Respondents to complaints raised by the government’s corporate watchdog to the Department of Justice (DOJ) have questioned in court the legality of a search warrant obtained by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for SEC and the regularity of its execution.
Rufina Abad, one of several individuals and corporations subjected to an SEC investigation, and against whom a search warrant was issued in connection with alleged violations of SEC 28 of Republic Act 8799, has filed with a Makati court a motion to quash/annul the search warrant it issued.
Through counsel Ronald Olivar Solis, Abad has impugned the search warrant used in the seizure from her of 129 boxes containing office documents.
According to Solis, a search warrant can only be issued upon "probable cause in connection with one specific offense." The seized documents included telephone bills of company calls to clients, list of brokers and employee files, sale agreements, official receipts, credit advice, fax messages, client message slips, company brochures, letterheads, envelopes, management structure of brokers, offshore incorporation papers, lease contracts, vouchers and ledgers. But these could be inadmissible and therefore null and void, it was noted.
The motion to quash, assailed Search Warrant 01-118 for being issued not in connection with an indeterminate number of offenses, a clear violation of the rule.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, Solis said the rationale for this rule is to protect the sanctity of the domicile and private communication and correspondence against the whims, caprice or passion of peace officers. This is a matter also enshrined in the fundamental law of the land, the Constitution. The Supreme Court has in fact, bolstered this statute by adding that "no search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense."
Accordingly, SW 01-118 must be voided because it is a general warrant that authorizes the seizure of documents and records showing practically all the business transactions of the respondents, regardless of whether the transactions are legal or illegal. This points to the obvious defects of the warrant, the motion to quash claimed.