial courts.

ADB2017 Page 3
RE: REQUEST OF POLICE DIRECTOR GENERAL AVELINO I. RAZON FOR AUTHORITY TO DELEGATE
THE ENDORSEMENT OF APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT.
A.M. NO. 08-4-4-SC, July 7, 2009

Sec. 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, entitled Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of
Executive Judges and Defining their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties, dictates that

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.

Section 3 – Personal property to be seized.

A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of personal property:

a) Subject of the offenses;

b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or

Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.

Section 4 – Requisites for Issuing Search Warrant

A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific
offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witness he may produce and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines

ADB2017 Page 4
ANDY QUELNAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 150917 September 27, 2006.

Facts:

A team of policemen was formed to implement a search warrant issued by RTC of Manila. The team
proceeded to the Cityland Condominium in Makati and proceeded to Units 615 which is controlled
by Bernard Kim. During the implementation of the said search warrant, the police found three
pieces of transparent plastic sachets containing shabu. Then the arrest report and joint affidavit of
apprehension were executed by the police operatives leading to the arrest of Andy Quelnan who
was also present during the search. The RTC found Quelnan guilty. Quelnan seeks for the reversal
of the said judgment since according to him the search warrant was invalid for the fact that the
search warrant was not named to him.

Issue: WON the search warrant was properly enforced.

Held: YES. The search warrant was properly enforced because nowhere in Section 4 of Rule 126
states that the search warrant must name the person who occupies the described premise. The
failure to name the actual occupant of the said building is not a fatal defect to the search warrant.
Even though Quelnan may not be the person subject of the search, the fact that he was caught in
flagrante delicto so his arrest was valid.

Section 5 – Examination of Complainant record.

The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions
and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on
facts personally known to them and attached to the record their sworn statements, together with
the affidavits submitted.

Requisites for the issuance of a search warrant:

1) There must be an application which must be under oath;

2) There must be an affidavit in support of the application. The affidavit must be based on the
personal knowledge of the affiant;

3) The search warrant must particularly describe the place or the person to be searched and
the things to be seized;

4) There is probable cause for its issuance;

5) The search warrant shall be issued in connection with but one offense.

Section 6 – Issuance and Form of Search Warrant.

If the judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the application is based or that there is
probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall issue the warrant, which must be substantially in
the form prescribed by these Rules.

ADB2017 Page 5