CHAPTER 2: Whether or not the Moving Vehicle doctrine is applicable in tax cases?

SEARCH WARRANT

Nature of Search Warrant / Essence of Search Warrant / Search warrant /

Constitutional guarantees of a search warrant

A search warrant refers to a court order that a magistrate, judge or Supreme Court
official issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person,
location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find.
As far as the Philippine law is concerned, the definition of a search warrant is
provided in the Rules of Court:

Section 1. Search warrant defined. – 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 to search for personal property described therein
and bring it before the court.

From the aforementioned definition, we can already deduce from such statement that
a search warrant in Philippine jurisprudence is a written order primarily issued in the
name of the People of the Philippines. Moreover, it is signed by a judge and directed
to a peace officer, such as police or bailiff, commanding the latter by the judge to
initiate an inquiry proceeding and search operation for personal property of another.
The property subjected to search should be described in such order and demand the
subject matter's presentment before the court. Usually, a search warrant is considered
to be criminal process similar to a mode of discovery. It is also a special and peculiar
remedy that can used by the government against the property of an individual person.

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.

This constitutional proscription should not be construed as a blanket prohibition

against all searches and seizures as it operates only against unreasonable searches and
seizures. Searches and seizures as a rule are considered unreasonable unless it is
authorized by a warrant or allowed by law as a valid warrantless search.
“Reasonableness is the touchstone of the validity of a government search or
intrusion.” “What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search is purely a judicial
question, determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved”

Moreover, it is important to remember that this right applies only against government
and its agencies. This protection cannot be used against acts of private individuals.
Hence, if a private individual finds illegal items during the conduct of his search and
afterwards, he reported it to government authorities, this right cannot be invoked
against such private individual. This is because the search and seizure was conducted
without any government intervention. In the case cited in People vs Bangcarawan, the
baggage of the accused was searched by the vessel security personnel. It was only
after they found shabu inside the suitcase that they called the Philippine Coast Guard
for assistance. The Supreme Court ruled that “the search and seizure of the suitcase
and the contraband items were carried without government intervention, and hence,
the search did not come under the Constitutional prohibition.”

If the search warrant is null and void, the searches and seizures made therein are
illegal. The search warrant must strictly comply with the requirements of the
Constitution and statutory provisions. Failure to comply with any requirement
mandated by law for the issuance of a search warrant renders the search warrant
invalid and the subsequent evidence obtained from the invalid search inadmissible.
A search and seizure is unreasonable if it is made without a warrant, or the
warrant was invalidly issued. In all instances, what constitutes reasonable or
unreasonable search or seizure is a purely judicial question determinable from a
consideration of the attendant circumstances. There are certain instances where the
requirement of a search warrant is not required.

Salient provisions regarding search warrant

The right against unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by the Constitution is
considered to be a core right implicit in the natural right to life, liberty and property.
Even in the absence of the constitutional guarantee, individuals have a fundamental
and natural right against unreasonable search and seizure under natural law.
Moreover, the violation of the privacy of an individual produces a humiliating effect
that cannot be rectified anymore.

Requisites of a Valid Search Warrant

There are certain requirements of a search warrant that must be followed. First, there
must be a probable cause - facts and circumstances that would engender a well-
founded belief in a reasonable prudent and discreet man that a crime has been
committed and the things and objects to be seized can be found in the place to be
searched. Second, it must be determined by the judge personally through searching
and probing questions - question not merely answerable by yes or no, but could be
answered by the applicant and the witnesses on facts personally known to them.
Third, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce are personally examined by
the judge through writing and made under oath or affirmation. Fourth, the applicant
and witnesses may testify only on facts personally known to them. Fifth, the probable
cause must be in connection with the specific offense. Sixth, the warrant specified
describes the person and place to be searched and the things to be seized. Lastly, a
sworn statement with the affidavits of the witnesses must be attached to the record.

Furthermore, Section 4 of Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that:

Sec. 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 witness he may produce, and particularly describing the place
to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.
Ownership of the property subject of the search warrant is of no consequence. What is
controlling is that the subject matter of the search warrant is connected to an offense.
Any object which is considered to a subject of the offense, a stolen or embezzled and
other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or used or intended to be used as the means of
committing an offense are the things that may be the subject of a valid issuance of a
search warrant.

