In a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC’s Second Division acquitted Lucky Enriquez (Enriquez) of the crimes of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia under Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, due to a defective search warrant and its irregular execution.

The case stemmed from a 2017 operation by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), which implemented a search warrant against Enriquez to search for and seize dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. The address in the search warrant states, “Informal Settler’s Compound, NIA Road, Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City.”

PDEA agents, guided by an informant, entered a house where Enriquez was located. Without knocking or announcing their presence, they immediately rushed through the open door, apprehended Enriquez, and seized sachets containing shabu.

The Regional Trial Court convicted Enriquez, and the Court of Appeals upheld the decision.

The SC reversed these rulings, declaring the search warrant invalid. The Constitution requires a valid search warrant to particularly describe the place to be searched. This requirement is crucial to prevent enforcing officers from deciding on their own where to search and whom and what to seize.

Rule 126,Section 7 of the Rules of Court lays down the preliminaryacts that must be accomplished before an officer's right to break open doorsor windows is triggered. In doing so, it effectively provides a roadmap thatgovernment agents must follow for the proper implementation of searchwarrants,i.e., giving notice of their purpose and authority and requestingadmittance to the place to be searched.

This analysis is consistent with this Court's discussion in People v.Huang Zhen Hua,58 where the requirements of a valid execution of a searchwarrant were discussed:

The procedure is clear: government agents must “announce theirpresence, identify themselves to the accused and to the persons who rightfullyhave possession of the premises to be searched,and show to them the searchwarrant to be implemented by them and explain to them said warrant in alanguage or dialect known to and understood by them." If the governmentagents are refused entry despite their compliance, then they have the right tobreak open doors or windows. Further, government agents may execute anunannounced intrusion under limited circumstances.

Regarding the conduct of the search, Rule 126,Section 8 of the Rulesof Court provides a hierarchy of who are prioritized as witnesses. Thiswitness must either be the lawful occupant of the premises to be searched orany member of their family. It is only in their absence that individuals of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality may step in aswitnesses.62 Corollarily,a search where the "witnesses prescribed by law areprevented from actually observing and monitoring the search of the premises,violates both the spirit and letter of the law”63 and renders the searchunreasonable.

The police officers were obliged to give the appellant notice, show to her their authority, and demand that they be allowed entry. They may only break open any outer or inner door or window of a house to execute the search warrant if, after such notice and demand, such officers are refused entry to the place of directed search. This is known as the "knock and announce" principle which is embodied in Anglo-American Law. The method of entry of an officer into a dwelling and the presence or absence of such notice are as important considerations in assessing whether subsequent entry to search and/or arrest is constitutionally reasonable.

xxx
[END OF PART 1]