Section 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. — 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.

A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense.
Search warrant struck down for non-compliance with the "one specific offense" 

 ■  The search warrant was issued for four separate and distinct offenses of : (1) estafa, (2) falsification, (3) tax evasion and (4) insurance fraud, in contravention of the explicit command of Section 3, Rule 126, of the Rules providing that: "no search warrant shall issue for more than one specific offense." (Asian Surety vs Herrera, G.R. No. L-25232, December 20, 1973)
■ Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 was issued for" [v]iolation of Sec. 46(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code in relation to all other pertinent provisions thereof particularly Secs. 53, 72, 73, 208 and 209." The question is: Was the said search warrant issued "in connection with one specific offense," as required by Sec. 3, Rule 126? [now Sec. 4, Rule 126]

To arrive at the correct answer it is essential to examine closely the provisions of the Tax Code referred to above.

The search warrant in question was issued for at least four distinct offenses under the Tax Code. The first is the violation of Sec. 46(a), Sec. 72 and Sec. 73 (the filing of income tax returns), which are interrelated. The second is the violation of Sec. 53 (withholding of income taxes at source). The third is the violation of Sec. 208 (unlawful pursuit of business or occupation); and the fourth is the violation of Sec. 209 (failure to make a return of receipts, sales, business or gross value of output actually removed or to pay the tax due thereon). Even in their classification the six above-mentioned provisions are embraced in two different titles: Secs. 46(a), 53, 72 and 73 are under Title II (Income Tax); while Secs. 208 and 209 are under Title V (Privilege Tax on Business and Occupation). (Bache & Co. (Phil.) vs Ruiz, G.R. No. L-32409. February 27, 1971)
When specific section of the Dangerous Drugs Act is not pinpointed

 ■ While it is true that the caption of the search warrant states that it is in connection with Violation of R.A. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, it is clearly recited in the text thereof that There is probable cause to believe that Adolfo Olaes alias Debie and alias Baby of No. 628 Comia St., Filtration, Sta. Rita, Olongapo City, has in their possession and control and custody of marijuana dried stalks/leaves/seeds/cigarettes and other regulated/prohibited and exempt narcotics preparations which is the subject of the offense stated above. Although the specific section of the Dangerous Drugs Act is not pinpointed, there is no question at all of the specific offense alleged to have been committed as a basis for the finding of probable cause. (People vs Salanguit, G.R. Nos. 133254-55, April 19, 2001 citing Olaes vs People)


When the offenses are so related as to be subsumed within the same category, only one warrant is necessary 

 ■ In People v. Dichoso the search warrant was also for Violation of R.A. 6425, without specifying what provisions of the law were violated, and it authorized the search and seizure of dried marijuana leaves and methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and sets of paraphernalias (sic). This Court, however, upheld the validity of the warrant:

 Appellants contention that the search warrant in question was issued for more than (1) offense, hence, in violation of Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, is unpersuasive. He engages in semantic juggling by suggesting that since illegal possession of shabu, illegal possession of marijuana and illegal possession of paraphernalia are covered by different articles and sections of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, the search warrant is clearly for more than one (1) specific offense. In short, following this theory, there should have been three (3) separate search warrants, one for illegal possession of shabu, the second for illegal possession of marijuana and the third for illegal possession of paraphernalia. This argument is pedantic. The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law that deals specifically with dangerous drugs which are subsumed into prohibited and regulated drugs and defines and penalizes categories of offenses which are closely related or which belong to the same class or species. Accordingly, one (1) search warrant may thus be validly issued for the said violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.(People vs Salanguit, G.R. Nos. 133254-55, April 19, 2001 citing People vs Dichoso) 
■  In Prudente v. Dayrit, the search warrant was captioned: For Violation of P.D. No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc.). The validity of the warrant was questioned on the ground that it was issued without reference to any particular provision in P.D. No. 1866, which punished several offenses. We held, however, that while illegal possession of firearms is penalized under 1 of P.D. No. 1866 and illegal possession of explosives is penalized under 3 thereof, the decree is a codification of the various laws on illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions, and explosives which offenses are so related as to be subsumed within the category of illegal possession of firearms, etc. under P.D. No. 1866. Thus, only one warrant was necessary to cover the violations under the various provisions of the said law. (People vs Salanguit, G.R. Nos. 133254-55, April 19, 2001 citing Prudente vs Dayrit)