What are the laws governing

the application for issuance of

search warrant?
They are the following:
1. Rule 126 (Search and Seizure) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure
2. Section 2 of Article 3 (Bill of Rights) of the constitution
3. Supreme Court Resolution in A.M. No. 99-20-09-SC
4. The penumbras of the right of citizens guaranteed by the
Constitution, Civil
Code, etc that uphold the right to privacy.
5. Rules on Evidence
 What is a Search Warrant?
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. 1,Rule 126, ROC).
Where do you apply for Search Warrant?
In any court, meaning MTC or RTC, having territorial jurisdiction of the place where search
warrant is to be served. Example, if the place to be searched is in Quezon City, the
application will have to be made in any court in Quezon City.
Is the answer in the preceding question an absolute rule? What if applying for a search
warrant in Quezon City will hamper the operation because the subject has connections
in the courts of Quezon City?
The preceding answer has exception. The applicant can also apply for issuance of search
warrant in any court within the judicial region covering the place where it is going to be
enforced; PROVIDED, the reasons that compelled the applicant to apply for search
warrant in the court other than the court covering the place where it will be enforced is
stated in the application.
 What are the requisites of a valid search warrant?
The requisites are:
a.  There must be probable cause;
b.  The probable cause must be determined personally by a judge;
c.  It must be issued after examination, under oath or affirmation, of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce;
d.  The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
What is probable cause?
Probable cause refers to such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the
place sought to be searched.
 What are the properties which
may be seized under a search
warrant?
The properties subject of seizure under Rule 126, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court are:
a.  Subject of the offense;
b.  Stolen or embezzled property and other fruits or proceeds of the offense; and
c.  Property used or intended to be used as a means for the commission of an offense.

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

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

 
 What are the instances when a search may be made without a
warrant?
The following instances allow a search without a warrant:
a.  When there is a valid waiver of the right 
b.  Where the search is incidental to a valid arrest 
c.  Where the prohibited articles are in plain view. An example of such situation is when a policeman is chasing a criminal
and during the said chase, the policeman stumbled upon a drug den where drugs and paraphernalia were scattered around. 
d.  In Stop and frisk situations or pursuant to a Terry Search. In the US case of Terry vs. Ohio, a Terry Search has been defined
as the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him and pat him for weapons whenever he observes
unusual conduct which leads him to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot. 
e.  Search of moving vehicles 
f.  Enforcement of immigration and customs law 
g.  Search under exigent and emergency measures
If the security guard in a mall wants to open my bag and check the inside thereof, isn’t there a violation of my right
against unreasonable search?
No, there is no violation of your right. Private search is not covered by the constitutional guarantee.  In the case of People vs.
Marti [193 SCRA 57], the Supreme Court ratiocinated that in the absence of governmental interference, the constitutional
right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot invoked against the State. The protection against unreasonable search
and seizure cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged
unlawful intrusion by the government.
 ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 13

SUPREME COURT CIRCULARS AND ORDERS

TO: ALL EXECUTIVE JUDGES AND JUDGES OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS
SUBJECT: GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURE IN THE ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANTS.
Under Administrative Order No. 6 of this Court, dated June 30, 1975, the Executive Judge derives his powers and prerogatives through
delegation thereof by this Court — some of which are to improve judicial services, in coordination with court related government
agencies, and to further provide leadership in the management of all courts within his area of administrative supervision.
As a measure to better serve the public good and to facilitate the administration of justice, the Court is prescribing hereunder the
guidelines in the issuance of search warrants:
1. All applications for search warrants, if filed with the Executive Judge, shall be assigned, by raffle, to a judge within his administrative
area, under whose direction the search warrant shall be issued for the search and seizure of personal property;
2. After the application has been raffled and distributed to a Branch, the judge who is assigned to conduct the examination of the
complainant and witnesses should immediately act on the same, considering that time element and possible leakage of information are
primary considerations in the issuance of search warrants and seizure;
3. Raffling shall be strictly enforced, except only in cases where an application for search warrant may be filed directly with any judge
in whose jurisdiction the place to be searched is located, after office hours, or during Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, in which
case the applicant is required to certify under oath the urgency of the issuance thereof after office hours, or during Saturdays, Sundays
and legal holidays;
4. If, in the implementation of the search warrant, properties are seized thereunder and the corresponding case is filed in court, said
case shall be distributed by raffle conformably with Circular No. 7, dated September 23, 1974, of this Court, and thereupon tried and
decided by the judge to whom it has been assigned, and not necessarily by the judge who is issued the search warrant.
5. New applications. — In order to insure maximum legitimate effect and give meaning and substance to the constitutional guarantee
on the security of every person, his house and his effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, the following procedure should
be strictly observed:
a. A warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of personal property — 1) subject of the offense; 2) stolen or embezzled or are the proceeds or fruits of an offense; and, 3) used
or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense;

b. A warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in laid connection with one specific offense to be determined by the judge or such other responsible officer authorized by law after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the things to be seized so that they could be properly identified;

c. 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 any witnesses he
may produce and attach to the record their sworn statements together with any affidavits submitted;

