RULE 119

Trial

SEC. 1

Time to prepare for trial

After a plea of not guilty is entered, the accused

shall have at least fifteen (15) days to prepare for trial. The

trial shall commence within thirty (30) days from receipt of

the pre-trial order.

Admissions of the Accused‖

The admissions made by the accused during pre-trial

are what called as ―JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS. It does not

require proof as it is already binding on the person making the

admission.

Section 2:

If the accused was already arraigned and he escapes,

trial in absentia will proceed.

Remember: Arraignment is a pre-requisite in a trial in

absentia. There can be no trial in absentia if the accused has not

been arraigned.

Under Section 2, it says the entire trial period should

not exceed 180 days.

Section 3: Exclusions

Read through…
The following periods of delay shall be excluded in

computing the time within which trial must commence:

(a) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings

concerning the accused, including but not limited to the

following:

1) Delay resulting from an examination of the physical

and mental condition of the accused;

2) Delay resulting from proceedings with respect to

other criminal charges against the accused;

3) Delay resulting from extraordinary remedies

against interlocutory orders;

4) Delay resulting from pre-trial proceedings;

provided, that the delay does not exceed thirty (30)

days;

5) Delay resulting from orders of inhibition, or

proceedings relating to change of venue of cases or

transfer from other courts;

6) Delay resulting from a finding of existence of a

prejudicial question; and

7) Delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty (30) days, during which any
proceeding concerning the accused is actually under advisement.

(b) Any period of delay resulting from the absence or

unavailability of an essential witness.

For purposes of this subparagraph, an essential witness

shall be considered absent when his whereabouts are

unknown or his whereabouts cannot be determined by

due diligence. He shall be considered unavailable

whenever his whereabouts are known but his presence for

trial cannot be obtained by due diligence.

(c) Any period of delay resulting from the mental

incompetence or physical inability of the accused to

stand trial.

(d) If the information is dismissed upon motion of the

prosecution and thereafter a charge is filed against the

accused for the same offense, any period of delay from

the date the charge was dismissed to the date the time

limitation would commence to run as to the subsequent

charge had there been no previous charge.

(e) A reasonable period of delay when the accused is joined

for trial with a co-accused over whom the court has not

acquired jurisdiction, or, as to whom the time for trial

has not run and no motion for separate trial has been

granted.

(f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance

granted by any court motu proprio, or on motion of

either the accused or his counsel, or the prosecution, if

the court granted the continuance on the basis of its

findings set forth in the order that the ends of justice

served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the accused in a speedy trial.

Section 4. Factors for granting continuance

Read through…

The following factors, among others, shall be

considered by a court in determining whether to grant a

continuance under section 3(f) of this Rule.

(a) Whether or not the failure to grant a continuance in the

proceeding would likely make a continuation of such

proceeding impossible or result in a miscarriage of

justice; and

(b) Whether or not the case taken as a whole is so novel,

unusual and complex, due to the number of accused or

the nature of the prosecution, or that it is unreasonable

to expect adequate preparation within the periods of

time established therein.

In addition, no continuance under section 3(f) of this

Rule shall be granted because of congestion of the court‘s

calendar or lack of diligent preparation or failure to obtain

available witnesses on the part of the prosecutor.

SECTION 6.Extended time limit. - Notwithstanding the

provisions of Section 1(g), Rule 116 and the preceding

Section 1, for the first twelve-calendar-month period

following its effectivity on September 15, 1998, the time limit

with respect to the period from arraignment to trial imposed

by said provision shall be one hundred eighty (180) days. For

the second twelve-month period, the time limit shall be one

hundred twenty (120) days, and for the third twelve-month

period, the time limit shall be eighty (80) days.

SECTION 7.Public attorney's duties where accused is

imprisoned. - If the public attorney assigned to defend a

person charged with a crime knows that the latter is

preventively detained, either because he is charged with a

bailable crime but has no means to post bail, or, is charged

with a non-bailable crime, or, is serving a term of

imprisonment in any penal institution, it shall be his duty to

do the following:

(a) Shall promptly undertake to obtain the presence of the

prisoner for trial or cause a notice to be served on the person

having custody of the prisoner requiring such person to so

advise the prisoner of his right to demand trial.

