Rule 126 Search and Seizure
constitutes process and not a criminal action to be entertained by a
Case 1. Malalaloan v CA. May 6, 1994
Facts:
1st Lt. Absalon V. Salboro of the CAPCOM Northern Sector (now
Central Sector) filed with the RTC Kalookan an application for search
warrant. The search warrant was sought for in connection with an
alleged violation of P.D. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms and
Ammunitions) perpetrated at No. 25 Newport St., corner Marlboro
St., Fairview, Quezon City. Respondent RTC Judge Fineza of
Kalookan issued a search warrant.
Members of the CAPCOM, armed with subject search warrant,
proceeded to the situs of the offense alluded to, where a labor
seminar of the Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and
Research (EILER) was then taking place. According to CAPCOM's
"Inventory of Property Seized," firearms, explosive materials and
subversive documents, among others, were seized and taken during
the search. And all the sixty-one (61) persons found within the
premises searched were brought to Camp Karingal, Quezon City but
most of them were later released, with the exception of the herein
petitioners, EILER Instructors, who were indicated for violation of
P.D. 1866.
Petitioners presented a "Motion for Consolidation, Quashal of Search
Warrant and For the Suppression of All Illegally Acquired Evidence"
before the RTC of QC. RTC QC consolidated the cases but upheld
the validity of the warrant.
Issue:
Whether or not a court may take cognizance of an application for a
search warrant in connection with an offense allegedly committed
outside its territorial jurisdiction and to issue a warrant to conduct a
search on a place likewise outside its territorial jurisdiction
Held:
A warrant, such as a warrant of arrest or a search warrant, merely
court pursuant to its original jurisdiction.
A search warrant is merely a judicial process designed by the Rules
to respond only to an incident in the main case, if one has already
been instituted, or in anticipation thereof. In the latter contingency, as
in the case at bar, it would involve some judicial clairvoyance to
require observance of the rules as to where a criminal case may
eventually be filed where, in the first place, no such action having as
yet been instituted, it may ultimately be filed in a territorial jurisdiction
other than that wherein the illegal articles sought to be seized are
then located. This is aside from the consideration that a criminal
action may be filed in different venues under the rules for delitos
continuados or in those instances where different trial courts have
concurrent original jurisdiction over the same criminal offense.
It would be an exacting imposition upon the law enforcement
authorities or the prosecutorial agencies to unerringly determine
where they should apply for a search warrant in view of the
uncertainties and possibilities as to the ultimate venue of a case.
In case where a criminal action has already been filed, the court
trying the criminal case may properly issue the warrant. The
jurisdictional problem would resurrect, however, where such articles
are outside its territorial jurisdiction.
No law or rule imposes such a limitation on search warrants, in the
same manner that no such restriction is provided for warrants of
arrest. No legal provision, statutory or reglementary, expressly or
impliedly provides a jurisdictional or territorial limit on its area of
enforceability.
On the contrary, the above-quoted provision of the interim
Rules expressly authorizes its enforcement anywhere in the country,
since it is not among the processes specified in paragraph (a) and
there is no distinction or exception made regarding the processes
contemplated in
paragraph (b).
Furthermore, the constitutional mandate is translated into specifically
enumerated safeguards in Rule 126 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure for the issuance of a search warrant, and all these have to
be observed regardless of whatever court in whichever region is
importuned for or actually issues a search warrant. Said
requirements, together with the ten-day lifetime of the warrant would
discourage resort to a court in another judicial region, not only
because of the distance but also the contingencies of travel and the
danger involved, unless there are really compelling reasons for the
authorities to do so.
This court is of the further belief that the possible leakage of
information which is of utmost importance in the issuance of a search
warrant is secured (against) where the issuing magistrate within the
region does not hold court sessions in the city or municipality, within
the region, where the place to be searched is located.
Nonetheless, to put such presentiments to rest, we lay down the
following policy guidelines:
1. The court wherein the criminal case is pending shall have primary
jurisdiction to issue search warrants necessitated by and for
purposes of said case. An application for a search warrant may be
filed with another court only under extreme and compelling
circumstances that the applicant must prove to the satisfaction of the
latter court which may or may not give due course to the application
depending on the validity of the justification offered for not filing the
same in the court with primary jurisdiction thereover.
2. When the latter court issues the search warrant, a motion to quash
the same may be filed in and shall be resolved by said court, without
prejudice to any proper recourse to the appropriate higher court by
the party aggrieved by the resolution of the issuing court. All grounds
and objections then available, existent or known shall be raised in
the original or subsequent proceedings for the quashal of the
warrant, otherwise they shall be deemed waived.
3. Where no motion to quash the search warrant was filed in or
resolved by the issuing court, the interested party may move in the
court where the criminal case is pending for the suppression as
evidence of the personal property seized under the warrant if the
same is offered therein for said purpose. Since two separate courts
with different participations are involved in this situation, a motion to
quash a search warrant and a motion to suppress evidence are
alternative and not cumulative remedies. In order to prevent forum
shopping, a motion to quash shall consequently be governed by the
omnibus motion rule, provided, however, that objections not
available, existent or known during the proceedings for the quashal
of the warrant may be raised in the hearing of the motion to
suppress. The resolution of the court on the motion to suppress shall
likewise be subject to any proper remedy in the appropriate higher
court.
4. Where the court which issued the search warrant denies the
motion to quash the same and is not otherwise prevented from
further proceeding thereon, all personal property seized under the
warrant shall forthwith be transmitted by it to the court wherein the
criminal case is pending, with the necessary safeguards and
documentation therefor.