Who may Issue a Valid Search Warrant

The Constitution grants the authority to issue a search warrant only to the
judge upon fulfillment of certain basic constitutional requirements. Art 38 of the
Labor Code, which grants the Secretary of Labor and Employment the authority to
issue orders of arrest, search and seizure, was declared unconstitutional because
obviously, the Labor Secretary is not a judge. And in another case, an order issued by
the PCGG directing respondent to submit all bank documents which the PCGG
representative might find necessary and relevant to the investigation was also held to
be in the nature of a search warrant which the PCGG cannot validly issue because he
is not a judge.

Existence of Probable Cause

In order for a search warrant to be valid, it must be based on a probable cause. In

Philippine jurisprudence, probable cause for a search warrant has been uniformly
defined as “such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable prudent man
to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.”[ Burgos vs Chief
of Staff, 133 SCRA 800, (1984)]

As what can be gleaned from the law, probable cause speaks of probability and not
absolute certainty. The prosecution needs only to present such evidence to the
standards of judgment of a reasonably prudent man and not proof beyond reasonable
doubt. In determining probable cause, the average man only weighs the facts and
circumstances without resorting to the technical rules on evidence. He merely relies
on his commons sense. There is no need to present evidence to establish guilt in
applying for a search warrant. “The requirement is less than certainty of proof, but
more than suspicion or possibility.”[ Kho vs Lanzanas, 489 SCRA 445, (2006)]
However, the amount of evidence needed to be considered sufficient depends on the
facts of each case.

Moreover, the affidavit upon which the warrant is to be issued must, in order to be
considered sufficient, be drawn in such a manner that perjury could be charged
thereon in case its allegations prove false.[ People vs Sy Juco, 64 phil. 667, 674
(1937)] The facts sworn to must be based on the affiant’s personal knowledge and
not on hearsay. And where the search warrant is issued without a probable cause,
“the only possible explanation (not justification) for its issuance is the necessity of
fishing evidence of the commission of the crime”[ Stonehill vs Diokno]. Thus, if the
warrant was obtained for the purpose of fishing for evidence, it would be considered
“unconstitutional because it makes the warrant unreasonable, and it is equivalent to a
violation of the constitutional provision prohibiting the compulsion of an accused to
testify against himself.”[ Rodriguez vs Villamiel, 65 Phil 230, (1937)]
Corollary to the requirement of probable cause is the rule that the warrant must refer
only to one specific offense.[ Rule 26, Section 3 of the Rules of Court] If the warrant
application fails to point out to a specific provision of a law that was violated, it
would be impossible for the judge to determine if there is indeed probable cause to
issue the search warrant. This requirement is necessary because the things sought to
be seized must be in connection to some particular offense. Otherwise, there will be
an unreasonable encroachment on a person’s privacy. In the case of Stonehill vs
Diokno, the Court stated that the establishment of probable cause “presupposes the
introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has
performed particular acts, or committed specific omissions violating a given
provision of our criminal law.”[ Stonehill vs Diokno, L-19550, (1967)]
There is no exact test in determining probable cause for the issuance of a search
warrant. It is a matter wholly dependent on the findings of the judge in the process of
exercising his judicial function. In order for the judge to determine probable cause,
he must personally examine the applicant and the witnesses that he may produce.
The applicant and his witnesses must have personal knowledge of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the offense complained of and not based on mere hearsay.

Moreover, the Rules of Court requires that the judge must, before issuing the warrant
personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers and under oath.
[ Rule 126, Section 5 of the Rues of Court.] However, it is settled that the
Constitution and the Rules do not require that the judge must examine each witness
in person because this would be impractical as this would preoccupy judges to
investigate complaints instead of hearing and deciding cases. Thus, in the case of
Soliven vs Makasiar[ Soliven vs Makasiar, 167 SCRA 394, 398 (1988)], the Court
pointed out that in order for the judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable
cause, he shall “personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents
submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause or if on the basis
thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s report and require
the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.” If the judge fails to determine
probable cause by personally examining the applicant in the form of searching
questions before issuing a search warrant, it constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

The examination by the judge for the purpose of issuing a search warrant must not be
merely routinary but must be exhaustive. This is to satisfy him as to the existence of
the probable cause. In addition, the evidence offered by the complainant and his
witnesses should be based on their own personal knowledge and not on mere
information or belief. In a case decided by the Supreme Court, it held that mere
“reliable information is insufficient”.[ Alvarez vs CFI, 64 Phil. 33]

