Dear PAO,

My son was arrested when several police officers implemented a search warrant in his house and allegedly found prohibited drugs and drug paraphernalia. We recently discovered that the supporting documents for the search warrant were not part of the court records. The court reasoned that they needed to protect the identities of the confidential informants and witnesses presented by the police in applying for the search warrant. Is the refusal of the court to disclose the warrant’s supporting documents correct?

JB

Dear JB,

The right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a constitutionally protected right. Section 14, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides:

“Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

“(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.”

In consonance to this is the right of the accused against unreasonable searches and seizures. As a result, the issuance of a search warrant must be premised on a finding of probable cause, which refers to the existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched. Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution 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 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.”

The fundamental right of the accused against unreasonable searches and seizures is of paramount importance. The issuance of search warrants must conform to the constitutional requirements and after a valid determination of probable cause. In the case of Zafe III vs. People (G.R. No. 226993, 03 May 2021, Ponente: Associate Justice Marvic M. V. F. Leonen), the Court ruled:

“Ideally, compliance with the examination requirement is shown by the depositions and the transcript. In their absence, however, a warrant may still be upheld if there is evidence in the records that the requisite examination was made and probable cause as based thereon. There must be, in the records, particular facts and circumstances that were considered by the judge as sufficient make an independent evaluation of the existence of probable cause to justify the issuance of the search warrant.

“There must at least be some record of the facts considered in determining probable cause. As held in Lim, ‘the warrant issues not on the strength of the certification standing alone but because of the records which sustain it.’ Thus, the validity of a judge’s finding of probable cause rests on the adequacy of the factual basis that supports it. xxx

“The need to protect the identities of the confidential informants cannot negate the due process rights of a person facing a criminal prosecution:

“In any event, the State’s interest in protecting the identities of confidential informants cannot outweigh the constitutional rights of the accused. In People v. Otico, while this Court ruled for the prosecution despite the non-presentation of a confidential informant, it reiterated its concerns on the use of confidential informants in narcotics operations:

“Indeed, while the assistance of confidential informants or civilian agents is acknowledged to be invaluable, the Court is nevertheless aware of the pitfalls of the confidential informant system. Xxx”

Thus, the court’s refusal to furnish your son with the supporting documents of the search warrant issued against him may be considered a violation of his right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Your son should be given the opportunity to examine the warrant’s supporting documents, or to records which would show how the judge arrived at the conclusion to issue a warrant, which led to his subsequent arrest and criminal prosecution.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]