or night, when the application asserts that

the property is on the person or place

ordered to be searched. In the instant case,
the judge issuing the warrant relied on the
positive assertion of the applicant and his
witnesses that the firearms and
ammunition were kept at private
VOL. 347, DECEMBER 8, 2000 453
respondent’s residence. Evidently, the
People vs. Court of Appeals court issuing the warrant was satisfied
that the affidavits of the applicants clearly
*
G.R. No. 117412. December 8, 2000 satisfied the requirements of Section 8,
Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. The rule on
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, issuance of a search warrant allows for the
petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS exercise of judicial discretion in fixing the
and VALENTINO C. ORTIZ, time within which the warrant may be
respondents. served, subject to the statutory
requirement fixing the maximum time for
the execution of a warrant. We have
Searches and Seizures; Search examined the application for search
Warrants; The general rule is that search warrant, and the deposition of the
warrants must be served during the witnesses supporting said application, and
daytime, though, as an exception, a search find that both satisfactorily comply with
at any reasonable hour of the day or night, the requirements of Section 8, Rule 126.
may be made when the application asserts The inescapable conclusion is that the
that the property is on the person or place judge who issued the questioned warrant
ordered to be searched; Absent an abuse of did not abuse his discretion in allowing a
discretion, a search conducted at night search “at any reasonable hour of the day
where so allowed is not improper.—The or night.” Absent such abuse of discretion,
general rule is that search warrants must a search conducted at night where so
be served during the daytime. However, allowed, is not improper.
the rule allows an exception, namely, a
Same; Same; Judicial Notice; The
search at any reasonable hour of the day
Court takes judicial notice that 7:30 P.M.
in a suburban subdivision in Metro Manila and-about. To hold said hour as an
is an hour at which the residents are still unreasonable time to serve a warrant
up-and-about.—Petitioner submits that would not only hamper law enforcement,
7:30 P.M. is a reasonable time for but could also lead to absurd results,
executing a search warrant in the enabling criminals to conceal their illegal
metropolis. We find no reason to declare activities by pursuing such activities only
the contrary. The exact time of the at night.
execution of a warrant should be left to the Same; Same; The policy behind the
discretion of the law enforcement officers. prohibition of nighttime searches in the
And in judging the conduct of said officers, absence of specific judicial authorization is
judicial notice may be taken not just of the to protect the public from the abrasiveness
realities of law enforcement, but also the of official intrusions.—The policy behind
prevailing conditions in the place to be the prohibition of nighttime searches in
searched. We take judicial notice that 7:30 the absence of specific judicial
P.M. in authorization is to protect the public from
the abrasiveness of official intrusions. A
_______________ nighttime search is a serious violation of
privacy. In the instant case, there is no
* SECOND DIVISION. showing that the search which began at
7:30 P.M. caused an “abrupt intrusion
upon sleeping residents in the dark” or
454 that it caused private respondent’s family
such prejudice as to make the execution of
the warrant a voidable act. In finding that
the duration of the search could have
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
caused “inconvenience” for private
ANNOTATED
respondent’s family, the appellate court
People vs. Court of Appeals resorted to surmises and conjectures.
Moreover, no exact time limit can be
placed on the duration of a search.
a suburban subdivision in Metro Manila is
an hour at which the residents are still up-
 Same; Same; “Witness to Search” Rule;           The Solicitor General for the
In the absence of the lawful occupant of the People.
premises or any member of his family, the           Joaquin “Bobby” Yuseco for
witness-to-search rule allows the search to private respondent.
be made “in the presence of two witnesses of 455
sufficient age and discretion residing in the
same locality.—We find merit in the
petitioner’s argument that private VOL. 347, DECEMBER 8, 2000 455
respondent’s wife had no justifiable reason People vs. Court of Appeals
to refuse to be a witness to the search and
that her refusal to be a witness cannot
QUISUMBING, J.:
hamper the performance of official duty. In
the absence of the lawful occupant of the This is a petition for review on
premises or any member of his family, the certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules
witness-to-search rule allows the search to of Court, seeking the reversal of the
be made “in the presence of two witnesses decision of the Court of Appeals
of sufficient age and discretion residing in promulgated on September 27, 1994,
the same locality.” There was no in CA-G.R. SP No. 301291.