Particularity of Description

The Constitution further requires that a valid search warrant must specify the place to
be searched and the things to be seized. This is to aid the searching officers in
looking for the place to be searched and it will not allow then to exercise discretion
on what places to be searched. A search warrant is not a sweeping authority for a
fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence relating to a
crime.[ People vs Francisco, 387 SCRA 569, (2002)]
The Constitution does not require that the search warrant must describe the place to
be searched with exact technicalities. In the case of People vs Estrada[ 234 CA2d
136, 146, 44 CR 165 (1965)], the accused challenged the validity of the search
warrant on the argument that it did not particularly describe the place to be searched.
The search warrant only stated that the place to be searched was the “The apartment
house occupied by Manuel Estrada at 18 S. 19th St., San Jose, the second story of a
white house. However, the Court ruled that the warrant is valid if it limits the search
to a particular part of the premises either by designation of the area or other physical
characteristics of such part or by a designation of its occupants and the business
conducted there. And in another case, the caption of a search warrant indicated that
the place was “Hernan Cortes St., Cebu City” while its body states the address as
“Hernan Cortes St., Mandaue City”. The Court did not consider that such
discrepancy was sufficient to find that the warrant was constitutionally infirm
because it was not shown that there was a street with the same name in Cebu City
nor was it established that the officers executing the warrant had difficulty locating
the premises.[ Uy vs BIR, 344 SCRA 36, (2002)] Hence, the description of the place
to be searched will be considered sufficient if there will be low probability that the
officer armed with the search warrant would mistakenly search other places. The
accepted rule is that description of the place to be searched is considered sufficient if
the officer armed with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, identify the place
intended.

Corollary to the requirement of the particular description of the place to be searched,

is the rule that a valid warrant must also particularly describe the items to be seized.
The requirement of particularity is said to be satisfied of the warrant imposes a
meaningful restriction upon the objects to be seized. This would enable the law
enforcers serving the warrant to: (1) readily identify the properties to be seized and
thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items; and (2) leave said peace officers
with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable
searches and seizures.[ People vs Tee, GR Nos. 140546-47, (2003)] It is also aimed
at preventing violations of security of persons and property and unlawful invasions
of the sanctity of the home.

This is intended to prevent general warrants which allow searches and seizures of
things not described in the warrant. The Court describes a general warrant as: "(a)
search or arrest warrant that is not particular as to the person to be arrested or the
property to be seized. It is one that allows the seizure of one thing under a warrant
describing another and gives the officer executing the warrant the discretion over
which items to take”.[ Worlwide Web Corporation vs People and PLDT, GR No.
161106, (2014)] This type of warrant is proscribed and considered unconstitutional.
More importantly, this requirement is necessary in order to avoid any fishing
expedition of the officers in conducting search and seizures of all kinds of properties.
Any discretion to the officer armed with the warrant is dangerous as it would make
the person against whom the warrant is issued, vulnerable to abuses. “What the
Constitution seeks to avoid are search warrants of broad and general characterization
or sweeping descriptions which will authorize police officers to undertake a fishing
expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to
an offense”[ People vs Tee, GR Nos. 140546-47, (2003)]
Several decisions have pointed out the degree of particularity that the description of
the place searched and things to be seized must have. People vs Rubio[ 57 Phil. 384,
91932)] perhaps represents the most liberal approach to the specificity requirement
of the description of the place to be searched and things to be seized. In this case, the
search warrant which was held to be specific enough described the things to be
searched and seized simply as “fraudulent books, invoice and records.” Justifying the
general description, the Supreme Court explained:
“While it is true that the property to be seized under a warrant must be particularity
described therein and no other property can be taken thereunder, yet the description
is required to be specific only in so far as the circumstances will ordinarily allow. It
has been held that, where, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their description
must be rather general, it is not required that a technical description be given, as this
would mean that no warrant could issue”

However, this ruling was strongly dissented by Justice Abad Santos who argued that:

“Such phrases (as fraudulent books, invoices and records) do not even express a
conclusion of fact by which a warrant officer may be guided in making the search
and seizure, but they express a conclusion of law as to the full import of which even
lawyers may differ. In the last analysis, therefore the warrant in this case authorized
nothing less than a general exploratory search, which is precisely what the law
condemns as “obnoxious to fundamental principles of liberty.”

