Conditions for a valid warrant warrant must be strictly complied with to

Examination of witnesses protect the rights of individuals to personal

security and privacy.
Mata v. Bayona
Facts: Case Background:
 Petitioner Soriano Mata challenges the The case involves a search warrant that was
validity of a search warrant issued by declared invalid by the court.
respondent Judge Josephine K. Bayona. The petitioner argued that the search warrant did
 Mata argues that the search warrant was not comply with constitutional and statutory
based on an application and joint affidavit requirements.
that were subscribed and sworn to before the The judge failed to comply with proper
Clerk of Court, which is allegedly improper. procedures in issuing the search warrant.
 Mata also claims that the necessary papers
related to the issuance of the search warrant Invalidity of the Search Warrant:
were not attached to the records of the case. The search warrant was based on an application
Issue: and joint affidavit that were subscribed and
Whether the search warrant is valid or not due to sworn to before the Clerk of Court, instead of
the failure to comply with the constitutional and before the judge.
statutory requirements for its issuance. The necessary papers were not attached to the
Ruling: records of the case.
The search warrant is declared invalid due to the The judge did not take the depositions of the
judge's failure to comply with constitutional and complainant and witnesses in writing and attach
statutory requirements. them to the record, as required by the
Ratio: Constitution and the Rules of Court.
 The Constitution requires that no search
warrant shall issue without probable cause Lack of Certification and Doubtful Examination
determined by the judge after examination The petitioner found no certification at the back
under oath or affirmation of the complainant of the joint affidavit, casting doubt on the judge's
and witnesses. claim that she examined the applicants under
 The implementing rule, Section 4 of Rule oath.
126, further specifies that the judge must The examination or investigation for a search
personally examine the complainant and warrant must be thorough, under oath, and in
witnesses, take their depositions in writing, writing.
and attach them to the record. Mere
affidavits are not sufficient. Illegality of the Search Warrant
 In this case, the judge failed to comply with The court held that the search warrant was
these requirements. There was no tainted with illegality due to the judge's failure to
"deposition in writing" attached to the comply with constitutional and statutory
records, and the certification of the requirements.
examination under oath was not found on the The court emphasized the importance of a
joint affidavit. thorough and under oath examination or
 The judge's claim that she did not take the investigation for a search warrant, as required by
deposition of certain witnesses to prevent the the Constitution and the Rules of Court.
subjects of the raid from disappearing is not
a valid justification. Inability to Return Seized Items
 The court emphasizes that the legal
requisites for the issuance of a search
Despite the illegality of the search warrant, the of the suspects evading capture, was not
court ruled that the seized items could not be considered sufficient to justify the deviation from
returned. legal requirements.
The possession of the seized items was
prohibited, which prevented their return. Relating this case to constitutional law, it
underscores the importance of safeguarding
What were the constitutional and statutory individual rights against unlawful searches and
requirements for the issuance of a search seizures. The Fourth Amendment to the United
warrant? States Constitution, which is echoed in the case
The Constitution requires that no search warrant law of many jurisdictions including the
shall issue without probable cause, determined Philippines, protects individuals from
by the judge after examination under oath or unreasonable searches and seizures. The
affirmation of the complainant and witnesses. requirement for a judge to personally examine
The implementing rule, Section 4 of Rule 126, witnesses under oath before issuing a search
requires the judge to personally examine the warrant is a procedural safeguard rooted in
complainant and witnesses, take their constitutional principles of due process and
depositions in writing, and attach them to the protection against arbitrary government intrusion.
record.
By failing to adhere to these constitutional and
procedural requirements, the search warrant in
In this case, the examination of witnesses is a this case was deemed invalid. This reaffirms the
crucial aspect of the legal proceedings principle that the judiciary must strictly adhere to
surrounding the issuance of a search warrant. legal standards and procedural safeguards, even
The judge is required, under both constitutional in cases involving law enforcement interests, to
law and procedural rules, to personally examine uphold the constitutional rights of individuals.
the complainant and any witnesses under oath or
affirmation before issuing a search warrant. This Yee Sue Koy vs. Almeda
examination serves to establish probable cause Facts:
and ensure the validity of the warrant. Yee Sue Koy and Yee Tip filed a petition for the
return of seized articles.
However, the case highlights a failure to adhere The search warrant used to seize the articles
to this requirement. The judge issued the search was issued on May 5, 1938, by the justice of the
warrant without taking written depositions of the peace of Sagay, Occidental Negros.
complainant and witnesses, as mandated by law. The warrant authorized the search of the store
Instead, the affidavits were merely sworn before and premises occupied by Sam Sing & Co., as
the Clerk of Court, which was deemed well as the seizure of documents, notebooks,
insufficient. Furthermore, the necessary papers lists, receipts, and promissory notes related to
relevant to the issuance of the warrant were not their activities of lending money at usurious rates
attached to the case records, raising questions of interest.