(b) Upon receipt of that notice, the custodian of the prisoner

shall promptly advise the prisoner of the charge and of his

right to demand trial. If at anytime thereafter the prisoner

informs his custodian that he demands such trial, the latter

shall cause notice to that effect to be sent promptly to the

public attorney.

(c) Upon receipt of such notice, the public attorney shall

promptly seek to obtain the presence of the prisoner for trial.

(d) When the custodian of the prisoner receives from the

public attorney a properly supported request for the

availability of the prisoner for purposes of trial, the prisoner

shall be made available accordingly.

What are the circumstances that the accused maybe detained

while the case is pending:

1. Bailable offense but he has no means to post bail which is

2,000 for every prescribed year of imprisonment. For drugs,

child abuse, that is for 10,000 for every year of imprisonment.

2. Non-bailable offense
SECTION 8.Sanctions. - In any case in which private counsel for the accused, the public attorney, or the
prosecutor:

SECTION 9. Remedy where accused is not brought to trial

within the time limit. - If the accused is not brought to trial

within the time limit required by Section 1(g), Rule 116 and

Section 1, as extended by Section 6 of this rule, the

information may be dismissed on motion of the accused on

the ground of denial of his right to speedy trial. The accused

shall have the burden of proving the motion but the

prosecution shall have the burden of going forward with the

evidence to establish the exclusion of time under Section 3 of

this rule. The dismissal shall be subject to the rules on

double jeopardy.

Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial

shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss under this

section

Remember that when the motion to quash filed by the accused

was granted, there is no double jeopardy because the case was

dismissed upon his motion.

Here, this is one instance wherein a motion to dismiss is filed

by the accused himself and yet there is double jeopardy. There

is double jeopardy when the ground for dismissal is denial of

his right to speedy trial

Jacob v Sandiganbayan 635 Scra 94

Factors to be considered to determine whether the right of the

accused to speedy trial is violated:

1. Length of delay

2. Reason for the

3. Accused assertion of his right

4. Prejudiced by the accused

But if the prosecution has already presented its evidence, it

would be improper to ask for the dismissal of the case on the

ground of violation of the accused to speedy trial.

The proper remedy is to file motion to terminate the

presentation of evidence of the prosecution.

Order of prosecution:

1. Evidence in chief- the prosecution shall present evidence

that will established the crime and the liability of the accused.

2. The defense will present

3. Rebuttal - Rebuttal is only to refute what was presented by

the defense.

4. Surrebuttal

The presentation of rebuttal and surrebuttal are optional.

After the presentation of evidence by the prosecution, the case

may be dismissed if the evidence of the prosecution is weak.

The defense may file demurrer of evidence with or without

leave of court.

If the prosecution will not present rebuttal- At this point, the

case will be submitted for decision.

If the prosecution will present rebuttal- the public prosecutor

believes that there are matters that need to be rebutted. After

that, the case will be submitted for decision if the defense will

not present sur-rebuttal.

Before the case will be submitted for decision, in order to help

the court, it is possible that the court will require the parties to

submit memorandum.

The submission of memorandum is optional. There may be

times when the court may require the parties to argue orally.

There could be reverse trial. So instead of allowing the

prosecution to present their evidence first, it will be the

defense who will present first- if defense raised justifying or

exempting circumstance

Sec. 12. Application for examination of witness for accused

before trial. – When the accused has been held to answer for

an offense, he may, upon motion with notice to the other

parties, have witnesses conditionally examined in his behalf.

The motion shall state: (a) the name and residence of the

witness; (b) the substance of his testimony; and (c) that the

witness is sick or infirm as to afford reasonable ground for

believing that he will not be able to attend the trial, or

resides more than one hundred (100) kilometers from the

place of trial and has no means to attend the same, or that

other similar circumstances exist that would make him

unavailable or prevent him from attending the trial. The

motion shall be supported by an affidavit of the accused and

such other evidence as the court may require.