irregularity when the PNP-CISC team Thedecretal portion of the
asked the bailiff of the Parañaque court assaileddecision reads:
and the barangay security officer to act as
witnesses to the search. To hold otherwise “WHEREFORE, the petition is
would allow lawful searches to be GRANTED. Accordingly the respondent
frustrated by the mere refusal of those court’s Order of 25 January 1993 is hereby
required by law to be witnesses. SET ASIDE and the firearms and
ammunition irregularly and unreasonably
PETITION for review on certiorari of seized pursuant to the search warrant of
a decision of the Court of Appeals. 13 August 1992 are declared inadmissible
in evidence for any purpose in any
The facts are stated in the opinion of proceeding, consequently to be disposed of
the Court. by the respondent court pursuant to
applicablelaw.
1
 1
“SO ORDERED.” against private respondent
3
for
violation of P.D. 1866 with the
The facts of the present case, as
adopted from the findings of the Office
_______________
of the SolicitorGeneral, are as follows:
On August 13, 1992, operatives of 1 Rollo,p.54.
the Philippine National Police-Special 2 Id.at 55.
Investigation Service Command (PNP- 3 The decree is entitled “Codifying The Laws
CISC) were conducting a surveillance On Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture,
of suspected drug-pushing activities at Dealing In, Acquisition Or Disposition Of
the Regine Condominium, Makati Firearms, Ammunition Or Explosives Or
Avenue, Makati City. Among their Instruments Used In The Manufac-
targeted suspects was private
respondent Valentino “Toto” Ortiz. 456
Spotting the latter alighting from his
Cherokee jeep and noting that he had2 456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
a suspiciously bulging pants pocket, ANNOTATED
the police officers immediately moved
in and accosted him. Ortiz was frisked People vs. Court of Appeals
and yielded an unlicensed .25 caliber
“Raven” automatic pistol SN-930291 Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of
with one magazine and seven rounds Parañaque, Branch 77. Supporting the
of live .25 caliber ammunition. A application were the depositions of
search of his vehicle resulted in the two police officers asserting that they
retrieval of a sealed cellophane packet had personal knowledge that private
of methylamphetamine hydrochloride respondent was keeping in his
or “shabu” from the glove residence at 148-D Peru Street, Better
compartment. The police then took Living Subdivision, Parañaque, Metro
private respondent into custody. Manila, the following unlicensed4
Later that same day, the PNP- firearms: “Baby armalite M-16;
CISC applied for a search warrant Shotgun, 12 g; pistol cal. 9mm; pistol
cal. 45 and5
c. One (1) 12 gauge shotgun SN-
withcorrespondingammunitions(sic).” K593449
On the same day, the MTC judge d. Six (6) liveammo, for shotgun.
issued Search Warrant No. 92-94 e. One hundred eighteen
commanding the PNP officers “to (118)live ammo for pistol cal.
make an immediate search at any 9mm
reasonable hour of the day or night of
f. Sixteen (16)live ammo, for
the house/s, closed receptacles and
M16 rifle
premises above-described and6
forthwith seize and take possession” g. Thirty (30) live ammo, for
the personal property subject of the pistol cal. 45
offense described in thewarrant. h. One (1) magazine
Armed with aforesaid warrant, a forpistolcal.9mm
PNP CISC-Special Investigation i. One (1) magazine (short) for
7
Group (SIG) team, accompanied by a M16 rifle.”
representative of the MTC judge and a
barangay security officer, went to
_______________
private respondent’s residence in
Parañaque at about 7:30 P.M. of the ture Of Firearms, Ammunition Or
same date to search said premises. Explosives, And Imposing Stiffer Penalties For
Private respondent’s wife and their Certain Violations Thereof And For
child’s nanny were both present RelevantPurposes.”
during the search, but neither 4 Properly, the US caliber 5.56 mm (.223)
consented to be a witness to the Colt CAR-15 or XM-177 carbine versionof the
search. The search resulted in the standardColt M-16/M-16A1 assault rifle.
seizureof the following unlicensed 5 Supra Note 1,at57.
firearms and ammunition: 6 Id.at 58.
