Here is part two of what I wrote last week. This time, focus is on the implementation of the search warrant itself. Do dismiss what you watch in the movies where authorities readily and rudely barge into a person’s premises to search the place. Rather there is a procedure in properly executing it.

We must remember that no less than the Constitution safeguards a person’s right to privacy. Thus, our laws themselves lay down with particularity how a search should be done. That is why in the case I am discussing with you, the Highest Tribunal rendered inadmissible all the pieces of evidence seized, not only because of the non-specificity of the search warrant, but in the conduct of the search as well. Here is how our Supreme Court discussed it.

“The procedure is clear: government agents must announce their presence, identify themselves to the accused and to the persons who rightfully have possession of the premises to be searched, and show to them the search warrant to be implemented by them and explain to them said warrant in a language or dialect known to and understood by them.

“If the government agents are refused entry despite their compliance, then they have the right to break open doors or windows. Further, government agents may execute an unannounced intrusion under limited circumstances. Regarding the conduct of the search, Rule 126, Section 8 of the Rules of Court provides a hierarchy of who are prioritized as witnesses.

“This witness must either be the lawful occupant of the premises to be searched or any member of their family. It is only in their absence that individuals of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality may step in as witnesses.

“Corollarily, a search where the witnesses prescribed by law are prevented from actually observing and monitoring the search of the premises violates both the spirit and letter of the law and renders the search unreasonable. In this case, it is undisputed that the police agents entered accused-­appellant’s house without permission or any announcement of their presence.

“The lower courts’ narration of facts is consistent that upon seeing that the door to accused-appellant’s house was open, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency agents immediately rushed inside without making any effort to give notice of their purpose and authority to execute the search warrant and request entry. The government agents only undertook these actions once they were inside and saw accused-appellant, who was very much surprised at their presence.

“The prosecution failed to justify the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency agents’ unannounced entry into accused-appellant’s house. A scrutiny of the narration of what transpired prior to the government agents’ entry reveals the absolute absence of any reason that would necessitate a circumvention of the requirements of Rule 126, Section 7 of the Rules of Court.

“First, the government agents never sought accused-appellant’s permission to enter his house, giving him no opportunity to refuse. Second, as accused-appellant did not see them before they entered, he was unaware of their authority and identity. Third, there is no showing that the government agents believed there was an imminent peril to life or limb. Finally, the prosecution never claimed that prior to their entry, the government agents were under the impression that accused-appellant was trying to escape or destroy the evidence to be seized.

“While accused-appellant ran away when he saw them, this act may be attributed to his shock upon waking to find that several strangers were suddenly inside his house, and not an indication of guilt. The government agents also failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 126, Section 8 of the Rules of Court.

“Accused-appellant, who was the lawful occupant of the premises, was not able to witness the government agents’ search. The Court of Appeals stated that ‘[t]he search was done in the presence of media representative Jimmy Mendoza of DZAR Sonshine Radio and Barangay Kagawad Edwin Bernal of Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City.’

In justifying accused-appellant’s absence, the Court of Appeals held that ‘[accused-appellant] had a chance to observe Agent Million and the other PDEA agents while they searched his house.’ Evidently, despite accused-appellant’s presence in the premises, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency agents did not bother to ensure that he witnessed the search.

“It is clear to this Court that the search conducted on 3 May 2017 was executed in violation of the accused-appellant’s constitutional rights and the Rules of Court, rendering it void. Concomitantly, the items seized from the search are inadmissible as evidence for any purpose in any proceeding and may not be used against accused-appellant to support his conviction in the present case. Therefore, his acquittal is in order.”

The facts and redacted part of the decision are from SC G.R. No. 264473 (7 August 2024).