This is equivalent to deposition in civil procedure. The modes

of discovery in civil procedure will not apply in criminal cases

because criminal procedure has its own procedure regarding

the taking in advance of prosecution or defense witnesses.

If you are the defense counsel, you file a motion in court to

have the witness conditionally examined.

Example:

A witness was diagnosed with liver cancer and was expected

to live for 4-6 months only.

SKIP 13

Sec. 14. Bail to secure appearance of material witness. –

When the court is satisfied, upon proof of oath, that a

material witness will not testify when required, it may, upon

motion of either party, order the witness to post bail in such

sum as may be deemed proper. Upon refusal to post bail, the court shall commit him to prison until he
complies or is legally discharged after his testimony has been taken. This is one instance where a witness
of either party is required to post bail if the court is satisfied that said witness is material and will not
testify in court when required.

SKIP 15
Sec. 16. Trial of several accused. – When two or more accused are jointly charged with an offense, they
shall be tried jointly unless the court, in its discretion and upon motion of the prosecutor or any accused,
orders separate trial for one or more accused.

Sec. 17. Discharge of accused to be state witness. – When two

or more persons are jointly charged with the commission of

any offense, upon motion of the prosecution before resting

its case, the court may direct one or more of the accused to be

discharged with their consent so that they may be witnesses

for the state when, after requiring the prosecution to present

evidence and the sworn statement of each proposed state

witness at a hearing in support of the discharge, the court is

satisfied that:

(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the

accused whose discharge is requested;

(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper

prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony

of said accused;

(c) The testimony of said accused can be substantially

corroborated in its material points;

(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and

(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any

offense involving moral turpitude.

Evidence adduced in support of the discharge shall

automatically form part of the trial. If the court denies the

motion for discharge of the accused as state witness, his

sworn statement shall be inadmissible in evidence.

RA 6981 (Witness Protection Program) VS Rule 119 Sec. 17

SKIP 18

Section 19.When mistake has been made in charging the proper

offense. — When it becomes manifest at any time before

judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the

proper offense and the accused cannot be convicted of the

offense charged or any other offense necessarily included

therein, the accused shall not be discharged if there appears

good cause to detain him. In such case, the court shall

commit the accused to answer for the proper offense and

dismiss the original case upon the filing of the proper

information.

SKIP 20

Section 21.Exclusion of the public. — The judge may, motuproprio, exclude the public from the
courtroom if the evidence to be produced during the trial is offensive to decency or public morals. He
may also, on motion of the accused, exclude the public from the trial, except court personnel and the
counsel of the parties.
Section 22. Consolidation of trials of related offenses. — Charges for offenses founded on the same facts
or forming part of a series of offenses of similar character may be tried jointly at the discretion of the
court. (14a)

Section 23. Demurrer to evidence. — After the prosecution rests its case, the court may dismiss the
action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on its own initiative after giving the prosecution the
opportunity to be heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or without leave of
court.

If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court, the accused may adduce evidence
in his defense. When the demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the
right to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the
prosecution. (15a)

The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall specifically state its grounds and shall be
filed within a non-extendible period of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its case. The prosecution
may oppose the motion within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from its receipt.

If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to evidence within a non-extendible
period of ten (10) days from notice. The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within a
similar period from its receipt.

The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence or the demurrer itself shall
not be reviewable by appeal or by certiorari before judgment. (n)

Section 24. Reopening. — At any time before finality of the

judgment of conviction, the judge may, motu proprio or upon

motion, with hearing in either case, reopen the proceedings

to avoid a miscarrage of justice. The proceedings shall be

terminated within thirty (30) days from the order grating it.

- In Criminal cases, MR/ MNT is a remedy available

only to the accused, however reopening of the case is

available to both, the prosecution and the defense.

- This does NOT require the consent of the accused,

unlike MR/ MNT.

