09. Pldt vs. Alvarez

PLDT vs. ALVAREZ (Sorry mahaba!!!) GR No. 17940 0 "ar#h $004 %A&TS To prevent or stop network fraud, PLDT’s ACP Detection Division ( ACPDD ( ACPDD)) regularly visits foreign countries to conduct market researc on various prepaid pone cards offered a!road tat allow teir users to make overseas calls to PLDT su!scri!ers in te Pilippines at a ceaper rate" During a test call placed at te PLDT#ACPDD office, te receiving pone reflected a PLDT telepone num!er ($#%$&'$%) as te calling calling num!er num!er used, used, as if te call call was origin originati ating ng from a local local telep telepone one in etro etro anila anila"" *pon *pon verification wit te PLDT’s +ntegrated Customer anagement (!illing) ystem, te ACPDD learned tat te su!scri!er of te reflected telepone num!er is A!igail -" -a.on Alvare." +t furter learned tat several lines are installed at tis address wit A!igail and /ernon -" -a.on ( respondents ), among oters, as su!scri!ers" To validate its findings, te ACPDD conducted various test calls and tey all revealed te same results" Te caller0id reflected telepone num!ers tat are in various names wit a common address" +t turned out tat te actual occupant of tese premises is also Alvare."

According to PLDT, ad an ordinary and legitimate call !een made, te screen of te caller#id#e1uipped receiving pone would not reflect a local num!er or any num!er at all" +n te cards tey tested, owever, once te caller enters te access and pin num!ers, te respondents would route te call via te via te internet to a local telepone num!er (in tis case, a PLDT telepone num!er) wic would connect te call to te receiving pone" ince calls troug te internet never pass te toll center of te PLDT’s +23, users of  tese prepaid cards can place a call to any point in te Pilippines (provided te local line is 4DD#  capa!le) witout te call appearing as coming from a!road" u!se1uently r" Lawrence 4arciso of te PLDT’s 5uality Control Division, togeter wit te operatives of te Pilippine 4ational Police ( PNP  ( PNP ), ), conducted an ocular inspection at 6 st address" During te ocular  inspection, A!igail -a.on allowed tem to gain entry and ceck te telepone installation witin te  premises" *pon entering te ad7acent ad7acent room, tey noticed tat te PLDT telepone telepone lines were connected to te e1uipment situated at multo0layered rack" Te e1uipment room contained various devices" Te routers were connected to a unit tat as an outdoor antenna installed on te top of te roof" 8n te $ nd address, tey also found similar scenario" Police uperintendent 2il!ert C" Cru. filed a consolidated application for a searc warrant !efore 9udge 3rancisco 2" endiola of te -TC, for te crimes of teft and violation of PD 4o" &:6" According to PLDT, te respondents are engaged in a form of network fraud known as +nternational imple -esale ( ISR)  ISR) wic amounts to teft under te -PC" +- is a metod of routing and completing international long distance calls using lines, ca!les, antennae and;or wave fre1uencies wic are connected directly to te domestic e, of te -PC ( SW   A–1 and SW A–2) A–2) and of PD 4o" &:6, as amended ( SW B–1 and SW B–2) B–2 ) for te +- activities !eing conducted at te said premises" P4P searced te premises and a return was made wit a complete inventory of te items sei.ed" Te PLDT and te P4P filed wit te Department of 9ustice a 7oint complaint#affidavit complaint#affidavit for teft and for violation of PD 4o" &:6 against te respondents" -espondents filed wit te -TC a motion to 1uas te searc warrants essentially on te following grounds? first  grounds? first , te -TC ad no autority to issue searc warrants wic were enforced in Para@a1ue City= second  City= second , te enumeration of te items to !e searced and sei.ed lacked particularity= and third , tere

