1. Rules On Arrest,
Search And Seizure

2. Art. III, Sec. 2 of the CONSTITUTION provides:
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.

3. “To be valid, searches must proceed from a warrant issued by a judge. While there are exceptions to this rule,
warrantless searches can only be carried out when founded on probable cause, or "a reasonable ground of
suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe
that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged." There must be a confluence of
several suspicious circumstances. A solitary tip hardly suffices as probable cause; items seized during
warrantless searches based on solitary tips are inadmissible as evidence.” – ( People vs Sison, et. al., G.R.
No. 238453, July 31, 2019)
WHAT IS A SEARCH WARRANT?
A search warrant is an order in writing, issued in the name
of the People of the Philippine Islands, signed by a judge
or a justice of the peace, and directed to a peace officer,
commanding him to search for personal property and
bring it before the court. [Alvarez vs. Court of First
Instance of Tayabas, G.R. No. 45358, 29 January 1937]

4. WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF A VALID SEARCH WARRANT?
The requisites are:
a. There must be probable cause;
b. The probable cause must be determined personally by a judge;
c. It must be issued after examination, under oath or affirmation, of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce;
d. The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized
What is PROBABLE CAUSE?
Probable cause refers to 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 sought to be searched.

5. RULE 126, REVISED RULES OF COURT
SEC. 5. Examination of complainant; record. —The judge must, before issuing the warrant,
personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath,
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and
attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted. (4a)
SEC. 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. —If the judge is satisfied of the existence of
facts upon which the application is based or that there is probable cause to believe that they
exist, he shall issue the warrant, which must be substantially in the form prescribed by these
Rules. (5a)
SEC. 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. (6)

6. SEC. 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. (7a)
WHAT ARE THE PROPERTIES WHICH MAY BE SEIZED UNDER A SEARCH WARRANT?
The properties subject of seizure under Rule 126, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court are:
a. Subject of the offense;
b. Stolen or embezzled property and other fruits or proceeds of the offense; and
c. Property used or intended to be used as a means for the commission of an offense.
SEC. 9. Time of making search.—The warrant must direct that it be served in the day time,
unless the affidavit asserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be
searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or
night. (8)

7. SEC. 10. Validity of search warrant.—A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its
date. Thereafter, it shall be void. (9a)
SEC. 11. Receipt for the property seized.—The officer seizing property under the warrant
must give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose
presence the search and seizure were made, or in the absence of such occupant, must, in the
presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same
locality, leave a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property. (10a)
SEC. 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and proceedings thereon.
—(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together
with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath.
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance .of the search warrant, the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has
been made, and if none, shall summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to
explain why no return was made. If the return has been made, the judge shall ascertain whether section
11 of this Rule has been complied with and shall require that the property seized be delivered to him. The
judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of the log book on search
warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return, the result, and other actions of the judge
A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court. (11a)

8. WHO MAY APPLY FOR AND WHO MAY ISSUE SW:
•Marimla versus People, G.R. No. 158467, 16 Oct. 2009
Administrative Matter No. 99-10-09-SC
Resolution Clarifying the Guidelines on the Application for the Enforceability of Search Warrants
In the interest of an effective administration of justice and pursuant to the powers vested in the Supreme Court by the
Constitution, the following are authorized to act on all applications for search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal
gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms.
The Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of Regional Trial Courts, Manila and Quezon City filed by the
Philippine National Police (PNP), the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task
Force (PAOC-TF) and the Reaction Against Crime Task Force (REACT-TF) with the Regional Trial Courts of Manila and
Quezon City.
The applications shall be personally endorsed by the Heads of the said agencies, for the search of places to be
particularly described therein, and the seizure of property of things as prescribed in the Rules of Court, and to issue the
warrants of arrest, if justified, which may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction of said courts.
The authorized judges shall keep a special docket book listing the details of the applications and the result of the
searches and seizures made pursuant to the warrants issued.
This Resolution is effective immediately and shall continue until further orders from this Court and shall be an
exemption to the provisions of Circular No. 13 dated 1 October 1985 and Circular No. 19 dated 4 August 1987. x x x

9. A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
Rule 126
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Sec. 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. – An application for search warrant shall be filed with the
following:
(a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed.
(b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if
the place of the commission of the crime is known, or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be
enforced.
However, if the criminal action has already been filed, the application shall only be made in the court where the criminal
action is pending.
From the above, it may be seen that A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC authorizes the Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of
the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City to act on all applications for search warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal
gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms on application filed by the PNP, NBI, PAOC-TF, and REACT-TF.
On the other hand, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that the application for search warrant
shall be filed with: (a) any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed, and (b) for compelling
reasons, any court within the judicial region where the crime was committed if the place of the commission of the crime is
known, or any court within the judicial region where the warrant shall be enforced.