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

e. Search warrants must be in duplicate, both signed by the judge. The duplicate copy thereof must be given to the person against whom the warrant is issued and served. Both copies
of the warrant must indicate the date until when the warrant shall be valid and must direct that it be served in the daytime. If the judge is satisfied that the property is in the person or
in the place ordered to be searched, a direction may be inserted in the warrants that it be served at any time of the day or night;

f. In every court, there shall be a log under the custody of the Clerk of Court wherein shall be entered within 24 hours after the issuance of the search warrant, the following:

1. Date and number of the warrant;

2. Name of the issuing judge;

3. Name of the person against whom the warrant is issued;

4. Offense cited in the warrant; and

5. Name of the officer who applied for the warrant and his witnesses.

Each branch or branches of a court shall have a separate and distinct log book from the log book kept by the other branches of the same court stationed in another city or municipality;

g. The search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from date of issuance, and after which the issuing judge should ascertain if the return has been made, and if there was none,
should summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was made. If the return has been made, the judge should ascertain from the
officer who seized the property under the warrant if a detailed receipt of the property seized was left with the lawful occupants of the premises in whose presence the search and
seizure were made, or in the absence of such occupants, whether he left a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property in the presence of at least two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, and should require that the property seized by virtue of the warrant shall be delivered to the judge who issued the warrant.
The judge should see to it that an accurate and true inventory of the property seized duly verified under oath is attached to the return and filed with the court; and

h. The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of the log book who shall also enter in the log book, the date of the return, the result, and such other actions
the judge may have taken thereon.
 Important:
Supreme Court resolution in A.M. No. 99-20-09-SC (Resolution Clarifying Guidelines on the Application
for and Enforceability of Search Warrants) and subsequent amendments thereto, provide exemptions to the
requirement that a compelling reason must be stated in the application for Search Warrant if applied outside
the place where it will be served. Said Resolution provides, that in special criminal cases, the Executive
Judges or in their absence, the Vice-executive Judges of RTCs of Manila and Quezon City can issue search
warrant that can be served anywhere in the Philippines even if there will be no statements of the compelling
reason stated in the application as long as the application will be endorsed by Chief of Office of PNP units.
These special criminal cases pertain to:
1. those involving heinous crimes;
2. illegal gambling
3. illegal possession of firearm and ammunitions
4. Violations of the Anti-dangerous drugs law,
5. the intellectual property code,
6. the Anti-money Laundering Act,
7. the Tariff and Customs Code,
8. and other relevant laws that may be enacted by Congress and may be included in the law by the
Supreme Court.
 What are the requisites in the issuance
of 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.
How is the applicant examined?
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.
When is the search warrant issued?
If the judge is satisfied of the existence of facts (crimes) upon which the application
is based or that there is probable cause to believe that they (crimes) exist, he shall
issue the warrant.
A judge issued a single search warrant commanding police
officers to seize undetermined quantity of shabu and two
Cal. 45 firearms inside the house of a suspected drug
No. The searchpusher.
warrant isIs
notthe
valid.search
A search warrant
warrant mustvalid?
be issued in connection
with one, single, or specific offense only.
Note: This usually happens when during applications for search warrant, the applicant
lumped in one application too many personal properties the possession of which are
punished by different laws. Therefore, an applicant for search warrant must apply search
warrant in connection with single or specific offense only. In this case, on application for
search warrant for dangerous drugs and another for possession of weapons.
A Search Warrant was issued but the Judge issuing the warrant cannot produce the
transcript of stenographic notes of the proceedings when he issued the warrant. Is it a
defective warrant?
In Ogayon vs. People (GR 188794, Sept 2, 2015), the SC held that the failure to attach
the transcript of the judge examinations, though contrary to the rules, does not by itself
nullify the warrant. What the constitution requires is for the judge to conduct
examination to determine the existence of probable cause.
 search warrant used a name
different from his true name. During the proceedings
treating the motion to quash
the search warrant, the Judge handling the case
ascertained that the witness used a
name different from his true name. What is the effect of
thisregardless
This is an actual case and dishonesty
of the of the
result of the proceedings treating
applicant?
the motion to quash, this dishonesty cannot be tolerated. This act of the applicant
is actually a mockery of the sacredness of the court.
 Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
8th JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 21
Catarman, Northern Samar
People of the Philippines Search Warrant No. ____
Plaintiff
FOR:
- VERSUS –
Violation of ______
______________________
Respondent.
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -/
APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
COMES NOW, the undersigned Deputy Chief of the Investigation Branch of Leyte Police Provincial Office, located
in San Jose, Tacloban City, unto this Honorable Court most respectfully avers:

