FACTS:

Search Warrant No. 0015-2019 was issued by the RTC against petitioner Jimmy B. Puguon, Jr. upon the finding that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that Puguon has in his direct possession and control one (1) M16 riffle [sic]; one (1) cal. 45 pistol; one (1) cal. 38 revolver; 2 handgrenades [sic] and ammunitions [sic] for the above-described firearms at his house.

By virtue of the execution of the foregoing search warrant, two separate Informations were filed against Puguon for (a) violation of Republic Act No. 10591, (Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act); and (b) violation of Republic Act No. 9516.

Puguon questioned the validity of the Search Warrant arguing that Search Warrant No. 0015-2019 is a scatter-shot warrant which violated his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Instead of being issued in connection with one specific offense, Puguon contended that said search warrant covered two separate and distinct offenses that are covered by different special penal laws. Since the evidence retrieved by the police officers who executed Search Warrant No. 0015-2019 are inadmissible for being the proverbial fruits of the poisonous tree, Puguon prayed that the criminal cases against him be dismissed with prejudice.

The RTC rendered a Resolution denying Puguon’s motion, explaining that since illegal possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives belong to the same class of offenses, the said crimes could be the subject matter of only one search warrant.

Puguon’s Joint Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied by the RTC.

Aggrieved, Puguon filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended.

The CA rendered the herein assailed Decision denying Puguon’s petition.

In the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari, Puguon reiterates his arguments attacking the validity of Search Warrant No. 0015-2019.

ISSUE: 

Whether Search Warrant No. 0015-2019 violated Puguon’s constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

RULING:

The petition is partly meritorious.

In our present Constitution, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is enshrined in Section 2 of the Bill of Rights:

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

The Warrant Clause, particularly the validity of search warrants, finds relevance in this case.

A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him or her to search for personal property and bring it before the court. 

It is not similar to a criminal action but is rather a legal process that may be likened to a writ of discovery employed by no less than the State to procure relevant evidence of a crime. 

As such, a search warrant is generally issued by a court in the exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction, and not a criminal action to be entertained by a court pursuant to its original jurisdiction.

In view of the constitutional edict in the Bill of Rights, search warrants are not issued on loose, vague or doubtful basis of facts, nor on mere suspicion or belief. Rather, search warrants can only be issued upon a finding of probable cause, or “such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched.”

The requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant are enumerated in Rule 126, Section 4 of the Rules of Court:

Section 4. Requisites for issuing 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 may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied)

Verily, the finding of probable cause as would justify the issuance of a search warrant, must be in connection with one specific offense. This requirement is intended to prevent scatter-shot warrants. After all, a search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime. As the Court explained in a case:

Since the primary objective of applying for a search warrant is to obtain evidence to be used in a subsequent prosecution for an offense for which the search warrant was applied, a judge issuing a particular warrant must satisfy himself [or herself] that the evidence presented by the applicant establishes the facts and circumstances relating to this specific offense for which the warrant is sought and issued. 

A search warrant that violates the “one specific offense” guideline is a scatter-shot warrant and is completely null and void.

A perusal of Search Warrant No. 0015-2019 shows that while its caption does not specify a particular offense, its body categorically states that it was being issued in view of a finding of probable cause that Puguon violated Republic Act No. 10591. 

However, the enumeration of the items intended to be seized from Puguon, particularly the inclusion of hand grenades, shows that the subjects of Search Warrant No. 0015-2019 squarely fall within the purview of two separate special penal laws, Republic Act No. 10591 and Republic Act No. 9516. Specifically, the enumerated firearms and ammunition are covered by Republic Act No. 10591 while the hand grenades listed therein fall under Republic Act No. 9516.

The Court rejects the argument that violations of R.A. 10591 and R. A. 9516 can be lumped together in the same search warrant because both laws originate from Presidential Decree No. 1866.

The items sought to be retrieved from Puguon in the instant case are covered by two separate special laws, R.A. 10591 and R. A. 9516. While  R.A. 9516 appears to be a mere amendment of P.D. No. 1866,  R.A. 10591 is a completely new law which supersedes P.D. No. 1866 and penalizes, among others, the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.

Nevertheless, notwithstanding the defect in Search Warrant No. 0015-2019, the same must remain valid except as to the portion which authorized the seizure from Puguon of two hand grenades.

In People v. Salanguit, the Court invalidated only a portion of a search warrant which included items that are outside of the punishable offense contemplated by the said search warrant.

Verily, while the inclusion of the two hand grenades in the enumeration of the items sought to be seized from Puguon was improper, it will not automatically result in the invalidation of the entire warrant. 

Search Warrant No. 0015-2019 does not per se violate the proscription against scattershot warrants. Thus, Criminal Case No. 3901-2019, which concerns Puguon’s alleged violation of R.A. No. 10591, stands. On the other hand, Criminal Case No. 3902-2019, which prosecutes Puguon’s alleged violation of R.A. No. 9516, must be ordered dismissed, pursuant to the principle that evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures are inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.