was no pro!a!le cause for te crime of teft" -TC denied it" -espondents filed a petition for certiorari wit CA" +t 1uased searc warrants 6 and $ for teft on te ground tat tey were issued for 'o *+,s-*- #r,m*s'. According to te CA, inerent in te determination of pro!a!le cause for te issuance of searc warrant is te accompanying determination tat an offense as !een committed" it respect it respect to S / a2 S /$  (for violation of PD 4o" &:6), te CA upeld paragraps one to si< of te enumeration of items su!7ect of te searc" Te CA eld tat te stock prase Bor similar  e1uipment or device found in paragraps one to si< of te searc warrants did not make it suffer from generality since eac paragrap’s enumeration of items was sufficiently 1ualified !y te citation of te specific o!7ects to !e sei.ed and !y its functions wic are inerently connected wit te crime allegedly committed" Te CA, owever, nullified te ensuing paragraps, , % and >, for lack of particularity and ordered te return of te items sei.ed under tese provisions" ile te same stock prase appears in paragraps  and %, te properties descri!ed terein # i.e., printer and scanner, software, diskette and tapes # include even tose for te respondentsE personal use, making te description of te tings to !e sei.ed too general in nature" it te denial of its motion for reconsideration, PLDT went to tis Court via tis -ule &  petition" 3SSE eter te CA correctly ruled tat te -TC gravely a!used its discretion insofar as it refused to 1uas  paragraps  to > of  F#l and F#$ 5ELD A. %rom -h* 6r,sm o R8*  CA voided te searc warrant !y applying te doctrine in Century 3o< case wic added a new re1uirement in determining te pro!a!le cause for te issuance of searc warrant in copyrigt infringement cases # te production of te mas-*r -a6* for comparison wit allegedly pirate copies" C ruled tat te $: t Century 3o< case cannot !e retroactively applied to te instant case to 7ustify te 1uasal  %0:'" GTeH petitionersE consistent position tat te order of te lower courtG,H <<< Gwic denied te respondentsEH motion to lift te order of searc warrantIH was properly issued, G!ecause tere wasH satisfactory compliance wit te ten prevailing standards under te law for determination of   pro!a!le cause, is indeed well taken" wat distinguises Colu!ia from te present case is te focus of Colu!ia"s legal rationale" Colu!ia"s o#8s was not on weter te facts and circumstances would reasona!ly lead to te conclusion tat an offense as !een or is !eing committed and tat te o!7ects sougt in connection wit te offense were in te place to !e searced # te primary points of focus of te  present case" Colu!ia"s focus was on :h*-h*r -h* evidence 6r*s*-*2 at the time -h* s*ar#h :arra:as a66,*2 or :as s8,#,*- to esta!lis te facts and circumstances re1uired for esta!lising pro!a!le cause to issue a searc warrant" " fffffffffff 

 4oneteless, Colu!ia serves as a neat guide for te CA to decide te respondentsE certiorari petition" +n Colu!ia, te Court applied te principle of non#retroactivity of its ruling in 2#th Centur$ %o&, 'hose  finalit$ 'as not an issue, in reversing a CA ruling" Te Court’s attitude in tat case sould ave !een adopted !y te CA in te present case a  fortiori since te ruling tat te CA relied upon was not yet final at te time te CA resolved to 1uas te searc warrants" /. R*;8,r*m*- o 6ar-,#8ar,-y o -h* s8b<*#- s*ar#h :arra-s Aside from te re1uirement of pro!a!le cause, te Constitution also re1uires tat te searc warrant must  particularly descri!e te place to !e searced and te tings to !e sei.ed" Te re1uisite sufficient  particularity is aimed at preventing te law enforcer from e
te warrant was issued sall !e sei.ed" Te re1uirement of specificity, owever, does not re1uire tecnical accuracy in te description of te property to !e sei.ed" pecificity is satisfied if te personal propertiesE description is as far as te circumstances will ordinarily allow it to !e so descri!ed" Te nature of te description sould vary according to weter te identity of te property or its caracter is a matter of  concern" 8ne of te tests to determine te particularity in te description of o!7ects to !e sei.ed under a searc warrant is 'hen the thin(s descri!ed are liited to those 'hich !ear direct relation to the offense for wic te warrant is !eing issued" Additionally, te -ules re1uire tat a searc warrant sould !e issued Bin connection wit one specific offense to prevent te issuance of a scatter#sot warrant" : Te one#specific#offense re1uirement reinforces te constitutional re1uirement tat a searc warrant sould issue only on te !asis of pro!a!le cause" *nder te -ules, te following personal property may !e su!7ect of searc warrant? (i) te su!7ect of te offense= (ii) fruits of te offense= or (iii) tose used or intended to !e used as te means of committing an offense" +n te present case, we sustain te CA’s ruling nullifying paragraps , % and > of  F#l and  F#$ for failing te test of particularity" ore specifically, tese provisions do not sow ow te enumerated items could ave possi!ly !een connected wit te crime for wic te warrant was issued, i.e., P"D" 4o" &:6" %or #ar,-y= PD No. 401 68,sh*s>

