Dear PAO,

A local court in our province issued a search warrant for alleged violations of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act). It purportedly authorized the police officers to search our premises. We filed a motion questioning the validity of the search warrant. The prosecution commented that a search warrant cannot be totally invalidated even if it appears to cover two offenses because the invalid portions of the warrant could be severed from valid ones. Is the prosecution correct? What is the effect if the search warrant is declared invalid?

Isabel

Dear Isabel,

A search warrant is issued by a judge based on probable cause, which must be in connection with one specific offense. A warrant cannot be issued for more than one offense which is otherwise known as a “scatter-shot warrant”. This is explained by the Supreme Court in its latest decision in the case of Joemarie Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 248350, December 05, 2022, by Honorable Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, where the Court held:

“In furtherance of this Constitutional right [Article III, Section 2], the Court issued the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Sec. 4, Rule 126 of which provides the requisite for a search warrant as follows:

Section 4. Requisites for issuing a 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 [or she] may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.

Contrary to the suggestion of the OSG that the invalid portions of the search warrant could be severed from the valid portions, the Court cannot simply decide to uphold the enforcement of a search warrant in relation to one of the crimes stated therein. The evil sought to be avoided cannot be delineated since the totality of the search warrant could have led the law enforcement authorities to implement the same in a wholesale fashion considering all the offenses mentioned therein, and seize any and all evidence seized related to all of the crimes mentioned in the search warrant. The Court cannot sever the supposed “valid” portions of the search warrant in relation to one of the crimes stated therein after the fact of its implementation.

The reliance of the OSG on severability in People v. Salanguit is misplaced as it referred to an objectionable item (i.e. drug paraphernalia), in the list of objects to be seized under the search warrant, . . .

It is thus clear that the severability allowed by the Court therein referred to the objects seized, and not on the crimes included in the search warrant which is the issue in this case . . .

In this case, since the search warrant is invalid, it follows that the evidence obtained pursuant thereto are inadmissible. Moreover, although the warrantless arrest could have been questioned on the ground that the authorities’ presence within the searched premises is illegal due to an invalid search warrant, this has been waived after the arraignment of petitioner. In any case, petitioner should be allowed to question the admissibility of the evidence seized against him. Otherwise, this would warrant a license for authorities which can be abused to the detriment of the constitutional right to be secured in one’s home. . .”

Applying the aforesaid in your case, since the issued search warrant covered more than one offense, in your case RA 9165 and RA 10591, the same is invalid. Consequently, any evidence obtained in the implementation of the said search warrant is inadmissible in evidence.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts that you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.