182. WORLDWIDE WEB CORPORATION v.

PEOPLE
Facts:
Police Chief Inspector Napoleon Villegas of the Regional Intelligence Special Operations Office
(RISOO) of the Philippine National Police filed applications for warrants... to search the office premises
of... petitioner Worldwide Web Corporation (WWC)... as well as the office premises of petitioner Planet
Internet Corporation (Planet Internet)
The applications alleged that petitioners were conducting illegal toll bypass operations, which amounted
to theft and violation of Presidential Decree No. 401 (Penalizing... the Unauthorized Installation of Water,
Electrical or Telephone Connections, the Use of Tampered Water or Electrical Meters and Other Acts), to
the damage and prejudice of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT).
Over a hundred items were seized,... including 15 central processing units (CPUs), 10 monitors,
numerous wires, cables, diskettes and files, and a laptop computer. Motion to quash was filed and
quashed by the RTC.

Issue: W/N the search warrant must satisfied the requirement of particularity in the description of the
things to be seized

Ruling: Yes. PLDT was able to establish the connection between the items to be searched as identified in
the warrants and the crime of theft of its telephone services and business. Prior to the application for the
search warrants, Rivera conducted ocular inspection of the premises of petitioners and was then able to
confirm that they had utilized various telecommunications equipment consisting of computers, lines,
cables, antennas, modems, or routers, multiplexers, PABX or switching equipment, and support
equipment such as software, diskettes, tapes, manuals and other documentary records to support the
illegal toll bypass operations.”

Extra only:

Issue: May an order quashing a search warrant be the proper subject of an appeal?

Ruling:
Yes. Where the search warrant is issued as an incident in a pending criminal case, the quashal of a search
warrant is merely interlocutory. There is still “something more to be done in the said criminal case, i.e.,
the determination of the guilt of the accused therein.”
In contrast, where a search warrant is applied for and issued in anticipation of a criminal case yet to be
filed, the order quashing the warrant (and denial of a motion for reconsideration of the grant) ends the
judicial process. There is nothing more to be done thereafter.

In this case, the applications for search warrants were instituted as principal proceedings and not as
incidents to pending criminal actions. When the search warrants issued were subsequently quashed by the
RTC, there was nothing left to be done by the trial court. Thus, the quashal of the search warrants were
final orders, not interlocutory, and an appeal may be properly taken therefrom.

Issue 2: Is the conformity of the public prosecutor necessary to question an order quashing search
warrants?

Ruling: NO. The Court has consistently recognized the right of parties to question orders quashing those
warrants. Accordingly, the Court sustained the CA’s ruling that the conformity of the public prosecutor is
not necessary before an aggrieved party moves for reconsideration of an order granting a motion to quash
search warrants.
183. People v cogaed
Facts: 6:00 a.m. of November 25, 2005, Police Senior Inspector Sofronio Bayan (PSI Bayan) of the San
Gabriel Police Station in San Gabriel, La Union, “received a text message from an unidentified civilian
informer”that one Marvin Buya “[would] be transporting marijuana” from Barangay Lun-Oy, San
Gabriel, La Union to the Poblacion of San Gabriel, La Union.
PSI Bayan organized checkpoints in order “to intercept the suspect. They set up a checkpoint in the
waiting area of passengers from San Gabriel bound for San Fernando City.
A passenger jeepney from Barangay Lun-Oy arrived and the jeepney driver disembarked and signalled to
SPO1 Taracatac indicating the two male passengers who were carrying marijuana.
SPO1 Taracatac approached the two male passengers who were later identified as Victor Romana Cogaed
and Santiago Sacpa Dayao. Cogaed was carrying a blue bag and a sack while Dayao was holding a yellow
bag.
SPO1 Taracatac asked Cogaed and Dayao about the contents of their bags. Cogaed and Dayao told SPO1
Taracatac that they did not know since they were transporting the bags as a favor for their barriomate
named Marvin.
Cogaed opened the blue bag, revealing three bricks of what looked like marijuana. Both of them were
then arrested. Case against Dayao was dismissed because he was a minor.

ISSUE: Whether there was a valid search and seizure; and, whether the marijuana confiscated is
admissible as evidence.

Ruling: NO. There is no valid search and seizure; thus, the marijuana confiscated shall not be admissible
as evidence.
There was not a single suspicious circumstance in this case, and there was no approximation for the
probable cause requirement for warrantless arrest. The person searched was not even the person
mentioned by the informant. The informant gave the name of Marvin Buya, and the person searched was
Victor Cogaed. Even if it was true that Cogaed responded by saying that he was transporting the bag to
Marvin Buya, this still remained only as one circumstance. This should not have been enough reason to
search Cogaed and his belongings without a valid search warrant. Likewise, the facts of the case do not
qualify as a search incidental to a lawful arrest. The apprehension of Cogaed was not effected with a
warrant of arrest. None of the instances enumerated in Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court were
present when the arrest was made. At the time of his apprehension, Cogaed has not committed, was not
committing, or was about to commit a crime. There were no overt acts within plain view of the police
officers that suggested that Cogaed was in possession of drugs at that time. Also, Cogaed was not an
escapee prisoner that time; hence, he could not have qualified for the last allowable warrantless arrest.
The Constitution provides that any evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable
searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Otherwise known as the
exclusionary rule or the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, this rule prohibits the issuance of general
warrants that encourage law enforcers to go on fishing expeditions.