10. Petitioners contend that the application for search warrant was defective. They aver that
the application for search warrant filed by SI Lagasca was not personally endorsed by the
NBI Head, Director Wycoco, but instead endorsed only by Deputy Director Nasol and that
while SI Lagasca declared that Deputy Director Nasol was commissioned to sign the
authorization letter in behalf of Director Wycoco, the same was not duly substantiated.
Petitioners conclude that the absence of the signature of Director Wycoco was a fatal
defect that rendered the application on the questioned search warrant void per se, and the
issued search warrant null and void "because the spring cannot rise above its source."
We disagree. Nothing in A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC prohibits the heads of the PNP, NBI, PAOC-
TF and REACT-TF from delegating their ministerial duty of endorsing the application for
search warrant to their assistant heads. Under Section 31, Chapter 6, Book IV of the
Administrative Code of 1987, an assistant head or other subordinate in every bureau may
perform such duties as may be specified by their superior or head, as long as it is not
inconsistent with law. The said provision reads:
XXX-XXX-XXX

11. WHEN ARE CHECKPOINTS ALLOWED
•Valmonte versus de Villa, GR 83988, 24 May 1990
In the case of Valmonte vs. De Villa, the Supreme Court had the occasion to rule that
checkpoints are not illegal per se. Thus, under exceptional circumstances, as where the
survival of organized government is on the balance, or where the lives and safety of the
people are in grave peril, checkpoints may be allowed and installed by the government.
Routine inspection and a few questions do not constitute unreasonable searches. If the
inspection becomes more thorough to the extent of becoming a search, this can be done
when there is deemed to be probable cause. In the latter situation, it is justifiable as a
warrantless search of a moving vehicle.
For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search,
and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot be
regarded as violative of an individual’s right against unreasonable search.

12. IS IT REQUIRED THAT THE PROPERTY TO BE SEARCHED SHOULD BE OWNED BY THE
PERSON AGAINST WHOM THE SEARCH WARRANT IS DIRECTED?
No. In Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP [133 SCRA 800], the Supreme Court enunciated
that it is sufficient that the property is under the control or possession of the person sought
to be searched.
SHOULD THE ADDRESS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT MATCH THE ACTUAL PLACE TO BE
SEARCHED?
Yes, the address in the search warrant must match the actual place to be searched. In
People vs. Court of Appeals [ 291 SCRA 400], the Supreme Court ruled that the place to be
searched, as set out in the warrant, cannot be amplified or modified by the officers’ own
personal knowledge of the premises, or the evidence they adduced in support of their
application for the warrant. The particularization of the description of the place to be
searched may properly be done only by the Judge, and only in the warrant itself; it cannot
be left to the discretion of the police officers conducting the search.

13. What are the instances when a search may be made without a warrant?
a. When there is a valid waiver of the right
b. Where the search is incidental to a valid arrest
c. Where the prohibited articles are in plain view. An example of such situation is when a
policeman is chasing a criminal and during the said chase, the policeman stumbled upon a drug
den where drugs and paraphernalia were scattered around.
d. In Stop and frisk situations or pursuant to a Terry Search. In the US case of Terry vs. Ohio, a
Terry Search has been defined as the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
interrogate him and pat him for weapons whenever he observes unusual conduct which leads
him to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot.
e. Search of moving vehicles
f. Enforcement of immigration and customs law
g. Search under exigent and emergency measures

14. WARRANTLESS SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST
This is recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, and by prevailing
jurisprudence. In searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search; generally,
the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially contemporaneous with an
arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of
the search.
The Constitution does not forbid warrantless search; it only forbids unreasonable search. The Rules
of Court, Rule 126, Section 13, allows a warrantless search, provided it is incident to a lawful arrest.
The law provides: "A person lawfully arrested maybe searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search
warrant.“
To be valid, the search must have been conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately
thereafter, and only at the place where the suspect was arrested, or the premises or surroundings
under his immediate control.
A valid arrest must precede the search, not vice versa. One exception to the rule on search is waiver
by the suspect. For example, where the shabu was discovered by virtue of a valid warrantless
search, and the accused himself freely gave his consent to the search, the prohibited drugs found as
a result were inadmissible as evidence.