about procedural irregularities. The search was conducted on the same day, and
certain articles were seized by Mariano G.
This failure to properly examine witnesses and Almeda, Jose Estrada, two internal revenue
document their testimonies compromised the agents, and two members of the Philippine Army.
integrity of the search warrant. The judge's The articles seized were then retained by the
justification for not conducting a proper agents of the Anti-Usury Board for examination.
examination in open court, citing concerns about Issue:
the public nature of the proceeding and the risk
Whether the search warrant and seizure of the against unreasonable searches and seizures and
articles were illegal due to the warrant being requires that warrants be issued only upon
issued three days ahead of the application and probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.
affidavit. In this case, the examination of witnesses under
Whether the search warrant was issued in oath served to establish the requisite probable
accordance with the formalities prescribed by the cause for the issuance of the search warrant.
Constitution and General Orders No. 58.
Ruling: Furthermore, the case touches upon the
The court dismissed the petition and denied the constitutional principle of protection against self-
return of the seized articles, ruling that the incrimination. It discusses the use of seized
search warrant and seizure were legal. documents as evidence in a criminal case
Ratio: against the individuals from whom they were
The search warrant was issued in accordance seized. While the seizure of documents for this
with the formalities prescribed by the Constitution purpose is deemed unconstitutional as it violates
and General Orders No. 58. the right against self-incrimination, the court
The existence of probable cause was determined found that in this instance, the rule did not apply.
by the justice of the peace before issuing the The seizure was justified as necessary for
search warrant, as shown by the statement in the preventing further violations of the Usury Law,
warrant itself. rather than for compelling the accused to testify
The description of the articles seized in the against themselves.
warrant was also deemed sufficient.
Overall, the case underscores the importance of
In this case, the examination of witnesses plays procedural safeguards, such as the examination
a central role in the issuance of a search warrant. of witnesses under oath, in ensuring the legality
The search warrant was obtained based on of searches and seizures while upholding
sworn affidavits provided by Mariano G. Almeda, constitutional rights.
chief agent of the Anti-Usury Board, and Jose
Estrada, a special agent. These affidavits were
deemed sufficient as both individuals swore Particularity of Description
under oath to the facts presented. The judge,
after examining these affidavits, determined that Del Rosario y Nicolas v. People
there was probable cause to believe that Sam
Sing & Co. was engaged in lending money at Facts:
usurious rates of interest, in violation of the law. Petitioner Vicente del Rosario appeals his
conviction for illegal possession of firearms.
This examination process, conducted under oath, Search conducted at his residence led to the
is essential to establishing probable cause for the seizure of several firearms and ammunition.
issuance of a search warrant. It ensures that the Del Rosario argues that the search was illegal
information presented to the court is reliable and and that he had a valid license for the seized
credible, as witnesses can be held accountable firearm.
for perjury if their statements are found to be Information filed on June 17, 1996, charging Del
false. Rosario with illegal possession of firearms.
Police received a report that Del Rosario was in
Relating this to constitutional law, it reflects the possession of firearms without necessary
Fourth Amendment's requirement for searches licenses.
and seizures to be based on probable cause.
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals
Search warrant obtained and during the search, Del Rosario was acquitted of the charge of illegal
several firearms and ammunition found in Del possession of firearms.
Rosario's residence.
Del Rosario claimed he had a valid license for
the .45 caliber pistol seized in his bedroom and This case illustrates the importance of adhering
that other seized items were either planted by the to constitutional principles, particularly regarding
police or illegally seized. search and seizure, in criminal proceedings.
Issue: Here's how it relates to the particularity of
Whether Del Rosario had a valid license for description in relation to constitutional law:
the .45 caliber pistol and ammunition seized in
his bedroom. Particularity of Description: The Fourth
Whether the other seized items, such as the .22 Amendment to the United States Constitution
caliber revolver, magazine for a 5.56 mm. caliber and its equivalents in other jurisdictions require
Armalite rifle, and two 2-way radios, were planted that search warrants specifically describe the
by the police or illegally seized. place to be searched and the persons or things
Ruling: to be seized. This principle aims to prevent
The Supreme Court reversed the decision and general exploratory searches and protect
acquitted Del Rosario. individuals' privacy rights. In this case, the
Ratio: search warrant issued for the petitioner's
1. Del Rosario had a valid license for the .45 residence lacked particularity in describing the
caliber pistol seized in his bedroom. items to be seized, leading to the seizure of
 He presented a printed computerized copy of items not covered by the warrant, such as the .22
the license, which was extended until a caliber revolver and the two 2-way radios.
renewed license was printed.
 Possession of a firearm with an expired Constitutional Violations: Seizing items not
license during the period of seizure was not mentioned in the search warrant violates the
illegal, as long as the license had not been constitutional protection against unreasonable
cancelled or revoked. searches and seizures. The court found that the
seizure of the .22 caliber revolver and the two 2-
