“Government agents who seek to legally effect a search warrant must comply with the provisions of the Rules of Court, specifically Rule 128, Sections 7 and 8:
SECTION 7. Right to Break Door or Window to Effect Search. — The officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein,
SECTION 8. Search of House, Room, or Premises to Be Made in Presence of Two Witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
Rule 126, Section 7 of the Rules of Court lays down the preliminary acts that must be accomplished before an officer’s right to break open doors or windows is triggered. In doing so, it effectively provides a roadmap that government agents must follow for the proper implementation of search warrants, i.e. giving notice of their purpose and authority and requesting admittance to the place to be searched.
This analysis is consistent this Court’s discussion in People v. Huang Zhen Hua, where the requirements of a valid execution of a search warrant were discussed, It was also explained that the requirements protect not only the person being served with a warrant, but the government agents seeking to implement it to avoid the possibility of violence due to an unannounced intrusion. However, this Court acknowledged that certain conditions may justify the government agents’ unannounced intrusion. As held in this case:
The police officers were obliged to give the appellant notice, show to her their authority and demand that they allowed entry. Then may only break open any outer or inner door or window of a house to execute the search warrant if. Aster 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 importtant consideration in assessing whether subsequent entry to search and//or arrest is constitutionally reasonable.
. . .
Generally, officers implementing a search warrant must announce their presence, identify themselves to the accused and to the persons who rightfully have possession of the premises to be searched, and show to them the search warrant to be implemented by them and explain to them said warrant is a language or dialect known to and understood by them. The requirement is not a mere procedural formality but is of the essence of the substantial provision which safeguards individual liberty. No precise form of words is required. It is sufficient that the accused has notice of the officers, their authority and the purpose of the search and the object to be seized. It must be emphasized that the notice requirement is designed not only for the protection of the liberty of the person to be searched or of his property but also the safety and well-being of the officers serving and implementing the search warrant. Unless the person to whom the warrant is addressed and whose property is to be searched is notified of the search warrant and apprised of the authority of the person serving the warrant, he may consider the unannounced intrusion into the premises as an unlawful aggression on his property which he will be justified in resisting, and in the process, may cause injury even to the life of the officer implementing the search warrant for which he would not be criminally liable. Also, there is a very real possibility that the police serving and implementing the search warrant may be misinformed as to the name or address of the suspect, or to other material affirmations. Innocent citizens should not suffer the shock, fright, shame or embarrassment attendant upon an unannounced intrusion. Indeed, a lawful entry is the indispensable predicate of a reasonable search. A search would violate the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable if the entry were illegal, whether accomplished by force, or by threat or show of force or obtained by stealth, or coercion.
Unannounced intrusion into the premises is permissible when (a) a party whose premises or is entitled to the possession thereof refuses, upon demand, to open it; (b) when such person in the premises already knew of the identity of the officers and of their authority and persons; (c) when the officers are justified in the honest belief that there is an imminent peril to life or limb; and (d) when those in the premies, aware of the presence of someone outside (because, for example, there has been a knock at the door), are then engaged in activity which justifies the officer to believe that an escape or the destruction of evidence is being attempted. Suspects have no constitutional right to destroy evidence or dispose of evidence. However, the exceptions above are not exclusive or conclusive. At times, without the benefit of hindsight and ordinarily on the spur of the moment, the officer must decide whether or not to make an unannounced intrusion into the premises. Although a search and seizure of a dwelling might be constitutionally defective, if the police officers’ entry was without prior announcement, law enforcement interest may also establish the reasonableness of an unannounced entry. Indeed, there is no formula for the determination of reasonableness. Each case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstance. In determining the lawfulness of an unallowed entry and the existence of probable cause, the courts are concerned only with what the officers had reason to believe and the time of the entry. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
The procedure is clear: government agents must “announce their presence, identify themselves to the accused and to the persons who rightfully have possession of the premises to be searched, and show them the search warrant to be implemented by them and explain to them said warrant in a language or dialect known to and understood by them. If the government agents are refused entry despite their compliance, then they have the right to break open doors or windows. Further, government agents may execute an unannounced under limited circumstances.
Regarding the conduct of the search, Rule 126, Section 8 0f the Rules of Court provides a hierarchy of who are prioritized as witnesses. This witness must either be the lawful occupant of the premises to be searched or any 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 as witnesses. Corollarily, a search where the “witnesses prescribed by law are prevented from actually observing and monitoring the search of the premises, violates both the spirit and letter of the law and renders the search unreasonable.”
PEOPLE v. ENRIQUEZ, G.R. No. 264473, August 7, 2024