7 Id. at 59.
“a. One (1) pistolcal. 9mm SN-
1928923 457
b. One (1) M16 Rifle (Baby
Armalite) SN-9015620
VOL. 347, DECEMBER 8, 2000 457
 a. One (1) pistol cal. 9mm SN-
People vs. Court of Appeals
1928923
b. One (1) M16 Rifle (Baby Armalite)
Private respondent’s wife signed a
SN-9015620
receipt for the seized firearms and
ammunition. c. One (1) 12 gauge shotgun SN-
On August 17, 1992, a return of K593449
search warrant was executed and filed d. Six (6) liveammo, for shotgun.
by the police with the issuing court. e. One hundred eighteen (118)rds
At the preliminary investigation, ammo for pistol cal. 9mm
the investigating state prosecutor f. Sixteen (16)live ammos (sic), for
ruled the warrantless search of M16 rifle
private respondent’s person and jeep
g. Thirty (30) live ammo for pistol cal.
in Makati invalid for violating his
45
constitutional right against8
unreasonable searches and seizures. withoutlawful authority therefore.
However, the prosecutor found the 9
search conducted in Parañaquevalid. CONTRARY TO LAW.”
On August 25, 1992, private
respondent was charged before the On September 25, 1992, private
Regional Trial Court of Makati, in respondent moved for reinvestigation
Criminal Case No. 92-5475, with alleging that the dismissal of the
violating Section 1 of P.D. No.1866. charges against him arising from the
The information alleged: illegal search and seizure in Makati
also applied to the search conducted in
“That on or about August 13, 1992 in the his house in Parañaque. The trial
Municipality of Paranaque, Metro Manila, court denied the same. Private
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of respondent moved for reconsideration
this Honorable Court, above-named and deferral of arraignment, but said
accused, did then and there, wilfully (sic), motions were likewise denied.
unlawfully and feloniouslyhavein his
possession,
_______________
 8 CONST. Art. III, sec. 2. ammunition seized pursuant to
9 Supra Note 7at71. Search Warrant No. 92-94.
Hence, the instant case anchored
458
on the following assignments of error:

I
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED THE RESPONDENT COURT OF
People vs. Court of Appeals APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
EXECUTION OF THE SEARCH
On November 23, 1992, private WARRANT AT 7:30 P.M. WAS
respondent moved to quash the search UNREASONABLE, DESPITE THE FACT
warrant on the following grounds: (1) THAT THE WARRANT ITSELF
that he was not present when his AUTHORIZED SEARCH AT NIGHT.
house was searched since he was then II
detained at Camp Crame; (2) that the
search warrant was not shown to his THE RESPONDENT COURT OF
wife; and (3) that the search was APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
conducted in violation of the witness- THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
to-search rule. The trial court denied SEARCH WARRANT VIOLATED
the motion to quash for lack of merit. SECTION 7 RULE 126 OF THE RULES
On February 5, 1993, private OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
respondent filed with the Court of
Appeals, CA-G.R. SP No. 30129, for III
certiorari and prohibition of the order
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF
of the trial court denying his motion to
APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
quash search warrant.
NO RETURN WAS PREPARED WHEN
On September 27, 1994, the
ANNEX “G” WAS PREPARED AND
appellate court promulgated its
SUBMITTED BY CHIEF INSP. JESUS A.
decision declaring as inadmissible in
VERSOZA, GROUP COMMANDER OF
evidence the firearms and
SIG, CISC, CAMP CRAME.
 IV as there was no showing how long the
nighttime search lasted. The court a
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF quo applied the doctrine in Asian
APPEALS ERRED IN CONCLUDING Surety & Insurance Co. v. Herrera, 54
THAT THE PROSECUTION INVOKED A SCRA 312 (1973), where we
PRESUMPTION WITHOUT SHOWING invalidated a nighttime search
BY LEGALLY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE conducted on the basis of a warrant
THAT THE SUPREME COURT which did not specify the time during
REPORTS ANNOTATED which the search was to be made.
