Case Digest (G.R. No. 264473)
Facts:
On May 3, 2017, the People of the Philippines charged Lucky Enriquez y Casipi with violations of Republic Act No. 9165, Sections 11 and 12, for possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Search Warrant No. 5368 (2017) issued by the RTC executive judge was executed by PDEA agents who entered through an open door, arrested Enriquez, and seized 26 sachets; the RTC convicted Enriquez on September 29, 2017, and the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification on June 30, 2020.
Enriquez appealed to the Supreme Court contesting the warrant’s validity and the warrant’s execution; the record showed no extant sketch map attached to the warrant and that agents entered without prior announcement and did not allow Enriquez to witness the search.
Issues:
- Was Search Warrant No. 5368 (2017) a valid warrant under CONST., art. III, sec. 2?
- Did the PDEA properly execute Search Warrant No. 5368 (2017) in compliance with Rule 126, secs. 7 and 8?
Ruling:
The appeal was GRANTED. The Court held that Search Warrant No. 5368 (2017) was invalid for lack of particularity and that its execution violated Rule 126, secs. 7 and 8.
Accordingly, the June 30, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals was REVERSED and SET ASIDE, the seized items were declared inadmissible, and Lucky Enriquez y Casipi was ACQUITTED and ordered released.
Ratio:
The warrant’s description—“inside the subject house (please see attached sketch map…) located at Informal Settlers’ Compound, NIA Road, Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City”—failed the particularity requirement because the alleged sketch map was not in the record and the address was too general, rendering the warrant effectively a prohibited general warrant. The agents’ unannounced entry and failure to allow the lawful occupant to witness the search contravened the knock and announce requirement and the witness hierarchy of Rule 126, secs. 7 and 8, and no exception justified the intrusion; evidence obtained thereby was tainted under CONST., art. III, sec. 3, par. 2 and thus inadmissible, warranting acquittal.
Doctrine:
- A search warrant must *particularly describe* the place to be searched so officers can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and distinguish it from other places.
- (Get Pro to unlock 4 more doctrines)