A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense 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 things
to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. (ROC, Rule 126, § 4)

Particularity of Description

Purpose The evident purpose and intent of the requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those,
and only those, particularly described in the search warrant ± to leave the officers of the law with no
discretion regarding what articles they should seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures
may not be made and that abuses may not be committed. (People v. Go, G.R. No. 144639, Sept. 12,
2003)

Requirement is primarily meant to enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to:

● readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items;
● leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent
unreasonable searches and seizures [People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546- 47 (2003)].

The search warrant issued to search petitioner’s compound for unlicensed firearms was held invalid for
failing to describe the place with particularity, considering that the compound was made up of 200
buildings, 15 plants, 84 staff houses, one airstrip etc. spread out over 155 hectares [PICOP v. Asuncion,
G.R. No. 122092 (1999)].

A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the: Description
therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow [People v. Rubio, G.R. No. L- 35500
(1932)]; or Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law, by which the warrant officer may be
guided in making the search and seizure; or Things described are limited to those which bear direct
relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued [Bache and Co. v. Ruiz]

Test of Sufficiency

A description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable
effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community.
Any designation or description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all
others, and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement. (Laud v.
People, G.R. No. 199032, Nov. 19, 2014)

John Doe Search Warrants ± Exception, Not the Rule

John Doe search warrants should be the exception and not the rule. The police should particularly
describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized, wherever and whenever it is
feasible. The police should not be hindered in the performance of their duties, which are difficult
enough of performance under the best of conditions, by superficial adherence to technicality or
farfetched judicial interference. (People v. Veloso, G.R. No. L-23051, Oct. 20, 1925)

Cited in People vs. Veloso

We cannot entertain a doubt that the warrant on which the officer attempted to arrest one of the
defendant at the time of the alleged riot was insufficient, illegal and void. It did not contain the name of
the defendant, nor any description or designation by which he could be known and identified as the
person against whom it was issued. It was in effect a general warrant, upon which any other individual
might as well have been arrested, as being included in the description, as the defendant himself. Such a
warrant was contrary to elementary principles, and in direct violation of the constitutional right of the
citizen, as set forth in the Declaration of Rights, article 14, which declares that every subject has a right
to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, and that all warrants, therefore,
are contrary to this right, if the order in the warrant to a civil officer to arrest one or more suspected
persons or to seize their property be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or
objects of search, arrest or seizure. This is in fact only a declaration of an ancient common law right. It
was always necessary to express the name or give some description of a party to be arrested on a
warrant; and if one was granted with the name in blank, and without other designation of the person to
be arrested, it was void. (1 Hale P. C. 577. 2 Ib. 119. Foster, 312. 7 Dane Ab. 248. 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 39.
Mead vs. Haws, 7 Cow., 332, and cases cited.)

General Warrants are Void

A general warrant is defined as a search or arrest warrant that is not particular as to the person to be
arrested or the property to be seized. It is one that allows the seizure of one thing under a warrant
describing another and gives the officer executing the warrant the discretion over which items to take.
(Worldwide Web Corporation v. People, G.R. No. 161106, Jan. 13, 2014)

General warrants do not meet the requirement in Art. III, Sec. 1, of the Constitution, and of Sec. 3, Rule
126 of the Revised Rules of Court, that the warrant should particularly describe the things to be seized.
(Uy v. BIR, G.R. No. 129651, Oct. 20, 2000)

Search warrants require particular descriptions of the places to be searched and things to be seized in
order to limit the discretion of the law enforcement officers in implementing these warrants. Further,
when the implementation of the search warrant for a drug-related offense does not comply with Section
21 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, the evidence seized in the
resulting search is inadmissible. ([G.R. No. 224935. March 02, 2022 ANTONIO U. SIO, VS. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES)

A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing
expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime."40 Neither
the police officers nor the prosecution have been able to explain these inconsistencies, which have
enlarged the scope of the search warrant beyond what had been applied for and granted by the judge.
Such enlargement of scope leads to an overbroad discretion granted to law enforcement, defeating the
purpose of the specificity required of search warrants. People v. Go, 457 Phil. 885 (2003)

The particularity of the place described is essential in the issuance of search warrants to avoid the
exercise by the enforcing officers of discretion to decide on their own where to search and whom and
what to seize. People v. Francisco, 436 Phil 383, 393 (2002)
"Additionally, the requisite of particularity is related to the probable cause requirement in that, at least
under some circumstances, the lack of a more specific description will make it apparent that there has
not been a sufficient showing to the [court] that the described items are to be found in a particular
place." (Paper Industries Corp. of the Phils. v. Asuncion, 366 Phil. 717, 737 (1999)