15. SEIZURE OF EVIDENCE IN “PLAIN VIEW”
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has
a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be
presented as evidence. The plain view doctrine applies when the following
requisites concur:
1. law enforcement officers in search of evidence have a prior justification for an
intrusion or are in a position from which they can view a particular area;
2. the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and
3. it is immediately apparent to the officers that the item they observed may be
evidence of a crime, a contraband or is otherwise subject to seizure.

16. Seizure of prohibited articles in plain view. The seizure should comply with the following requirements:
1. A prior valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest, in which the police are legally present in the
pursuit of their official duties.
2. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are.
3. The evidence must be immediately apparent.
4. Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.

17. SEARCH OF A MOVING VEHICLE
The rules governing search of a moving vehicle have over the years been steadily liberalized whenever a moving
vehicle is the object of the search on the basis of practicality. This is so considering that before a warrant can be
obtained, the place, things and persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing judge – a
requirement that borders on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected by the use of a moving vehicle that can
transport contraband from one place to another with impunity. Further, a warrantless search of a moving vehicle is
justified on the ground that it is not practicable to secure a warrant, because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of
the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant is sought. The mere mobility of these vehicles, however, does not give
the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct indiscriminate searches without warrants if made within the interior of
the territory and in the absence of probable cause; still and all, the important thing is that there is probable cause to
conduct the warrantless search.

18. CONSENTED WARRANTLESS SEARCH
It is fundamental that to constitute a waiver, it must first appear that (1) the right exists; (2) the person involved had
knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of this right; and (3) that person had an actual intention to
relinquish the right.
STOP AND FRISK
A “stop and frisk” situation, also known as the Terry search, refers to a case in which a police officer approaches a person
who is acting suspiciously for the purpose of investigating possible criminal behavior, in line with the general interest of
effective crime prevention and detection. The objective of a stop and frisk search is either to determine the identity of a
suspicious individual or to maintain the status quo momentarily while the police officer seeks to obtain more information.
A basic criterion is that the police officers, with their personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the suspicion
of an illicit act. The concept of “suspiciousness” must be present in the situation in which the police officers find
themselves in.

19. EXIGENT AND EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES
The doctrine of “exigent circumstance” was applied in People v. De Gracia which was decided during a
time of general chaos and disorder brought about by the coup d’etat attempts of certain rightist
elements. Appellant was convicted of illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion. He was
arrested during a warrantless raid conducted by the military operatives inside the Eurocar building,
wherein they were able to find and confiscate high-powered bombs, firearms, and other ammunition.
According to the military, they were not able to secure a search warrant due to ongoing disorder, with
Camp Aguinaldo being “mopped up” by the rebel forces and the simultaneous firing within the vicinity
of the Eurocar building, aside from the fact that the courts were consequently closed.
Admittedly, the absence of a search warrant was not squarely put into issue. Nevertheless, the Court
proceeded to delve into the legality of the raid due to the gravity of the offense involved. The Court
then analyzed the context, taking into consideration the following facts: (1) the raid was precipitated
by intelligence reports and surveillance on the ongoing rebel activities in the building; (2) the
presence of an unusual quantity of high-powered firearms and explosives in a automobile sales office
could not be justified; (3) there was an ongoing chaos at that time because of the simultaneous and
intense firing within the vicinity of the office and in the nearby Camp Aguinaldo which was under
attack by rebel forces; and (4) the courts in the surrounding areas were obviously closed and, for that
matter, the building and houses therein were deserted.

20. The Court ruled that the “case falls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition against a warrantless search. In the first
place, the military operatives, taking into account the facts obtaining in this case, had reasonable ground to believe that a
crime was being committed. There was consequently more than sufficient probable cause to warrant their action. Furthermore,
under the situation then prevailing, the raiding team had no opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant from the
courts. The trial judge himself manifested that on December 5, 1989 when the raid was conducted, his court was closed. Under
such urgency and exigency of the moment, a search warrant could lawfully be dispensed with.”