In sum, technical accuracy of the description is not required. The law only requires
reasonable particularity as to the identity of the thing to be searched and seized. It is
unnecessary that the description must be exact up to minute details as to leave no
room for doubt on the part of the searching officers. If this would be the accepted
rule, it would be impossible and impractical for the searching officers to obtain a
warrant because they would not know the exact description of the thing they will be
searching for. Moreover, the Court had occasion to rule that they particularity of the
things to be seized is required “wherever and whenever it is feasible”.[ Worlwide
Web Corporation vs People and PLDT, GR No. 161106, (2014)]
Some Court decisions have allowed general descriptions when specificity is difficult
or when the technical description would have required the experience of trained
professionals. However, it has also held that the things desired to be search and
seized which may have a direct relation to the crime, must also be supported by
evidence other than the things sought to be seized and the things subject to the search
and seizure should only be useful in order only to strengthen evidence.[ Columbia
Pictures vs Court of Appeals, GR No. 111267, (1996)]

It is established that the description is required to be specific only in so far as the

facts and circumstances will ordinarily allow. For instance, in the case of People vs
Tee[ People vs Tee, GR Nos. 140546-47, (2003)] the accused contended that the
phrase “an undetermined amount of marijuana” as used in the search warrant fails to
satisfy the particularity requirement. However, the Court ruled that “it is not
required that technical precision of the description be required, particularly where by
the nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather general, since
the requirement of a technical description would mean that no warrant could issue.”
In another case, the petitioners claim that the search warrant issued were general
warrants prohibited by the Constitution because the things to be seized were not
described and specified. The subject warrant only directed the search and seizure of
firearms but did not state the list of the firearms and were not classified as to size,
calibre and make. Here, the Court rule that the “the law enforcement officers could
not have been in the position to know beforehand the exact calibre or make of the
firearms to be seized”.[ Kho vs Makalintal, 306 SCRA 70, (1999)]
But it must be kept in mind that the use of generic term or a general description in a
warrant is only allowed when a more specific description of the things to be seized is
not available. One can see from the mentioned cases that the Court has taken a broad
view of what particularity of description means despite the often repeated assertion
that the constitutional protection should be given a “liberal construction or a strict
construction in favour of the individual”.[ People vs Veloso, 48 Phil 169, 176 (1925)]

Fortunately, the Court set the limit to permissible generality. In a leading Philippine
case[ Stonehill vs Diokno, GR No. 19550, (1967)], a warrant was deemed to be
invalid because it merely stated:

“Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, journals, correspondence, receipts,

ledgers, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers
showing all business transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and
related profit and loss statements.”

Thus, the warrant in this case, allowed the search and seizure of all records
pertaining to all business transactions regardless of whether they were legal or not. It
gives the officers a wide discretion on exploring the records and books of an
individual. It allows the unreasonable intrusion into the privacy of an individual.

Refinement of the requirement of particularity of description was made in the case of

Bache & Co. vs Ruiz[ GR L-32409, (1971)]. The search warrant in that case
contained the following:
“Unregistered and private books of accounts (ledgers, journals, columnars,
receipts and disbursement books, customers’ ledgers); receipts for payment received;
certificates of stocks and securities; contracts, promissory notes and deeds of sale;
telex and coded messages; business records, checks and check stubs; records of bank
deposits and withdrawals; and records of foreign remittances, covering the years
1966 to 1970”.

Recalling the purpose of the particularity requirement not to allow the

searching officer to exercise discretion regarding the things to search and seize, the
Court remarked that it could be defeated by the allowance of the search warrant in
this case.

Thus, the particularity requirement in search warrants is satisfied if the description

therein is (a) as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow; (b) expresses a
conclusion of fact by which the officers may be guided in making the search and
seizure; and (c) limits the things to be seized which bear direct relation to the offense
for which the warrant is issued. If all of these are satisfied with, such warrant
imposes a meaningful restriction upon the objects to be seized by the officers armed
with the warrant. Hence, it prevents exploratory searches, which may be violative of
the Bill of Rights.
Legal Consequence of an Unlawful Search and Seizure

If a search or seizure is “unreasonable”, any evidence obtained therefrom is

inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Thus, evidence obtained during an
illegal search or seizure is inadmissible to prove the guilt of the accused and cannot
be used to legally obtain other evidence and cannot be used to justify a subsequent
warrantless arrest.

Under the exclusionary rule known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree”, once the
primary sourced is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary evidence
derived from it is also inadmissible. “The rule is based on the principle that evidence
illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the
originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently
obtained.”[ People vs Conde, 399 SCRA 503, (2001)]

Rational behind the rule

Exceptions

Moving Vehicle or Carroll Doctrine

Due Process

The Article III of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines states:

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 a judge, after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, particularly describing the place to be searched, or the persons or things to
the seized.

