Search warrants should specify location — SC

The Supreme Court (SC) has overturned the drug conviction of a man due to a defective search warrant that failed to specifically identify the location to be searched.

In a decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen and released on 3 January 2025, the court acquitted the suspect identified as Lucky Enriquez of illegal possession of drugs under Republic Act 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

In 2017, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) executed a search warrant against Enriquez at an “Informal Settler’s Compound, NIA Road, Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City.”

The court found the warrant to be overly broad and essentially a general warrant, which is prohibited by the Constitution. The lack of specificity gave PDEA agents the authority to search the entire compound without proper restrictions.

It also ruled that the search was conducted improperly. PDEA agents entered the house without knocking or announcing their presence, violating established procedures.

Rule 126, Sections 7 and 8 of the Rules of Court require law enforcement officers to identify themselves and request permission to enter the premises. Forceful entry is only permitted if denied entry. The rules also mandate that the search be conducted in the presence of the lawful occupant of the house or, if unavailable, two residents of the area.

Enriquez was not present during the search of his residence.