Search warrants need specific locations, says Supreme Court

Metro Manila, Philippines - Search warrants should “clearly define” the location to be searched, the Supreme Court (SC) said in one of its latest rulings.

“[O]therwise, they are invalid for violating the right against unlawful searches and seizures,” the high court said in a news release on Friday, Jan. 3.

The SC issued the reminder after its Second Division acquitted Lucky Enriquez of illegal possession and dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia, effectively reversing earlier convictions from lower courts.

“Aside from the search warrant’s invalidity, the government agents’ execution was tainted with multiple irregularities,” the SC said in its decision, penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.

The case stemmed from a 2017 operation by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).

PDEA agents implemented a search warrant against Enriquez, with the document only stating “Informal Settler's Compound, NIA Road, Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City” as the address.

Guided by an informant, the government agents entered a house where Enriquez was located without knocking or announcing their presence. They immediately rushed through an open door, arrested the accused, and seized sachets containing shabu.

“The SC ruled that the search warrant was too broad and essentially a general warrant, which is prohibited by the Constitution. This lack of detail gave the PDEA agents unlimited power to search the entire compound,” the high court said in its news release.

The magistrates also said government agents could only force their way in if they were denied entry.

“Additionally, searches must be made with the lawful occupants of the house as witnesses or, if they are unavailable, two residents in the same area. In this case, Enriquez was the lawful occupant of the house but was not able to witness the search,” the SC also said.

In explaining the acquittal, the SC said: “It is clear to this Court that the search conducted on May 3, 2017 was executed in violation of the accused-appellant’s constitutional rights and the Rules of Court, rendering it void. Concomitantly, the items seized from the search are inadmissible as evidence for any purpose in any proceeding and may not be used against accused-appellant to support his conviction in the present case.”