Before us, petitioner contends that
459
Asian Surety is inapplicable since the
search warrant specified that the
VOL. 347, DECEMBER 8, 2000 459 search be made at a reasonable hour
People vs. Court of Appeals of day or night.
The rule governing the time of
SEARCH WARRANT WAS service of search warrants is Section 8
IMPLEMENTED IN ACCORDANCE of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court,
WITH LAW. which provides:

Petitioner’s grounds for this petition “Sec. 8. Time of making search.—The

may be reduced to one issue: Whether warrant must direct that it be served in
or not the court a quo erred in holding the day time, unless the affidavit asserts
that the firearms and ammunition that the property is on the person or in the
seized from private respondent’s place ordered to be searched, in which case
house are inadmissible as evidence for a direction may be inserted that it be
being the fruits of an illegal search. served at any time of the day or night.”
The appellate court ruled the
The general rule is that search
search wanting in due process for
warrants must be served during the
having been done at an unreasonable
daytime. However, the rule allows an
time of the evening causing
exception, namely, a search at any
“inconvenience” to the occupants of
reasonable hour of the day or night,
private respondent’s house, especially
when the application asserts that the
property is on the person or place requirements of Section 8, Rule 126.
ordered to be searched. In the instant The inescapable conclusion is that the
case, the judge issuing the warrant judge who issued the questioned
relied on the positive assertion of the warrant did not abuse his discretion
applicant and his witnesses that the in allowing a search “at any
firearms and ammunition were kept reasonable hour of the day or night.”
at private respondent’s residence. Absent such abuse of discretion, a
Evidently, the court issuing the search conducted at nightwhere
14
so
warrant was satisfied that the allowed, is not improper.
affidavits of the applicants clearly As prescribed in Adm. Circular No.
satisfied the requirements of Section 13 of the Supreme Court dated
8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. The October 1, 1985:
rule on issuance of a search warrant
allows for the exercise of judicial “e. Search warrants must be in duplicate,
discretion in fixing the time within both signed by the judge. The duplicate
which the warrant may be copy thereof must be given to the person
against whom the warrant is issued and
460 served. Both copies of the warrant must
indicate the date until when the warrant
shall be valid and must direct that it be
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
served in the daytime. If the judge is
ANNOTATED
satisfied that the property is in the person
People vs. Court of Appeals or in the place ordered to be searched, a
direction may be inserted in the
served, subject
10
to the statutory warrantsthatit be servedat anytime of
requirement fixing the maximum 11
theday or night;”
time for the execution of a warrant.
We have examined the application for But was the time during which the
12
search warrant, and the deposition of search was effected “reasonable?”
the witnesses supporting said Petitioner submits that 7:30 P.M. is
application,
13
and find that both a reasonable time for executing a
satisfactorily comply with the search warrant in the metropolis. We
find no reason to declare the contrary.
The exact time of the execution of a hamper law enforcement, but could
warrant should be left to the also lead to absurd results, enabling
discretion
15
of the law enforcement criminals to conceal their illegal
officers. And in judging the conduct activities by pursuing
16
such
of said officers, judicial notice may be activitiesonly at night.
taken not just of the realities of law The policy behind the prohibition of
enforcement, but also the prevailing nighttime searches in the absence of
conditions in the place to be searched. specific judicial authorization is to
We take judicial notice that 7:30 P.M. protect the public from 17the
in a suburban subdivision in Metro abrasiveness of official intrusions. A
Manila is an hour at which the nighttime 18search is a serious violation
residents are still up-and-about. To of privacy. In the instant case, there
hold said hour as an unreasonable is no showing that the search which
time to serve a warrant would not began at 7:30 P.M. caused an “abrupt
only intrusion 19upon sleeping residents in
the dark” or that it caused private
_______________ respondent’s family such prejudice as
to make the execution of the warrant
10 RULES OF COURT, Rule 126, Sec. 9. a voidable act. In finding that the
11 Simmons v. State, 286 P2d. 296. duration of the search could have
12 Supra Note 7,at 56. caused “inconvenience” for private
13 Id. at 57. respondent’s family, the appellate
14 State v. Eichhorn, 353 NE 2d 861. court resorted to surmises and
15 State v. Moreno, 222 Kan 149, 563 P2d conjectures. Moreover, no exact time
1056. limit can
20
be placed on the durationof a
search.