- When: any time before finality of the judgment of

conviction, even after promulgation.

- Reason: the party seeking for the reopening of the

case wants to present additional evidence.

- What is the basis to grant the motion: to avoid a

miscarrage of justice.

- This is a NEW remedy.

- CASE: Cabarles vs Maceda, February 20, 2007

RULE 120

Judgment

Section 1. Judgment definition and form. — Judgment is the

adjudication by the court that the accused is guilty or not

guilty of the offense charged and the imposition on him of

the proper penalty and civil liability, if any. It must be

written in the official language, personally and directly

prepared by the judge and signed by him and shall contain

clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law

upon which it is based.

- It must be in writing

- Official language used

- Personally prepared by the judge

- New proposal under the new ROC: face to face trial.

For now, the decision must be personally and directly

prepared buy the judge.

Section 2. Contents of the judgment. — If the judgment is of conviction, it shall state (1) the legal
qualification of the offense constituted by the acts committed by the accused and the aggravating or
mitigating circumstances which attended its commission; (2) the participation of the accused in the
offense, whether as principal, accomplice, or accessory after the fact; (3) the penalty imposed upon the
accused; and (4) the civil liability or damages caused by his wrongful act or omission to be recovered
from the accused by the offended party, if there is any, unless the enforcement of the civil liability by a
separate civil action has been reserved or waived.

In case the judgment is of acquittal, it shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely
failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In
either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise
did not exist. (2a)

Section 3. Judgment for two or more offenses. — When two or more offenses are charged in a single
complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict him of as
many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out
separately the findings of fact and law in each offense. (3a)
RULE 126 - Search and Seizure

What is a Search Warrant?

Section 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.

Section 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.

Paragraph (a): Can an MTC issue a search warrant?

Yes, because the Rules say ―any court‖. But there are

some courts which prefer the RTC to issue the search

warrant.

Note: Territorial Jurisdiction.

All courts has its own territorial jurisdiction. So, if a

crime is committed in Cebu City, and there are

personal properties to be seized since it shall form

part of the evidence for the prosecution, the

application for a search warrant shall only be filed in

RTC Cebu City. That is the court which has territorial

jurisdiction.

Example: You live in Mandaue. You have a

neighbor with an unlicensed firearm or an

unlicensed explosive. He boasts like Rambo.

You want it seized. Where will the Police

apply for a search warrant? RTC Mandaue.

If he applies in Cebu City, the Search

Warrant is invalid.

Section 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

TAKE NOTE: The application for search warrant shall be filed

with the court that has territorial jurisdiction over the place
where the crime was committed.

The courts have been grouped into judicial region. The Judicial

Region is similar to our Political Region (example: Region 1:

Ilocos Region, etc.). The Central Visayas is called as the

Seventh Judicial Region; the courts here in Central Visayas

(courts in cebu City, mandaue City, Lapu-Lapu, Tagbilaran)

are grouped or belonged to the seventh (7th) judicial region.

Under letter ―b‖, if there is any compelling reason which is

stated in the application, the application for the issuance of the

search warrant may be filed in any court within the judicial

region.

ILLUSTRATION:

If the crime was committed in Lapu-Lapu, the

application for issuance of search warrant should be filed in

Lapu-Lapu. Sometimes, the subject of search warrant is very

influential, for example, political family. The latter‘s influence

would most likely extended to the court. If the police will

apply there, it is possible that they (influential family) have

people in the court who will tell that they have search warrant. So instead of applying in RTC Lapu-Lapu,
the police can apply to any other court BUT within the judicial region, PROVIDED that in the application,
there must be a compelling reason that must be stated in the application.

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.

- That Rule is applicable where a criminal case has not

yet been filed in court. But where the criminal case has already

filed in court, the application for search warrant should be

filed only in the court where the criminal case is filed.

For example, there was a Murder case has been filed.

You like to search the house of the accused because the gun

which was used in the killing was there in the house. Or If

Robbery with Homicide is filed against the accused and the

things owned by the victim are there.

