Latest News

Is unannounced entry of home by virtue of search warrant allowed?

A home is a private dwelling entitled to respect regardless of its size. To be secure in one’s home is a protected constitutional right whether one is rich or poor. No one can enter without the occupant’s consent. A violation of such right is penalized as qualified trespass to dwelling under Article 280 of the Revised Penal Code with imprisonment of one month to six years depending on the circumstances.

The privacy of the home is inviolable. The poorest, no matter how frail or humble his house is, may deny even the government law enforcers to enter. The only exception is when there is a search warrant issued by the court. Its issuance and implementation must comply with the Constitution [Section 2, Article III–it must particularly describe the place to be searched and things to be seized] and the Rules of Court [Sections 7 and 8, Rule 126 – law enforcers must give notice and show the search warrant before they enter and the search must be made in the presence of the occupant or two persons if occupant refuses or is absent]. Any violation will make the search illegal and any evidence obtained is inadmissible under Section 3 [2], Article III, Constitution for being ‘the fruit of the poisonous tree’.

There are numerous cases where implementation of search warrant resulted in the confiscation of illegal items [like shabu or fake goods] and conviction of the accused. To distinguish law enforcers from law breakers, our laws provide a roadmap that government agents must follow for proper implementation of search warrant. The Constitution, to check any government abuse of power, provided the bill of rights that includes the details for issuance of search warrant. To protect the constitutional rights of the people and to see to it that the government complies with the laws it implements, is the role of defense lawyers.


The recent case of People v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 264473, uploaded on January 5, 2025, ruled on the legality of issuance and implementation of the search warrant. In this case, the Executive Judge of Quezon City Regional Trial Court, upon filing of an application by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, issued three search warrants against alias Espando, Freddie and Enriquez, all residing at “Informal Settler’s Compound, NIA Road, Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City” to search and seize undetermined number of shabu and paraphernalia. The PDEA agents, guided by an informant, entered Enriquez’ house and without knocking or announcing their presence, immediately rushed through open door, arrested Enriquez, searched the house and seized 26 sachets of shabu and paraphernalia. Criminal cases for illegal possession of shabu [26 counts] and paraphernalia were filed. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted him to 12 to 14 years for illegal possession of shabu and 6 months to 3 years for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Enriquez appealed.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires a valid search warrant to particularly describe the place to be searched. This is to prevent law enforcers from deciding on their own where to search. The issued search warrant was too broad – “informal settlers’ compound.” This is considered a general warrant that the Constitution prohibits. This lack of details gave PDEA agents unlimited power to search the entire compound. The implementation of search warrant was not carried out properly. According to Rule 126, Sections 7 and 8 of the Rules of Court, government agents must first identify themselves and ask for permission to enter the place they want to search. This is known as the “knock and announce” principle. They can force their way in only if they are denied entry. This rule protects both the person being served with the warrant and the agents from possible violence that could happen from an unannounced entry. Also, the search must be made with the lawful occupants of the house as witnesses or if there is none, two residents in the same area.

In this case, Enriquez was not able to witness the search. It is clear the search conducted was executed in violation of the accused’s constitutional rights and the Rules of Court, rendering it void. As such, the items seized from the search is deemed inadmissible as evidence for any purpose in any proceeding and may not be used against the accused to support his conviction. It is said that those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified to violate the rights of the individual in the name of order. Enriquez was acquitted. Thus, unannounced entry on one’s house to implement a search warrant is generally not allowed.

 


Tags: ATTY. FERDINAND MARK RONQUILLO, Atty. Miguel NV Llantino, Atty. Rolando M. Delfin

You May Also Like

Most Read