THE Supreme Court said search warrants must clearly define the location to be searched; otherwise, they would be deemed invalid.
A ruling penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen and issued by the Court’s Second Division said the requirement reinforces constitutional protections against unlawful searches and seizures.
The case involved Lucky Enriquez, who was acquitted of charges of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia under Republic Act 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Court’s ruling overturned earlier convictions by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, citing a defective search warrant and its improper execution.
In 2017, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) conducted an operation targeting Enriquez.
The PDEA operatives carried a search warrant with a vague description: “Informal Settler’s Compound, NIA Road, Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City.”
While the agents apprehended Enriquez and seized sachets allegedly containing methamphetamine, the Supreme Court said the operatives committed critical constitutional violations.
It said that the Constitution requires search warrants to particularly describe the place to be searched. It ruled that the vague address on the warrant essentially made it a general warrant, which the Constitution explicitly prohibits.
Such a lack of specificity grants law enforcement undue discretion, allowing them to decide independently where to search, potentially leading to arbitrary intrusions.
It added that PDEA agents neither announced their presence nor sought permission before entering, noting Enriquez, as the lawful occupant, was not afforded the opportunity to witness the search.
The ruling reiterates the necessity of following procedural rules to ensure the rights of individuals are respected, adding a requirement for proper identification and entry aims to prevent unnecessary violence and protect both law enforcement officers and the occupants of the premises.
Be the first to comment