ection 6" Any person wo ,s-as any water, electrical, -**6ho* or piped gas #o*#-,o :,-ho8- 6r*v,o8s a8-hor,-y rom <<< -h* Ph,,66,* Lo? D,s-a#* T**6ho* &om6ay, <<<, tampers and;or uses tampered water, electrical or gas meters,  7umpers or oter devices were!y water, electricity or piped gas is stolen= steals or pilfers water, electric or piped gas meters, or water, electric and;or telepone wires, or piped gas  pipes or conduits= knowingly possesses stolen or pilfered water, electrical or gas meters as well as stolen or pilfered water, electrical and;or telepone wires, or piped gas pipes and conduits, sall, upon conviction, !e punised wit prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from two tousand to si< tousand pesos, or !ot" ' Para?ra6hs 7 -o  o S / a2 S /$ r*a2 as oo:s>

" C8P*TJ- P-+4TJ- A4D CA44J- or any similar e1uipment or device used for copying and;or printing data and;or information= %" 83TA-J, D+KJTTJ, TAPJ or any similar e1uipment or device used for  recording or storing information= and >" anuals, pone cards, access codes, !illing statements, receipts, contracts, cecks, orders, communications and documents, lease and;or su!scription agreements or  contracts, communications and documents relating to securing and using telepone lines and;or e1uipmentG"H Te fact tat te printers and scanners are or may !e connected to te oter illegal connections to te PLDT telepone lines does not make tem te su!7ect of te offense or fruits of te offense, muc less could tey !ecome a means of committing an offense" +t is clear from PLDT’s su!mission tat it confuses te crime for wic  SW B–l and SW B–2 were issued wit te crime for wic  SW A–l and SWA–2 were issued?  F#l and  F#$ were issued for violation of PD 4o" &:6, to !e enforced in two different  places as identified in te warrants" Te crime for wic tese searc warrants were issued

does not  pertain to te crime of teft # were matters of personal property and te taking tereof wit intent to gain !ecome significant # !ut to PD 4o" &:6" at PD 4o" &:6 punises is te unautori.ed installation of telepone connection witout te previous consent of PLDT" +n te present case, PLDT as not sown tat connecting printers, scanners, diskettes or tapes to a computer, even if connected to a PLDT telepone line, would or sould re1uire its prior autori.ation"  4eiter could tese items !e a means of committing a violation of PD 4o" &:6 since tese copying,  printing and storage devices in no way aided te respondents in making te unautori.ed connections" ile tese items may !e accessory to te computers and oter e1uipment linked to telepone lines, PD  4o" &:6 does not cover tis kind of items witin te scope of te proi!ition" To allow te sei.ure of  items under te PLDT’s interpretation would, as te CA correctly o!served, allow te sei.ure under te warrant of properties for personal use of te respondents" +f PLDT seeks te sei.ure of tese items to prove tat tese installations contain te respondentsE financial gain and te corresponding !usiness loss to PLDT, ten tat purpose is served !y  A#l and  A#$ since tis is wat PLDT essentially complained of in carging te respondents wit teft" owever, te same reasoning does not 7ustify its sei.ure under a warrant for violation of PD 4o" &:6 since tese items are not directly connected to te PLDT telepone lines and PLDT as not even claimed tat te installation of tese items re1uires prior autori.ation from it"