In the present case, the assailed search warrant failed to described the place with particularly. It simply
authorizes a search of "the aforementioned premises," but it did not specify such premises. The warrant
identifies only one place, and that is the "Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines, located at
PICOP Compound, Barangay Tabon, Bislig[,] Surigao del Sur." The PICOP compound, however, is made
up of "200 offices/building, 15 plants, 84 staff houses, 1 airstrip, 3 piers/wharves, 23 warehouses, 6 POL
depots/quick service outlets and some 800 miscellaneous structures, all of which are spread out over
some one hundred fifty-five hectares." 36 Obviously, the warrant gives the police officers unbridled and
thus illegal authority to search all the structures found inside the PICOP compound.

Wharton's Criminal Procedure. In that text at pages 51, 52, 54, 55, and 56 of volume 1 of the Tenth
Edition, is found the following: cited in People vs. Veloso GR L-23051

Form and Sufficiency of Warrant. Technical accuracy is not required

Name and description of the accused should be inserted in the body of the warrant and where the name
is unknown there must be such a description of the person accused as will enable the officer to identify
him when found.

xxx xxx xxx

Warrant for apprehension of unnamed party, or containing a wrong name for the party to be
apprehended is void, except in those cases where it contains a descriptio personae such as will enable
the officer to identify the accused.

It follows, on principle, from what has already been said regarding the essential requirements of
warrants for the apprehension of persons accused, and about blank warrants, that a warrant for the
apprehension of a person whose true name is unknown, by the name of "John Doe" or "Richard Roe,"
"whose other or true name in unknown," is void, without other and further descriptions of the person to
be apprehended, and such warrant will not justify the officer in acting under it. Such a warrant must, in
addition, contain the best descriptio personae possible to be obtained of the person or persons to be
apprehended, and this description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper person or persons
upon whom the warrant is to be served; and should state his personal appearance and peculiarities, give
his occupation and place of residence, and any other circumstances by means of which he can be
identified.

We cannot entertain a doubt that the warrant on which the officer attempted to arrest one of the
defendant at the time of the alleged riot was insufficient, illegal and void. It did not contain the name of
the defendant, nor any description or designation by which he could be known and identified as the
person against whom it was issued. It was in effect a general warrant, upon which any other individual
might as well have been arrested, as being included in the description, as the defendant himself. Such a
warrant was contrary to elementary principles, and in direct violation of the constitutional right of the
citizen, as set forth in the Declaration of Rights, article 14, which declares that every subject has a right
to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, and that all warrants, therefore,
are contrary to this right, if the order in the warrant to a civil officer to arrest one or more suspected
persons or to seize their property be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or
objects of search, arrest or seizure. This is in fact only a declaration of an ancient common law right. It
was always necessary to express the name or give some description of a party to be arrested on a
warrant; and if one was granted with the name in blank, and without other designation of the person to
be arrested, it was void. (1 Hale P. C. 577. 2 Ib. 119. Foster, 312. 7 Dane Ab. 248. 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 39.
Mead vs. Haws, 7 Cow., 332, and cases cited.) United States Supreme Court, is the case of
Commonwealth vs. Crotty ([1865], 10 Allen [Mass.], 403) cited in People vs. Veloso GR L-23051

This rule or principle does not prevent the issue and service of a warrant against a party whose name is
unknown. In such case the best description possible of the person to be arrested is to be given in the
warrant; but it must be sufficient to indicate clearly on whom it is to be served, by stating his
occupation, his personal appearance and peculiarities, the place of his residence, or other circumstances
by which he can be identified. (1 Chit. Crim. Law, 39, 40.)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TIU WON CHUA A.K.A. "TIMOTHY TIU" AND
QUI YALING Y CHUA A.K.A. "SUN TEE SY Y CHUA," G.R. No. 149878. July 01, 2003

In fact, a "John Doe" warrant satisfies the requirements so long as it contains a descriptio personae such
as will enable the officer to identify the accused. [10] We have also held that a mistake in the identification
of the owner of the place does not invalidate the warrant provided the place to be searched is properly
described.[11]

Thus, even if the search warrant used by the police authorities did not contain the correct name of Tiu
Won or the name of Qui Yaling, that defect did not invalidate it because the place to be searched was
described properly. Besides, the authorities conducted surveillance and a test-buy operation before
obtaining the search warrant and subsequently implementing it. They can therefore be presumed to
have personal knowledge of the identity of the persons and the place to be searched although they may
not have specifically known the names of the accused. Armed with the warrant, a valid search of Unit 4-
B was conducted.