1. That the undersigned applied for issuance of search warrant in this Honorable Court and not in any court in
_______________ - where the search warrant will be enforced because (state the compelling reasons)_
; (Note: In this paragraph, state the compelling reasons and the pieces of evidence that will prove such compelling
reasons why a search warrant has to be obtained outside the place from which it will be enforced. Note further:
disregard this paragraph and proceed immediately to paragraph 2 if the application for Search Warrant is filed in courts
having territorial jurisdiction where it will be implemented.)
2. That I was informed that (name of respondent) , Filipino, of legal age, married to_____ and one of the
engineers in the Regional Office of DPWH is keeping in his residence located in Brgy. Sampaguita,
Tacloban City, the following: a) ______;
b) ________ which act violates RA ________;
(Note: here, simply provide the general statements about the crime)
3. That the undersigned caused the investigation and verification of the report. Witnesses Police Officers
__________ and _______ , who were able to gain entry in the residence of the respondent confirmed to me
that the report is absolutely true; (Note: here, state how the report was confirmed)
4. That based on the report of above-named witnesses, respondent is keeping in the attic and in the room of his house, which
house is actually located at #41, First Street, Brgy. Sampaguita, Tacloban City the following contrabands which act particularly
violates Section ____ of RA ____ :
a. __________; and,
b. __________;
(Note: The place inside the house to be searched must be clearly stated and the address of the house to be searched must be
clearly determined. The most important thing to remember in this paragraph is to convince the Judge that respondent owned or
if not, has control over the place to be searched. Further, enumerate the illegal things the respondent is keeping. See to it that
the enumerated things are punishable by a single provision of law to conform to the requirement that a search warrant must be
issued in connection with a single offense. If there are other things punishable by another provision of law or that constitutes
another offense, another application for issuance of search warrant for that other offense is necessary.)
5. Attached are the following to support this application:
a. Certification issued by the Municipal Engineer to prove that the house to be searched is owned by the
respondent;
b. Affidavit of Police Officer _________;
c. Affidavit of Police Officer _________;
[Note: In the case of Alvarez vs CFI of Tayabas, 64 Phil. 33, 44 (1937), SC held that: the true test of
sufficiency of a deposition or affidavit to warrant issuance of search warrant is whether it has been
drawn in such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and affiant be held liable for damages
caused.]
d. Vicinity sketch of the Location of the house;
Note: The Supreme Court consistently declared that the description of the place to be searched is
sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can, using reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place
intended and distinguish it from others.
e. Sketch of the house and the location of the items to be seized;
f. Negative Certification
(from FEO in case of firearms, from PCSO in case of illegal numbers game, etc)
g. And others
(Note: attach here the pieces of evidence that will prove the statements averred in the
preceding paragraphs.)
6. WHEREFORE, the undersigned most respectfully prays that this Honorable Court issue a search warrant against the respondent
authorizing the undersigned or any police officer to search the premises described in paragraph 4; and, to seize and bring to this
Court the things or properties enumerated in the same paragraph.
Tacloban City for Catarman, Northern Samar.
___(Date)____
FRANCO CAÑETE LIPAY
 VERIFICATION AND
CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
Republic of the Philippines )
Province of Northern Samar)
Municipality of Catarman )s.s

I, FRANCO CAÑETE LIPAY, under oath, depose and say that:

1. I am the applicant and I prepared this application for search warrant, read, and understood all the allegations therein;
2. The same are true and correct of my own knowledge; and, on the basis of authenticated documents in my possession; and,
3. That I have not commenced any application for search warrant against the same party in any court, tribunal or other agency
and that to the best of my knowledge, no such other application is pending in any court, tribunal, or agency and if I learn that a
similar application has been filed or pending before any court, tribunal, or agency, I shall make the required notification
within five (5) days from receipt thereof.
(Note: Although applications for search warrant need not be verified and does not need a certification against forum
shopping, it is recommended that “verification and certification of non-forum shopping” must be stated in the application itself.
The reason is, criminals today knew that whenever an applicant for search warrant is denied by one judge, it is easy for him to
apply search warrant in another judge and so on and so forth. During proceedings to quash the warrant, this ground is always
cited. The Supreme Court, in the case of Washington Distillers vs CA (GR No. 118151, 22 August 1996) considered the practice as
intolerable and violates the prohibition on forum shopping.

IN TRUTH WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature this

_______________ in ____________ , Philippines.
FRANCO CAÑETE LIPAY
Police Senior Inspector
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this _____________ in
______________, Philippines________________________
(Judge)

Recommend Approval for Filing:

__________________________
(Unit Head)
Approved for Filing:

__________________________
(Provincial Director)

Important:
These “Recommendation for approval” and “Approval for filing” portions which are the
last portion of the application for search warrant complies with the requirement of
Supreme Court resolution in A.M. No. 99-20-09-SC and subsequent amendments
thereto that applications for search warrant for special criminal cases must be
indorsed by unit head. However, in practice, the application must be duly indorsed;
meaning, a separate endorsement letter must be on top of the application for search
warrant.