2. The seizure of the .22 caliber revolver, way radios was illegal because they were not
magazine for a 5.56 mm. caliber Armalite rifle, specifically listed in the warrant, and there was
and two 2-way radios was illegal. no probable cause to seize them. This violation
 These items were not mentioned in the renders the evidence obtained from the illegal
search warrant. seizure inadmissible in court, as it is considered
 Seizure violated the requirement that a the "fruit of the poisonous tree."
search warrant must particularly describe the
items to be seized. Presumption of Regularity vs. Presumption of
 Seizure of evidence in "plain view" only Innocence: The court also highlighted the
applies when the police officer inadvertently importance of the presumption of innocence in
comes across incriminating evidence. criminal proceedings. Despite the presumption of
 It must be immediately apparent that the item regularity in the performance of official duties by
is evidence of a crime or contraband. law enforcement officers, this presumption
 Seizure of the items not mentioned in the cannot override the constitutional presumption of
search warrant was not justified. innocence. The court emphasized that the
Del Rosario had a valid license for the seized burden of proof lies with the prosecution to
firearm and seizure of the other items was illegal. establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and
any doubts must be resolved in favor of the Ruling:
accused.  The search conducted at Apartment No. 8
was illegal and the .45 caliber pistol seized
Judicial Review of Evidence: In this case, the there was inadmissible in evidence against
court closely scrutinized the evidence presented, the petitioners.
including firearms licenses and certifications, to  The search conducted at Apartment No. 2
determine the petitioner's guilt or innocence. The was declared valid and legal, and the articles
court found that the petitioner had a valid license seized from Apartment No. 2 were found
for the .45 caliber pistol seized from his bedroom, admissible in evidence.
thus undermining the prosecution's case. This Ratio:
demonstrates the judiciary's role in ensuring that  The place to be searched cannot be
evidence presented meets the legal standards changed, enlarged, or amplified by the
for admissibility and reliability. police.
 The search made in a place not subject to
Overall, this case underscores the significance of the warrant is illegal.
upholding constitutional rights, such as the right  The law does not require a precise and
to privacy and protection against unreasonable minute description of the things to be seized.
searches and seizures, in the criminal justice  Substantial similarity of the articles described
system. It also highlights the judiciary's as a class or species would suffice.
responsibility to impartially review evidence and  The two-witness rule applies only in the
safeguard individuals' rights in accordance with absence of the lawful occupants of the
the law. premises searched.
 Actual possession of firearms and
Al Ghoul v. Court of Appeals ammunitions is not an indispensable element
Facts: in the prosecution under animus possidendi
 The case involved petitioners Yousef Al- or intent to possess said firearm.
Ghoul, Isam Mohammad Abdulhadi, Wail Conclusion:
Rashid Al-Khatib, Nabeel Nasser Al-Riyami, The search and seizure of items in Apartment
Ashraf Hassam Al-Yazori, and Mohammad No. 8 were deemed illegal, while the search and
Abushendi. seizure of items in Apartment No. 2 were
 They were charged with illegal possession of considered valid. The .45 caliber pistol seized in
firearms, ammunitions, and explosives. Apartment No. 8 was inadmissible as evidence,
 Search warrants were issued for the search but the articles seized in Apartment No. 2 were
and seizure of certain items in Apartment No. admissible. The case was remanded to the
2. Regional Trial Court for trial on the merits of the
 However, the search was conducted not only criminal charges.
in Apartment No. 2 but also in Apartment No.
8, where a .45 caliber pistol was seized.
 In Apartment No. 2, several firearms, This case involves the legality of a search and
ammunitions, and other incendiary devices seizure operation conducted by the police based
were seized with an acknowledgment receipt on search warrants issued by a judge. The
signed by SPO2 de la Cruz. petitioners argued that the search warrants
Issue: lacked particularity in their description of the
Whether the search and seizure orders were items to be seized and that there were violations
valid. of procedural rules during the search and seizure
Whether the objects seized were admissible in process. The court analyzed the validity of the
evidence.
search warrants and the admissibility of the
seized items as evidence.

In relation to the particularity of description, the

court examined the language of the search
warrants and determined whether they
sufficiently identified the items to be seized. It
concluded that while the warrants did not provide
minute details, they sufficiently described the
items to be seized, considering the nature of the
goods and the circumstances of the case. The
court emphasized that the description need not
be overly technical and that substantial similarity
between the items seized and those described in
the warrant was sufficient.

Regarding constitutional law, the court

considered whether the search and seizure
operation complied with constitutional provisions
safeguarding against unreasonable searches
and seizures. It discussed the requirement of
particularity in search warrants, as outlined in the
Bill of Rights, and emphasized the importance of
adhering to legal safeguards to prevent abuses
of power by law enforcement agencies. The court
also addressed procedural issues such as the
two-witness rule and the proper handling of
seized items by police authorities.

In summary, this case illustrates the intersection

of criminal procedure, constitutional law, and the
rights of individuals against arbitrary government
action. It highlights the importance of ensuring
that search and seizure operations are
conducted in accordance with legal standards to
protect the rights of individuals and uphold the
rule of law.