Q: Where will you file the application for the issuance

of search warrant?

A: To the court where the criminal case was filed.

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 offense;

(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits

of the offense; or

(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of

committing an offense

The application for the issuance of search warrant is filed and

heard ex parte. It is not a trial, nor a part of trial.

Q: What are personal properties to be

seized/confiscated?

A: (1)Subject of the offense—Example: Unlicensed

firearm, explosives or Drugs

(2) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits

of the offense
(3) 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 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

TAKE NOTE: It is like in information, one search warrant; one

offense.

-For example, that house holds drugs and unlicensed

firearm; there should be two search warrants.

“…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,...”

“…particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere
in the Philippines”

Q: Is it necessary specifically mention the name of the owner of the house to be searched? A: Look at
the case of People vsQuelman, GR No 166061, July 6, 2007(In this case, there was an error in alleging the
name of the owner, is the search warrant valid where the name of the owner of place to be searched is
erroneously stated? )

Take Note: Where the item or items to be searched are unlicensed firearms, the applicant must present
in court a certification from the PNP that the subject of the search warrant does not have any license.
(NalavsBarrosoJr, G.R. No. 153087, August 7, 2003)
This argument is misplaced. Section 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides for the requisites for the issuance of search warrant, to wit:

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.

Nowhere in said rule or any other provision in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is it required
that the search warrant must name the person who occupies the described premises. In Uy v.
Bureau of Internal Revenue,24 the Court has definitively ruled that where the search warrant is issued
for the search of specifically described premises only and not for the search of a person, the failure
to name the owner or occupant of such property in the affidavit and search warrant does not
invalidate the warrant; and where the name of the owner of the premises sought to be searched is
incorrectly inserted in the search warrant, it is not a fatal defect if the legal description of the
premises to be searched is otherwise correct so that no discretion is left to the officer making the
search as to the place to be searched.

When the items to be seized are illegal drugs, it is not

necessary to obtain separate search warrants for illegal drugs

and drugs paraphernalia? Because we have said earlier that

search warrant must only be issued in connection with one

specific offense.

- But supposed, the subject of search warrant is in

possession of marijuana, cocaine, shabu and drug

paraphernalia. (Take Note: these are different!)

Q: Is there a need for a court to issue separate search

warrant for possession of shabu, for possession of marijuana,

and/or possession of drug paraphernalia?

A: Look at the case of People vs. Dichoso, G.R. No.

101216, June 4, 1993

It is clear that the search warrant cannot be assailed as a general search warrant because while it is
for "Violation of RA 6425 known as the "Dangerous Drugs Act of 1992 as amended," the body
thereof, which is controlling, particularizes the place to be searched and the things to be seized, and
specifies the offense involved, viz., illegal possession of marijuana and shabu and paraphernalia in
connection therewith. These are evident from the clause, "are illegally in possession of
undetermined quantity/amount of dried marijuana leaves and methamphetamine Hydrochloride
(Shabu) and sets of paraphernalias stored inside the nipa hut within the compound of their residence
at Farconville Sub., Phase II, San Pablo City."

Appellant's contention that the search warrant in question was issued for more than one (1) offense,
hence, in violation of Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, is unpersuasive. He engages in
semantic juggling by suggesting that since illegal possession of shabu, illegal possession of
marijuana and illegal possession of paraphernalia are covered by different articles and sections of
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, the search warrant is clearly for more than one (1) specific
offense. In short, following this theory, there should have been three (3) separate search warrants,
one for illegal possession of shabu, the second for illegal possession of marijuana and the third for
illegal possession of paraphernalia. This argument is pedantic. The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is
a special law that deals specifically with dangerous drugs which are subsumed into "prohibited" and
"regulated" drugs and defines and penalizes categories of offenses which are closely related or
which belong to the same class or species. Accordingly, one (1) search warrant may thus be validly
issued for the said violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Q: Is the seizure or was the search conducted on a hut

which is located twenty (20) meters away from the house of the

accused and was not described in the search warrant valid?

