SEC. 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 witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the
Philippines.

Requisites of a valid search warrant:

1. Must be issued upon probable cause;
2. Probable cause must be determined by the issuing judge
personally;
3. The judge must have personally examined, in the form of
searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath,
the applicant and his witnesses on facts personally known to
them;
4. The warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized;
5. It must be in connection with one specific offense; and
6. The sworn statements together with the affidavits submitted
by witnesses must be attached to the record.

Well settled is the rule that the legality of a seizure can be

contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired
thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure
is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties
(Stonehill v. Diokno)

Remedies from an Unlawful Search

1. A motion to quash the search warrant;
2. A motion to suppress as evidence the objects illegally taken
(EXCLUSIONARY RULE any evidence obtained through
unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding); and
3. Replevin, if the objects are legally possessed

The remedies are alternative. If a motion to quash is denied, a

motion to suppress cannot be availed of subsequently. Where the
search warrant is a PATENT NULLITY, certiorari lies to nullify the
same.

The illegality of the search warrant does not call for the return of
the things seized, the possession of which is prohibited by law.
However, those personalities seized in violation of the

constitutional immunity whose possession is not of itself illegal or

unlawful ought to be returned to their rightful owner or
possessor.

Any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional immunity

against unreasonable searches and seizures are inadmissible for
any purpose in any proceeding

There is no need for a certification of non-forum shopping in the

application for search warrant. The Rules of Court as amended
requires such certification only from initiatory pleadings, omitting
any mention of applications

Probable Cause refers to the facts and circumstances which

could 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.

Basis of Probable Cause: The basis must be the personal

knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may produce
and not based on mere hearsay. The test of sufficiency of a
deposition or affidavit is whether it has been drawn in a manner
that perjury could be charged thereon and the affiant be held
liable for damage caused.

Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are not

sufficient. The examining judge has to take depositions in writing
of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and
attach them to the record. (Mata v. Bayona)

The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the
personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because
the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate,
not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance
of the warrant, of the existence of probable cause. (Alvarez v.
CFI)

Factors in Determination of Probable Cause:

1. Time of the application in relation to the alleged offense
committed. The nearer the time at which the observation of
the offense is alleged to have been made, the more
reasonable the conclusion of establishment of probable cause
(Asian Surety Insurance v. Herrera);

2. Need for competent proof of particular acts or specific

omissions in the ascertainment of probable cause (Stonehill v.
Diokno);
3. The facts and circumstances that would show probable cause
must be the best evidence that could be obtained under the
circumstances. If such best evidence cannot be obtained, the
applicants must show a justifiable reason therefor upon
judges examination (People v. Judge Estrada)

Probable cause must be determined personally by a judge.

However, this rule does not extend to deportation proceedings.

Particularly describing the place to be searched and the

persons of things to be seized: The purpose of the rule is to
leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what
articles they shall seize, to the end that unreasonable searches
and seizures may not be made - that abuses may not be
committed (Stonehill v. Diokno)

Test to determine particularity:

1. When the description therein is as specific as the
circumstances will ordinarily allow (People v. Rubio);
2. When the description expresses a conclusion of fact not of
law which the warrant officer may be guided in making the
search and seizure;
3. When the things described are limited to those which bear
direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being
issued.

The warrant must name the person upon whom it is to be served

EXCEPT in those cases where it contains a descriptio personae
such as will enable the officer to identify the person. The
description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper
person upon whom it is to be served (People v. Veloso)

The absence of a probable cause for a particular article does not

generally invalidate the warrant as a whole but may be severed
from the rest which meets the requirements of probable cause
and particularity (People v. Salanguit)

Multi-factor Balancing Test in determining Probable Cause:

One which requires the officer to weigh the manner and intensity
of the interference on the right of the people, the gravity of the
crime committed, and the circumstances attending the incident
(Allado v. Judge Diokno)

SEC. 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 attach to the record their
sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted.

Manner on how a judge should examine a witness to determine

the existence of probable cause:
1. The judge must examine the complainant and witnesses
personally;
2. The examination must be under oath;
3. The examination must be reduced to writing in the form of
searching questions and answers (Marinas v. Siochi);
4. Examination must be on the facts personally known to the
applicant and his witnesses;
5. It must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary or pro
forma (Roan v. Gonzalez);
6. It is done ex-parte and may even be held in the secrecy of
chambers (Mata v. Bayona);
Such personal examination is necessary order to enable the
judge to determine the existence or non-existence of a probable
cause.
The matters that may be raised in a motion to quash a search
warrant must not go beyond the immediate, limited issue of the
existence or non-existence of probable cause at the time of the
issuance of the warrant. Matters of defense should properly be
raised at the criminal action and not at the hearing of the motion
to quash the search warrant (Department of Health v. Sy Chi
Siong, Inc)

SEC. 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.

The Constitution ordains that no warrant shall issue EXCEPT upon

probable cause supported by oath or affirmation

The search warrant must be in writing and must contain such

particulars as the name of the person against whom it is

directed, the offense for which it was issued, the place to be

searched and the specific things to be seized

Search warrant cannot issue against diplomatic officers (WHO v.

Aquino)