SEC. 4. Requisites for Issuing Search Warrant. A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.

Requisites of a valid search warrant:

1. Must be issued upon probable cause;

2. Probable cause must be determined by the issuing judge personally;

3. The judge must have personally examined, in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the applicant and his witnesses on facts personally known to them;

4. The warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized;

5. It must be in connection with one specific offense; and

6. The sworn statements together with the affidavits submitted by witnesses must be attached to the record.

Well settled is the rule that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties (Stonehill v. Diokno)

Remedies from an Unlawful Search

1. A motion to quash the search warrant;

2. A motion to suppress as evidence the objects illegally taken (EXCLUSIONARY RULE any evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding); and

3. Replevin, if the objects are legally possessed

The remedies are alternative. If a motion to quash is denied, a motion to suppress cannot be availed of subsequently. Where the search warrant is a PATENT NULLITY, certiorari lies to nullify the same.

The illegality of the search warrant does not call for the return of the things seized, the possession of which is prohibited by law. However, those personalities seized in violation of the constitutional immunity whose possession is not of itself illegal or unlawful ought to be returned to their rightful owner or possessor.

Any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures are inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding

There is no need for a certification of non-forum shopping in the application for search warrant. The Rules of Court as amended requires such certification only from initiatory pleadings, omitting any mention of applications

Probable Cause refers to the facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.

Basis of Probable Cause: The basis must be the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay. The test of sufficiency of a deposition or affidavit is whether it has been drawn in a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and the affiant be held liable for damage caused.

Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are not sufficient. The examining judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and attach them to the record. (Mata v. Bayona)

The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the existence of probable cause. (Alvarez v. CFI)

Factors in Determination of Probable Cause:

1. Time of the application in relation to the alleged offense committed. The nearer the time at which the observation of the offense is alleged to have been made, the more reasonable the conclusion of establishment of probable cause (Asian Surety Insurance v. Herrera);

2. Need for competent proof of particular acts or specific omissions in the ascertainment of probable cause (Stonehill v. Diokno);

3. The facts and circumstances that would show probable cause must be the best evidence that could be obtained under the circumstances. If such best evidence cannot be obtained, the applicants must show a justifiable reason therefor upon judges examination (People v. Judge Estrada)

Probable cause must be determined personally by a judge. However, this rule does not extend to deportation proceedings.

Particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons of things to be seized: The purpose of the rule is to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they shall seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not be made - that abuses may not be committed (Stonehill v. Diokno)

Test to determine particularity:

1. When the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow (People v. Rubio);

2. When the description expresses a conclusion of fact not of law which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure;

3. When the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued.

The warrant must name the person upon whom it is to be served EXCEPT in those cases where it contains a descriptio personae such as will enable the officer to identify the person. The description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper person upon whom it is to be served (People v. Veloso)

The absence of a probable cause for a particular article does not generally invalidate the warrant as a whole but may be severed from the rest which meets the requirements of probable cause and particularity (People v. Salanguit)

Multi-factor Balancing Test in determining Probable Cause: One which requires the officer to weigh the manner and intensity of the interference on the right of the people, the gravity of the crime committed, and the circumstances attending the incident (Allado v. Judge Diokno)

SEC. 5. Examination of Complainant; Record. - The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted.

Manner on how a judge should examine a witness to determine the existence of probable cause:

1. The judge must examine the complainant and witnesses personally;

2. The examination must be under oath;

3. The examination must be reduced to writing in the form of searching questions and answers (Marinas v. Siochi);

4. Examination must be on the facts personally known to the applicant and his witnesses;

5. It must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary or pro forma (Roan v. Gonzalez);

6. It is done ex-parte and may even be held in the secrecy of chambers (Mata v. Bayona);

Such personal examination is necessary order to enable the judge to determine the existence or non-existence of a probable cause.

The matters that may be raised in a motion to quash a search warrant must not go beyond the immediate, limited issue of the existence or non-existence of probable cause at the time of the issuance of the warrant. Matters of defense should properly be raised at the criminal action and not at the hearing of the motion to quash the search warrant (Department of Health v. Sy Chi Siong, Inc)

SEC. 6. Issuance and Form of Search Warrant. If the judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the application is based or that there is probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall issue the warrant, which must be substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules.

The Constitution ordains that no warrant shall issue EXCEPT upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation

The search warrant must be in writing and must contain such particulars as the name of the person against whom it is directed, the offense for which it was issued, the place to be searched and the specific things to be seized

Search warrant cannot issue against diplomatic officers (WHO v. Aquino)