BY GEROME DALIPE IV
ILOILO City – The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated the importance of precision in search warrants, declaring that any ambiguity or generalization in describing the location to be searched renders such warrants invalid for violating the constitutional right against unlawful searches and seizures.
In a decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division acquitted a certain Lucky Enriquez of charges under Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The court ruled that the defective search warrant and its improper execution rendered the evidence inadmissible.
Case background
The case arose from a 2017 Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) operation targeting Enriquez for illegal possession of drugs and paraphernalia.
The search warrant authorized the search of “Informal Settlers Compound, NIA Road, Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City.”
However, the SC found this description overly broad, amounting to a general warrant prohibited by the Constitution.
PDEA agents, accompanied by an informant, entered a house within the compound, rushed through the open door without knocking or announcing their presence, arrested Enriquez, and seized sachets of shabu.
Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted Enriquez based on this evidence.
SC ruling
The SC reversed these rulings, emphasizing on ambiguous address, irregular execution, and witness requirement.
The tribunal held that the lack of specificity in the search warrant allowed PDEA agents discretion to decide where to search within the compound.
Such vagueness violates the constitutional requirement for warrants to “particularly describe the place to be searched.”
The SC also found that the agents failed to comply with procedural safeguards under Rule 126, Sections 7 and 8 of the Rules of Court, which provides that “agents must identify themselves and request permission to enter before forcing their way in.”
If entry is denied, force may be used, but agents must still follow prescribed rules to ensure safety and transparency.
In addition, searches must be conducted with the lawful occupants of the house present as witnesses or, if unavailable, two other residents in the area.
In this case, the SC pointed out that Enriquez was not allowed to witness the search, further rendering the operation invalid.
The SC underscored that these procedural safeguards exist to balance law enforcement objectives with the protection of citizens’ constitutional rights.
The SC’s latest ruling emphasizes the critical importance of adhering to constitutional protections against unlawful searches and seizures.
It also serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies of their duty to strictly adhere to constitutional and procedural requirements.
Failure to do so not only compromises cases but also risks infringing on fundamental rights./PN