21. Generally speaking, for there to be a lawful arrest, law enforcers must be armed with a valid
warrant of arrest.
The warrant of arrest is issued by the judge upon filing by the public prosecutor of an information
in court, presupposing that the public prosecutor had found probable cause to bring the
respondent to trial after conduct of preliminary investigation.
This largely springs from the constitutional provision, under Section 2, Article III (Bill of Rights) of
the 1987 Constitution that 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.

22. The GENERAL RULE is this — no arrests and search/seizure could be made without a warrant.
However, there are exceptions:
Under the Rules of Court, Rule 113, Section 5, a warrantless arrest, also known as "citizen’s arrest,"
is lawful under three circumstances:
1. When, in the presence of the policeman, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. This is the "IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO" rule.
2. When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe, based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it.
This is the "HOT PURSUIT" arrest rule.
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment.

23. IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO warrantless arrest should comply with the element of immediacy between the
time of the offense and the time of the arrest. For example, in one case the Supreme Court held that when
the warrantless arrest was made three months after the crime was committed, the arrest was unconstitutional
and illegal.
If an accused is caught in flagrante delicto, the warrantless arrest is lawful and the evidence obtained in a
search incidental to the arrest is admissible as evidence. One common example of a warrantless arrest is a
buy bust operation.
An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer when the officer sees the offense,
although at a distance; or hears the disturbance that it creates and proceeds at once to the scene.
If the warrantless arrest turns out to be unlawful, still the court is capable of assuming jurisdiction over the
accused. Any objection to the court’s jurisdiction is waived, when the person arrested submits to
arraignment without any objection.
The test of in flagrante delicto arrest is that the suspect was acting under circumstances reasonably tending
to show that he has committed or is about to commit a crime. Evidence of guilt is not necessary. It is enough
if there is probable cause. For example, if there was a prior arrangement to deliver shabu inside a hotel, the
immediate warrantless arrest of the accused upon his entry in the hotel room is valid. By contrast, the
discovery of marked money on the accused does not justify a warrantless arrest.

24. For an in flagrante delicto arrest under paragraph (a) to be valid:
First, the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he or she has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and,
Second, such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
There must be probable cause to effect the in flagrante delicto arrest, referring to those facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. After a valid warrantless arrest is effected,
the officer may also conduct a valid warrantless search, which is in incidental to such arrest.
To illustrate requirement that the overt act must be witnessed by the arresting officer, the court
invalidated the arrest of the accused when evidence showed the arresting officer was 5 to 10 meters
away when a supposedly illegal drug sale transaction supposedly took place.
Due to the considerable distance away from the alleged criminal transaction and the atomity of the
object thereof or white crystalline substance contained in a plastic sachet, the court found it highly
doubtful that said arresting officer was able to reasonably ascertain that any criminal activity was
ongoing (Sindac vs. People, G.R. No. 220732, September 06, 2016).

25. In the case of People vs. Racho (G.R. No. 186529, August 3, 2010), acting on a tip of an informant
that a person fitting appellant’s description was in possession of illegal drugs, the police officers
approached the appellant after he had alighted the bus and invited him to the police station since he
was suspected of having shabu in his possession.
The court observed that the accused was not “committing a crime in the presence of the police
officers” at the time he was apprehended. The arrest was based solely on a tip received by the
officers that a person fitting appellant’s description as in possession of illegal drugs.
While the court recognized jurisprudence that deems “reliable information” sufficient to justify a
search incident to a lawful warrantless arrest, the long standing rule is that “reliable information”
alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest.
In addition, the accused should have been performing some overt act that would indicate that he has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Hence, the in flagrante
delicto arrest was infirm.

