The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except on probable cause that the judge must personally examine. The warrant must particularly described the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized [Article III, Section 2, Constitution]. Failure to comply makes the evidence seized in the resulting search inadmissible [Article III, Section 3 (2), Constitution]. The rule is a protection against erring officers deliberately or negligently violating the legal procedure in effecting searches, and so recklessly trample on one’s right to privacy. By negating the admissibility in evidence of items seized in illegal searches and seizures, the Constitution declines to validate the law enforcers’ illegal conduct. Evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of unreasonable search and seizure is tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.
The application of that constitutional law is found in the case of Sio v. People, G.R. No. 224935, 02 March 2022. In 2010, PNP-Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force applied for a search warrant alleging that businessman Sio possessed undetermined quantity of shabu and used two cars [Toyota Camry and Honda Civic with plate number ZYR 468 and ZGS 763] in illegal drug trafficking using his residence at Dalahican, Lucena City. The Manila Regional Trial Court issued Search Warrant after hearing two police officers. The implementation of the search warrant yielded 117 grams of suspected shabu and resulted in the confiscation of two cars [Honda CRV and Toyota Camry with plate number XPX 792 and ZRY 758]. Two criminal cases were filed for violating Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act 9165 [possession of shabu and paraphernalia, Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Law]. Accused pointed several infirmities in the application and implementation of search warrant in Brgy. Purok 3-A, not in Dalahican, Lucena City, no PDEA operatives were present, cars seized were not subjects of the search warrant and illegal drugs were planted. The trial court found probable cause for issuance of warrant of arrest. Accused filed at the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari, which it dismissed in 2015. Accused filed a petition for review to the Supreme Court claiming the illegality of the implementation of and infirmities in the application for search warrant: The PNP-AIDSOTF entered his house at 7:00 am while the media and barangay officials came 10:00 am. The search was not witnessed by anyone. He argued that all evidence obtained from the search warrant are inadmissible and no probable cause to charge him for violations of Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165. The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition for raising factual issue. The issues are: [1] whether the implementation of search warrant was unreasonable, rendering the evidence seized inadmissible; and [2] whether there was probable cause for the filing of criminal case.
The Supreme Court ruled that the issue if probable cause exists in the issuance of an arrest warrant is factual and generally not reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari. But, there are several exceptions to this rule: one is grave abuse of discretion. The irregularities raised by the accused were not squarely ruled by the trial and appellate courts. Search warrants must describe particularly the places to be searched and the things to be seized. The purpose of this is to ensure that law enforcement officers have no discretion as to where they search and what they seize. Only those places named in the warrant should be searched, and those things listed should be seized. However, place of implementation is different from the application; the cars seized have different plate numbers and no one witnessed the search. Article 21 [requiring insulating witnesses to prove unbroken chain of custody of drugs] of R.A. 1965 was also violated. A search warrant is not a sweeping authority on raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to confiscate any and all kinds of articles relating to a crime. The irregularities in the implementation of the search warrant and the seizure of property not described in the warrant proves the unreasonableness of the search and seizure. There is no probable cause to file the criminal cases because the articles seized from unreasonable search and seizure cannot be used for they are inadmissible as evidence.
