Photo from Pexels | Filippo Peisino
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Lucky Enriquez, G.R. No. 264473, August 7, 2024, the Supreme Court emphasized that search warrants must clearly define the location to be searched; otherwise, they are invalid for violating the right against unlawful searches and seizures.
Facts: The case stemmed from a 2017 operation by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), which implemented a search warrant against Enriquez to search for and seize dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. The address in the search warrant states, “Informal Settler’s Compound, NIA Road, Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City.”
PDEA agents, guided by an informant, entered a house where Enriquez was located. Without knocking or announcing their presence, they immediately rushed through the open door, apprehended Enriquez, and seized sachets containing shabu.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Enriquez, and the Court of Appeals upheld the decision.
Issue: Whether or not a general warrant is valid
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court reversed the rulings of the RTC and CA, declaring the search warrant invalid. The Constitution requires a valid search warrant to particularly describe the place to be searched. This requirement is crucial to prevent enforcing officers from deciding on their own where to search and whom and what to seize.
The Supreme Court 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 Court also found that the 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. They can only force their way in 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.
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.
Source:
People of the Philippines vs. Lucky Enriquez y Casipi
G.R. No. 264473 | August 07, 2024
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
