The Supreme Court (SC) has issued guidelines on the proper execution of search warrants following the acquittal of Lucky Enriquez in a drug-related case due to a defective search warrant and irregularities in its implementation. Case Background In 2017, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) conducted a search operation based on a warrant specifying "Informal Settler’s Compound, NIA Road, Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City" as the location. Agents, guided by an informant, entered a house without knocking or announcing their presence, immediately apprehending Enriquez and seizing shabu. The trial court convicted Enriquez, and the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. However, the SC overturned the conviction, ruling that the search warrant was defective due to its vague address, which gave enforcers undue discretion on where to search. Supreme Court Ruling & Guidelines 1. Clear Address Requirement – A search warrant must precisely describe the place to be searched to prevent abuse by law enforcement. 2. "Knock and Announce" Rule – Law enforcement must: - Identify themselves and their authority. -Announce their purpose. - Present the search warrant and explain it in a language understood by the occupant. - Request permission before forcibly entering the premises. 3. Exceptions to Announcement – Officers may bypass the knock-and-announce rule only under specific conditions, such as immediate danger or the risk of evidence destruction. 4. Presence of Witnesses – Searches must be witnessed by the lawful occupant or, if unavailable, a family member or a resident of the same locality to ensure transparency. The SC emphasized that failure to comply with these procedural safeguards renders a search unreasonable and any evidence obtained inadmissible. The ruling reinforces the constitutional guarantee against unlawful searches and seizures, ensuring the protection of individual rights. Case Reference: People of the Philippines vs. Lucky Enriquez y Casipi, G.R. No. 264473, August 7, 2024