Search Warrants - CrimPro
Search Warrants - CrimPro
Search Warrants - CrimPro
Requisities
Manner of Examination
Knowledge of Complainant
Documentation
Jurisdiction
Warrant to be issued
Things to be seized
RAIDING POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT CONFISCATE DURING THE CONDUCT OF SEARCH ITEM OR ITEMS
NOT RELATED TO THE CRIME COMPLAINED OF, OTHERWISE , ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure Section 126
Sec 3. Personal Property to be seized
1) Upon issuance of search and seizure of personal property;
2) Properties that can be subjected to search and seizure:
a) Subject of the offense;
b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.
As a rule, only personal properties described in the search warrant may be seized by the authorities. Hence
the purpose of the constitutional requirement that the articles to be seized be particularly described in the
warrant is to limit the things to be taken to those, and only those particularly described in the search warrant
(People vs. Nunez, G.R. No. 177148, June 30, 2009 (591 SCRA 294)
ILLEGAL ITEMS IN PLAIN VIEW THOUGH NOT LISTED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT, CONFISCATABLE AND
ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE
All illegal object or item though not listed in the search warrant are seizable and confiscatable so long as the
law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can
particularly view the area and that in the course of such law intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of
evidence incriminating the accused and that the object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery
inadvertent.
The Constitutional prohibition that search and seizure without a judicial warrant, and evidence obtained
without such warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding is not absolute. Search and seizure,
accordingly, may be made without a warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible if the
xxx seizure of evidence in plain view(People vs. Lagman, G.R. No. 168695, December 8, 2008 (573 SCRA 224)
APPLICATION OF PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE; ITS ELEMENTS
Requisites for the Plain View Doctrine to concur:
1) The law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in
a position from which he can view a particular area
2) The discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and
3) It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure.
Essential Elements for a valid seizure of evidence in plain view:
1) A prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in
the pursuit of their official duties;
2) The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have right to be where they are;
3) The evidence must be immediately apparent;
4) The plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.
Instrinsic Grounds
THE RULE TO BE FOLLOWEDC WHEN FILING MOTIONS TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT OR TO SUPPRESS
EVIDENCE
Filed in and acted upon only by the court where the action has been instituted
Or if no criminal action has been instituted, may be filed in and resolved by the
court that issued the search warrant
If such court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequent filed
in another court, the motion shall be resolved by the latter court