461 But was the witness-to-search rule
violated by the police officers who
VOL. 347, DECEMBER 8, 2000 461 conducted the search notwithstanding
the absence of private respondent and
People vs. Court of Appeals despite the refusal of the members of
his household to act as witnesses to 439, affd. 278 F2d 504, cert den 364 US 823, 5
the search? L.Ed. 2d 52, 81 S. Ct. 59.
The witness-to-search rule is 20 State v. Williams, 169 Conn 322,
embodied in Section 7 of Rule 126, 363A2d72.
which reads:
462
“Sec. 7. Search of house, room, or premise,
to be made in presence of two witnesses.—
No search of a house, room, or any other 462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
premise shall be made except in the
presence of the lawful occupant thereof or People vs. Court of Appeals
any member of his family or in the absence
of the latter, in the presence of two and maid refused. The regularity of
witnesses of sufficientage and discretion the search is best evidenced by the
residing in the same locality.” “Certification of Orderly Search” and
the receipt of the property seized
Petitioner submits that there was no signed by respondent’s wife.
violation of the aforementioned rule We find merit in the petitioner’s
since the searchers were justified in argument that private respondent’s
availing of two witnesses of sufficient wife had no justifiable reason to refuse
age and discretion, after respondent’s to be a witness to the search and that
wife her refusal to be a witness cannot
hamper the performance of official
_______________ duty. In the absence of the lawful
occupant of the premises or any
16 US v. Plemmons, 336 F2d 731.
member of his family, the witness-to-
17 State v. Schmeets, 278 NW 2d 401.
search rule allows the search to be
18 People v. Watson, 142 Cal. Rptr 245, 75 CA
made “in the presence of two
3d593.
witnesses of sufficient age and
19 US v. Young, 877 F2d 1099; US v. Escott,
discretion residing in the same
205 F. Supp. 196; US v. Joseph, 174 F. Supp.
locality.” There was no irregularity
when the PNP-CISC team asked the
bailiff of the Parañaque court and the Petition granted, judgment reversed
barangay security officer to act as and nullified.
witnesses to the search. To hold
otherwise would allow lawful searches Notes.—The place the police
to be frustrated by the mere refusal of officers have in mind in applying for a
those required by law to be witnesses. search warrant must be the same
In our view, the conduct of the place the Judge should have in mind
nighttime search was reasonable when he issues the warrant. (People
under the circumstances in this case. vs. Court of Appeals, 291 SCRA 400
The unlicensed firearms and [1998])
ammunition taken from private
463
respondent’s residence pursuant to
Search Warrant No. 92-94 are
admissible in evidence against private VOL. 347, DECEMBER 8, 2000 463
respondent. Ramoso vs. Courtof Appeals
WHEREFORE, the petition is
GRANTED. The assailed decision
The rule is that a description of a
dated September 24, 1994 of the Court
place to be searched is sufficient if the
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 30129 is
officer with the warrant can, with
REVERSED and NULLIFIED. The
reasonable effort, ascertain and
firearms and ammunition seized from
identify the place intended and
the residence of the Valentino C.
distinguish it from other places in the
Ortiz, pursuant to the search warrant
community. (Uy vs. Bureau of Internal
issued by the Metropolitan Trial Court
Revenue, 344 SCRA 36 [2000])
of Paranaque, dated August 13, 1992,
shall be admissible as evidence in ——o0o——
proceedings instituted by the State.
SO ORDERED.

          Bellosillo (Chairman),
Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr.; JJ.,
concur.
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.