The Supreme Court of the Philippines recently made an important ruling, clearly stating that during the execution of a search, the search warrant must specifically and accurately indicate the search location, otherwise it will be considered invalid.
This ruling was written by Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen and announced the acquittal of Lucky Enriquez, a defendant in a case of illegal possession of drugs.
The case originated from an operation by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency in 2017. During this operation, the police raided Enriquez's residence based on a search warrant and seized suspected drugs and related paraphernalia.
However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the description of the address in the search warrant was only "an illegal settlers' area along NIA Road in Barangay Binay, Quezon City," which was too vague to meet the constitutional requirement of a "specific description" for search warrants.
The court's decision revealed that the drug enforcement agents, guided by an informant, entered Enriquez's residence without knocking or identifying themselves. The door was unlocked at the time, and the agents entered and searched the premises, subsequently arresting Enriquez and seizing several bags of drugs.
Although the local court and the appellate court had previously found Enriquez guilty, the Supreme Court ultimately overturned these decisions on the grounds that the search warrant was invalid.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the constitution explicitly requires that a search warrant must specifically state the place to be searched and the items to be seized, to prevent abuse of power by law enforcement agencies.
The search warrant in this case was described as "too general," essentially equivalent to a "general search warrant," a practice that is strictly prohibited by law.
Furthermore, the court pointed out that the drug enforcement agents violated Sections 7 and 8 of Rule 126 of the "Court Rules" during the execution of the search warrant. According to the law, agents may only forcibly enter if entry is refused, and the search must be conducted in the presence of the legal resident of the premises or two nearby residents.
However, in this case, as the legal resident, Enriquez was not allowed to participate in or witness the search process.
This ruling provides clear guidance to the public: in cases where the search warrant is invalid or the execution procedure is improper, citizens have the right to refuse police entry for a search. The Supreme Court's decision not only upheld individual rights but also further regulated law enforcement procedures, ensuring the fairness and justice of the law are realized.