A: Look at the case of People vsCastillo, G.R. No.

185128, January 30, 2012

With regard to the second argument of petitioner, it must be remembered that the warrant issued
must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized in order for it
to be valid. 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 present case, Search Warrant No. 570-9-1197-24 specifically
19 20

designates or describes the residence of the petitioner as the place to be searched. Incidentally, the
items were seized by a barangay tanod in a nipa hut, 20 meters away from the residence of the
petitioner. The confiscated items, having been found in a place other than the one described in the
search warrant, can be considered as fruits of an invalid warrantless search, the presentation of
which as an evidence is a violation of petitioner's constitutional guaranty against unreasonable
searches and seizure. The OSG argues that, assuming that the items seized were found in another
place not designated in the search warrant, the same items should still be admissible as evidence
because the one who discovered them was a barangay tanod who is a private individual, the
constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure being applicable only against
government authorities. The contention is devoid of merit.

What about a search of undertermine amount of shabu? It was stated in the search warrant: ―to seize
undertermine amount of shabu‖ is it valid? Look at the case of People vs Tee, January 20, 2003
We have carefully scrutinized Search Warrant No. 415 (7-98),41 and we find that it is captioned "For
Violation of R.A. 6425, as amended."42 It is clearly stated in the body of the warrant that "there is
probable cause to believe that a case for violation of R.A. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as further amended by R.A. 7659 has been and is being
committed by one MODESTO TEE a.k.a. ESTOY TEE of Km. 6, Dontogan Bgy., Green Valley, Sto.
Tomas, Baguio City by having in his possession and control an UNDETERMINED AMOUNT OF
MARIJUANA or INDIAN HEMP in violation of the aforementioned law." 43 In an earlier case, we held
that though the specific section of the Dangerous Drugs Law is not pinpointed, "there is no question
at all of the specific offense alleged to have been committed as a basis for the finding of probable
cause."44 Appellant’s averment is, therefore, baseless. Search Warrant No. 415 (7-98) appears
clearly issued for one offense, namely, illegal possession of marijuana.

What is a scatter-shot warrant?

A: It is a search warrant for more than one offense.

-Take Note: A search warrant should be issued in

connection with one offense only, if it is issued for more than

one offense, it is called a scatter-shot warrant.

Q: What do you mean by general warrant?

A: A general warrant is one which fails to sufficiently specify

the place or person to be searched or things to be seized.

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 attach to the

record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits

submitted.

- The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally

examine in the form of searching questions and answers before

issuing the warrant.

- Before you apply for search warrant in connection with the

crime of possession of prohibited drugs. How can you

determine if they (the accused) have shabu? The police usually

conducted Test Buy (it is different from Buy Bust). In Test Buy,

there is a police who will be a decoy (who will be disguised as

a buyer) to buy, for example, one sachet of shabu. The seller of

drugs will not be apprehended by the police because it is just a

test. The item which was bought by the police will deliver to

the crime laboratory, if it is found positive as a shabu. So that‘s

it!

Determination of one is in possession of illegal drugs.

SECTION 7. Right to break door or window to effect search. -

The officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed

search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may

break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or

any part of a house or anything therein to execute the

warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding

him when unlawfully detained therein.

- He can break in and break out of a place in order to

serve the warrant

SECTION 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.

- The search warrant can be valid but the enforcement

or service is invalid. The search will be invalid

- One of the requisites in the service of a search warrant

- The owner of the house must follow the officers when

they are searching.

- If the owner of the house is absent and also the other

members of the household. 2 witnesses of sufficient

age and discretion residing in the locality must

witness the search. It does not necessarily need to be

baranggay officials.

- In the presence of the media men, none of the

reporters were residing in the place. The search was

invalid.

SECTION 9. Time of making search. - The warrant must

direct that it be served in the day time, unless the affidavit

asserts that the property is on the person or in the place

ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be

inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night.