26. Under the rule on "HOT PURSUIT" arrest, the policeman should have personal knowledge that the
suspect committed the crime. The test is probable cause, which the Supreme Court has defined as "an
actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.“
Under this rule, the policeman does not need to actually witness the execution or acts constituting the
offense. But he must have direct knowledge, or view of the crime, right after its commission.
In a hot pursuit arrest, the clincher in the element of ”personal knowledge of facts or circumstances” is
the required component of immediacy within which these facts or circumstances should be gathered.
This required time element acts as a safeguard to ensure that the police officers have gathered the facts
or perceived the circumstances within a very limited time frame. The reason for immediacy is the
consideration that, as the time gap from the commission of the crime to the arrest widens, the pieces of
information gathered are prone to become contaminated and subjected to external factors,
interpretations and hearsay (Pestilos vs. Generoso, supra). If there was an appreciable lapse of time
between the arrest and the commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured.

27. Instances where a hot pursuit arrest has been invalidated include one where, on the basis
of the supposed identification of witnesses, there was an attempt to arrest two suspects
three days after the commission of the crime. With this set of facts, it cannot be said that
the officers have personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the persons sought to
be arrested committed the crime. Hence, the Court invalidated the warrantless arrest
(Posadas v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 131492, September 29, 2000).
In another instance, the arrest was made only a day after the commission of the crime and
not immediately thereafter. They became aware of the respondent’s identity as the driver of
the getaway vehicle only during the custodial investigation following his arrest, hence, the
police had no personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested had
committed the offense (People v. del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999).

28. A.M. 21-06-08
Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the Execution of Warrants
In the light of the alarming reports on extrajudicial killings and arbitrary arrests in connection
with the execution of warrants issued by trial courts, the Supreme Court (SC) issued last 29
June 2021 and published last 9 July 2021, the Rules on the Use of Body-Worn Cameras in the
Execution of Warrants (A.M. 21-06-08). The Rules apply to all applications, issuances, and
executions of arrest and search warrants, as well as warrantless arrests under the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure.
According to the SC, the use of body-worn cameras in serving warrants promotes transparency
and protects the constitutional rights of individuals on arrest, search and seizure.
These cameras produce video and audio recordings, which do not only prevent law enforcers
from excessively using force in the execution of warrants, but also aid the courts in resolving
issues that may become relevant in criminal cases, such as in cases of conflicting eyewitness
accounts.

29. (ARREST WARRANTS)
The Rules require law enforcers to have at least one body-worn camera and one alternative recording device, or a
minimum of two devices during the execution of warrants. The officers using body-worn cameras must wear the devices
in a conspicuous location and in a manner that maximizes their ability to capture a recording of the arrest.
In case of the unavailability of body-worn cameras, the implementing officer must file an ex parte motion before the
court, requiring the authority to use an alternative device for justifiable reasons. For an alternative recording device to
be used as a functional equivalent, the Rules provide minimum standard requirements on video resolution, frame rate,
and battery life among others.
Upon making an arrest by virtue of a warrant, the enforcer wearing the devices shall immediately notify the person to be
arrested that he is arresting the person by virtue of a warrant, and that the arrest is being recorded.
All recordings from the devices shall be stored in an external media storage device and surrendered to the issuing
court. The manner of recording shall be detailed in an affidavit to be submitted by the enforcer to the court. Failure to
timely file the affidavit may hold the enforcer liable for contempt.
Failure to observe the requirement of using the devices does not render the arrest unlawful or the evidence obtained
inadmissible. Testimonies of arresting officers, those arrested, and other witnesses may prove the executed warrant.
Except in cases where the devices were not activated due to malfunction that the enforcer was not aware of prior to the
incident, an enforcer who fails to use the devices without reasonable grounds, or intentionally interferes with the ability
of the camera to accurately record the arrest or search warrants, or manipulate the recordings may be held liable for
contempt.

30. (SEARCH WARRANTS)
For application for search warrants, the Rules require the applicant to state the availability of
body-worn cameras to be used in the execution of the search warrant. In case of unavailability,
the applicant may request to use alternative recording devices.
Similar to the rule on executing arrest warrants, upon conducting a search by virtue of a warrant,
the enforcer wearing the devices shall immediately notify the lawful occupants of the premises to
be searched, that the execution of the search warrant is being recorded and they are conducting
a search pursuant to a lawful warrant.
Unlike in cases of arrest warrants, failure to observe the requirement of using the devices without
reasonable grounds during the execution of the search warrant shall render the evidence
obtained inadmissible for prosecution of the offense.
In addition to the grounds provided under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion to
suppress evidence may be filed by a person searched if the search fails to comply with the use of
body-worn cameras or alternative recording devices without any reasonable ground.