“The absence of specific description of the place to be searched and the things to be seized ‘will cause the downright nullification of the search warrant’”
(First of 2 parts)
One requirement for the validity of a search warrant under Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 126, Section 4 of the Rules Court is that it must specifically describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized.
The absence of this requirement “will cause the downright nullification of the search warrant” (Diaz v. People, G.R. No. 213875, July 15, 2020).
In the case of Diaz v. People, the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City issued a search warrant upon an application with two sketches of the house of Merlina Diaz (Merlina) in Gitna, Brgy. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna.
The first sketch “depicted a floor plan of a studio-type apartment with an anteroom where the entrance gate of the property was located while the second sketch depicted three buildings… one of which was marked with a large ‘X’ enclosed in a square…”
“Pursuant to the search warrant, members of the San Pedro Police Station searched the house of Merlina.
“Approximately nine grams of shabu were then found in and seized from the premises. Merlina was immediately arrested and detained… for her alleged violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002” (op. cit.).
“Immediately after the search and [Merlina’s] arrest, the following information was uncovered from [her]: (1) that the complete address of her residence is No. 972, Gitna, Brgy. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna; and (2) that the house located at No. 972, Gitna, Brgy. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna was divided into five separate units each occupied by [Merlina] and her four siblings…”
“[I]nquest Proceedings were conducted… [and] [o]n the same day, an Information for violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165… was filed before the RTC of San Pablo City, Laguna…”
Merlina filed a Motion to Quash the search warrant on the grounds that the same was a general warrant.
She argued that: “(a) house number 972 did not appear in her home address as stated in the search warrant; and (b) the search warrant failed to distinguish [Merlina’s] unit, which was the place intended to be searched, from the other units or rooms representing the four other households inside the house…”
“The particularity of the place described is essential in the issuance of search warrants to avoid the exercise by the enforcing officers of discretion to decide on their own where to search and whom and what to seize.”
“Notably, it is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that a description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can ascertain and identify with reasonable effort the place intended, and distinguish it from other places in the community” (op. cit.).
“Simply put, the test of whether the requirement of definiteness or particularity has been met is whether the description of the place to be searched under the warrant is sufficient and descriptive enough to prevent a search of other premises located within the surrounding area or community.
“A ‘place’ may refer to a single building or structure, or a house or residence, such as in the case at bar” (op. cit.).
