De la Calzada, Geanibev R.

WORLDWIDE WEB CORPORATION and CHERRYLL L. YU vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and PHILIPPINE LONG
DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, GR 161106 and PLANET
INTERNET CORP vs. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE
COMPANY, GR. 161266, 13 January 2014, First Division, Sereno

FACTS:

The case at bar was a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, by the petitioners namely Worldwide Web
Corporation (WWC) and Cherryll Yu, on the reversing of the quashal
of the search warrants by the Court of Appeals. 

Regional Intelligence Special Operations Office (RISOO) inspectors

of the Philippine National Police filed applications for search
warrants before the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 78, to search the
petitioner’s office premises. This was on the grounds of alleged
illegal toll bypass operations done by the petitioners against
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT), the current
respondents of the case. 

On September 26, 2001, RTC granted the application of the search

warrants and were issued out to seize various properties that were
itemized in the warrants. Petitioners argued that the warrants were
issued without probable cause since toll bypass is not a crime and
that the search warrants were general warrants. They filed a motion
to quash the search warrants, to which the RTC then granted, on the
grounds that the warrants issued were in the nature of general
warrants. 

The respondents filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals on the

reversal of quashal of the search warrants, to which the CA did
reversed and set aside the assailed RTC resolutions, as well as
declared that the search warrants valid and effective.
ISSUE:

I. Whether the assailed search warrants were issued upon probable

cause, considering that the acts complained of allegedly do not
constitute theft. II. Whether the CA seriously erred in holding that
the assailed search warrants were not general warrants. 

SUPREME COURT’S RULING:

Yes the search warrants were issued with probably cause. In the
issuance of a search warrant, probable cause requires "such facts
and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed and the objects sought
in connection with that offense are in the place to be searched." An
application for a search warrant is not a criminal action. It was held
that a search warrant constitutes a “special criminal process” rather
than a criminal action. For theft to be committed in this case, the
following elements must be shown to exist: (1) the taking by
petitioners (2) of PLDT's personal property (3) with intent to gain (4)
without the consent of PLDT (5) accomplished without the use of
violence against or intimidation of persons or the use of force upon
things. Since the petitioners used the communication facilities
without the consent of PLDT, that constitutes the crime of theft,
which is the unlawful taking of the telephone services and business. 

No, the CA did not err in reversing the motion to quash the search
warrants on the grounds that the said warrants were general in
nature. A search warrant is defined in our jurisdiction as an order in
writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines signed by
a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search
for
personal property and bring it before the court. A search warrant is in
the nature of a criminal process akin to a writ of discovery. It is a
special and peculiar remedy, drastic in its nature, and made
necessary because of a public necessity. 
On the other hand, a general warrant is defined as "(a) search or
arrest warrant that is not particular as to the person to be arrested
or the property to be seized." 

SC ruled that the discretion of a general warrant is abhorrent, as it

makes the person, against whom the warrant is issued, vulnerable
to abuses. Section 2, Article III of 1987 Constitution provides the
right against unreasonable searches and seizures. 

The requirement of particularity in the description of things to be

seized is fulfilled when the items described in the search warrant
bear a direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is sought.
Therefore, in this case, considering that items that looked like
"innocuous goods" were being used to pursue an illegal operation
that amounts to theft, law enforcement officers would be hard put to
secure a search warrant if they were required to pinpoint items with
one hundred percent precision. 

Finally, SC denies the petitioners motion to reverse the decision of

the Court of Appeals. The decision of the CA on the reversal of the
motion to quash the search warrants was AFFIRMED.

xxx