The protection provided by the Bill of Rights can be availed by any person,
including aliens, whether accused of a crime or not. Even juridical persons are also
entitled to the said guarantee although they may be required to open their books of
accounts for examination by the State in the exercise of police and taxing powers.
(Moncada v People, 80 Phil 1). This right is personal in nature; thus, it follows that
it may be invoked only by the person entitled to it. It also follows that the said right
may be waived, either expressly or impliedly. However, it is an indispensable
requirement that such waiver must be made by the person whose right is invaded,
and not by the one who is not duly authorized to effect such waiver. (People v
Damaso, 212 SCRA 457) The aforesaid mandate applies as a form of distraint
directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement
of the law. The protection cannot extend to acts committed by private individuals so
as to bring them within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.
(People v Marti)

It is well-established in our jurisprudence that the Bill of Rights does not protect
citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by private individuals. As to what
constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search and seizure in any particular case is
purely a judicial question, determinable from a consideration of the circumstances
involved.

One of the important features of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is the due
process clause. The said clause was stated in Article III of the aforesaid
Constitution. It states:

SECTION 1: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due

process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws."

Due process of law simply states that it is part of the sporting idea of fair play to
hear "the other side" before an opinion is formed or a decision is made by those
who sit in judgment.” (Ynot v. IAC, 1987).

"Due Process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be present
before the tribunal which pronounces judgement upon the question of life, liberty,
or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard, by testimony or
otherwise, and to have the right to controvert, by proof, every material fact which
bears on the question of right in the matter involved. If any question of fact or
liability be conclusively presumed against him, this is not due process of law." It
covers any governmental action which constitutes a deprivation of some person's
life, liberty, or property. It is founded upon the basic principle that every man shall
have his day in court, and the benefit of the general law which proceeds only upon
notice and which hears and considers before judgement is rendered.".

Police power refers to the authority of the State to enact legislation that may
meddle with an individual's property rights in order to promote the public welfare
of the society. On the other hand, eminent domain is defined as the power of the
State to take, or to authorize the taking of, private property for public use without
the owner's consent, conditioned upon payment of just compensation. "Taxation has
been defined as the power by which the sovereign raises revenue to defray the
necessary expenses of the government. (Bernas reviewer)

Aspects of Due Process / Substantive Due Process v Procedural Due Process

The concept of due process is flexible for not all situations calling for procedural
safeguards call for the same kind of procedure. Due process as embodied in our
Constitution covers all proceedings or governmental action whether executive,
legislative or judicial. Thus, it possesses two characteristics or comes in two forms:
the substantive due process aspect and the procedural due process aspect.
Substantive refers to what should be done while procedural concerns how it should
be done.

As a substantial requirement, it is a prohibition of arbitrary laws; because if all that

the due process clause required were proper procedure, then life, liberty or property
could be destroyed arbitrarily provided proper formalities are observed. Substantive
due process, asks whether the government has an adequate reason for taking away a
person's life, liberty or property. (City of Manila v Laguio, 2005).

In short, it looks to whether there is a sufficient justification for the government's

action. In interest of justice and equity, the court may relax the rules on the
substantive due process. Substantive due process is the more flexible standard. It is
not strictly bound by any rigid technicality or fixed set of rules. It is sensitive to the
peculiarities of a situation or the specialness of certain circumstances. Its only
mandate is to uphold reason and fairness. There are two things to consider in the
satisfaction of the substantive due process, first, lawful subject which refers to the
interests of the public in general (as distinguished from those of a particular class)
require the intervention of the State, and lawful means or that the means employed
are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
oppressive on individuals.

Procedural due process refers to the procedural limitations placed on the manner in
which a law is administered, applied, or enforced. Substantive due process is that
aspect of due process which serves as a restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-
judicial agencies of the government. It refers to the method of manner by which the
law is implemented. It is concerned with government action on established process
when it makes intrusion into the private sphere. As a procedural requirement, it
relates chiefly to the mode of procedure which government agencies much follow
in the enforcement and application of laws. It is a guarantee of procedural fairness.
Its essence was expressed by Daniel Webster as a law that hears before it
condemns. Unlike the substantive due process, this aspect of due process must be
strictly followed.

Rules on collections of taxes

As to excise taxes

Limitation of Applicability
Disputing the applicability of the doctrine

Importance of Adhering to Procedural Laws

Dangers of violating it

Jurisprudence related to its acceptance

Jurisprudence as to its dissent

Criticizing the applicability of the doctrine

Analysis of the whole

Conclusion