- The search must be during daytime unless stated in

the search warrant at anytime of the day or night.

- If there is no direction that the search can be

conducted during night time then it will only be valid

during the day

- Alvarez vs. CFI of Tayabas G.R. No. L-45358

- The time the search warrant for the time was left in

blank. It must be served in daytime

SECTION 10. Validity of search warrant. - A search warrant

shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter, it

shall be void.

- A search warrant must be served within 10 days

o Functos Officio - automatically void

o Different from a warrant of arrest because a

warrant of arrest has no expiration.

Although the peace officer is required to

make a report as to whether the same was

executed within 7 days.

SECTION 10. Validity of search warrant. - A search warrant

shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter, it

shall be void.

- A search warrant must be served within 10 days

o Functos Officio - automatically void

o Different from a warrant of arrest because a

warrant of arrest has no expiration.

Although the peace officer is required to

make a report as to whether the same was

executed within 7 days.

SECTION 11. Receipt for the property seized. - The officer

seizing property under the warrant must give a detailed

receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the premises in

whose presence the search and seizure were made, or in the

absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least

two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the

same locality, leave a receipt in the place in which he found

the seized property.

There must be a detailed receipt to the lawful

occupant.

- 2 Witness Rule – when the lawful occupant is absent

- There must be a list of what is taken. The receipt must

be given to the occupant.

- The practice of the police is to let the occupant sign

the receipt. During the trial the prosecutor will use it

in evidence against the accused but the SC stated that

―receipt of seized property signed by the accused

without the assistance of counsel and without first

being informed of his constitutional right is

inadmissible as evidence.‖ Although there are

several decisions by the SC that admitted the

evidence.

o People vs. Deguzman G.R. No. 194698

- If drugs are being seized then Section 21 of RA 9165 is

required.
o Other than inventory there must be a

photograph together with the persons

involved.

o There must also be markings. Usually it is

the initials of the accused and signed by the

searching officer

SECTION 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to

court; return and proceedings thereon. –

(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property

seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together

with a true inventory thereof duly verified under

oath.

(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant,

the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has

been made, and if none, shall 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 shall ascertain whether

Section 11 of this Rule has been complied with and

shall require that the property seized be delivered to

him. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a)

hereof has been complied with.

 Return means the report.

 A log book on search warrants will be kept.

 The search warrant must be continuous. It

cannot be used everyday

(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and

kept by the custodian of the log book on search

warrants who shall enter therein the date of the

return, the result, and other actions of the judge.

A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.

Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest

One of the instances where search is valid even without search

warrant is Search incident to lawful arrest.

TN: It should be ARREST FIRST BEFORE THE SEARCH.

 The arrest could be with or without warrant,

provided the arrest is valid.

 If the arrest is illegal, the subsequent search will also

be illegal.

Q: What should be seized after a valid arrest?

1. Dangerous weapons that can be used against the

arresting officer.

- The search is not limited only on the person of the

arrested person. The search could be made within the

premises within the immediate control of the arrested

person. Valeroso vs CA, September 3, 2009

Example: If I be arrested now, my person can be

searched, my bag, my drawer. If I‘m in a car, my car

can also be searched. What can be seized are

dangerous weapons which I may use against the

arresting officer-probably a knife, grenade etc.

Case: If the person to be arrested is inside the

classroom and the arresting officer searched his

person, likewise his car in the carpark. Valid?

Ans. NO bec it‘s no longer within his immediate

control. Nolasco vs Pano 147 SCRA 509; Espano vs

CA 288 SCRA 588

2. Anything that may have been used in the commission of

the offense or anything which constitutes proof in the

commission of the offense.

Example: False key used in the commission of

Robbery

JUDGE

ACCUSED

VICTIM

LAWYER OF ACCUSED

LAWYER OF VICTIM

WITNESSES

POLICE

CLERK INTERPRETOR

Court marshall

9 roles plus extra

ARRAIGNMENT
PRE – TRIAL

TRIAL

Judgment

110

112

113

117

126