5. These guidelines shall likewise be observed where the same
criminal offense is charged in different informations or complaints
and filed in two or more courts with concurrent original jurisdiction
over the criminal action. Where the issue of which court will try the
case shall have been resolved, such court shall be considered as
vested with primary jurisdiction to act on applications for search
warrants incident to the criminal case.
Case 2. Worldwide Web Corp v People. Jan 13, 2014
Facts:
Police Chief Inspector Napoleon Villegas of the Regional Intelligence
Special Operations Office (RISOO) of the PNP filed applications for
warrants before RTC QC to search the office of petitioner WWC as
well as the office of petitioner Planet Internet Corporation. The
applications allege that petitioners were conducting illegal toll bypass
operations, which amounted to theft and violation of PD401
(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 PLDT.
Petitioners were able to provide international long distance call
services to any part of the world by using PLDTs telephone lines, but
bypassing its International Gateway Facilities (IGF).
Gali of PLDT claimed that a phone number serviced by PLDT and
registered to WWC was used to provide a service called GlobalTalk,
"an internet-based international call service, which can be availed of
via prepaid or billed/post-paid accounts. He demonstrated a test call.
The call was completed to a phone number in Taiwan. However,
when he checked the records, it showed that the call was only
directed to the local number 6891135. This indicated that the
international test call using GlobalTalk bypassed PLDTs IGF.
Telephone number was traced to the address of Planet Internet.
Gali further alleged that because PLDT lines and equipment had
been illegally connected by petitioners to a piece of equipment that
routed the international calls and bypassed PLDTs IGF, they violated
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 401 as amended, on unauthorized
installation of telephone connections.
PLDT computed a monthly revenue loss of P764,718.09.
During the hearing, the trial court required the identification of the
office premises/units to be searched, as well as their floor plans
showing the location of particular computers and servers that would
be taken.
RTC granted the application for search warrants. Accordingly, the
following warrants were issued against the office premises of
petitioners, authorizing police officers to seize various items:
1. xxx for violation of Art 308 (theft) of RPC against WWC xxx 11/F
IBM Plaza Building, No. 188 Eastwood City, Cyberpark Libis, Quezon
City:
a) Computers or any equipment or device capable of accepting
information, applying the process of the information and supplying
the results of this process;
b) Software, Diskettes, Tapes or equipment or device used for
recording or storing information; and c) Manuals, application forms,
access codes, billing statements, receipts, contracts,
communications and documents relating to securing and using
telephone lines and/or equipment.
2. xxx violation of PD401 against Planet Internet xxx 1/F Orient
Square Building, Emerald Avenue, Barangay San Antonio, Pasig
City:
a) Modems or Routers or any equipment or device that enables data
terminal equipment such as computers to communicate with other
data terminal equipment via a telephone line;
b) Computers or any equipment or device capable of accepting
information applying the prescribed process of the information and
supplying the results of this process;
c) Lines, Cables and Antennas or equipment or device capable of
transmitting air waves or frequency, such as an IPL and telephone
lines and equipment;
d) Multiplexers or any equipment or device that enables two or more
signals from different sources to pass through a common cable or
transmission line;
e) PABX or Switching Equipment, Tapes or equipment or device
capable of connecting telephone lines;
f) Software, Diskettes, Tapes or equipment or device used for
recording or storing information; and
g) Manuals, application forms, access codes, billing statement,
receipts, contracts, checks, orders, communications and documents,
lease and/or subscription agreements or contracts, communications
and documents relating to securing and using telephone lines and/or
equipment.
3. xxx violation of RPC (theft) against Planet Internet xxx 21/F Orient
Square Building, Emerald Avenue, Barangay San Antonio, Pasig
City:
Same as #2
Over a hundred items were seized, including 15 CPUs, 10 monitors,
numerous wires, cables, diskettes and files, and a laptop computer.
Planet Internet notes that even personal diskettes of its employees
were confiscated; and areas not devoted to the transmission of
international calls, such as the Presidents Office and the Information
Desk, were searched. Voltage regulators, as well as reserve and
broken computers, were also seized.
Petitioners filed their respective motions to quash the search
warrants, citing: (1) the search warrants were issued without
probable cause, since the acts complained of did not constitute theft;
(2) toll bypass, the act complained of, was not a crime; (3) the search
warrants were general warrants; and (4) the objects seized pursuant
thereto were "fruits of the poisonous tree."
The RTC granted the motions to quash on the ground that the
warrants issued were in the nature of general warrants. Thus, the
properties seized under the said warrants were ordered released to
petitioners.
CA reversed RTC decision. CA declared that warrants were valid.
Issue:
1. Whether the CA erred in giving due course to PLDTs appeal
despite the following procedural infirmities: - NO
1. PLDT, without the conformity of the public prosecutor, had
no personality to question the quashal of the search
warrants;
2. PLDT assailed the quashal orders via an appeal rather
than a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court.
2. Whether the assailed search warrants were issued upon probable
cause, considering that the acts complained of allegedly do not
constitute theft - NO
3. Whether the CA seriously erred in holding that the assailed search
warrants were not general warrants.
Held:
1. An application for a search warrant is not a criminal
action; conformity of the public prosecutor is not necessary to
give the aggrieved party personality to question an order
quashing search warrants.
2. 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." It is a matter wholly dependent on the finding of trial
judges in the process of exercising their judicial function.
When a finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search
warrant is made by a trial judge, the finding is accorded respect by
reviewing courts. It is presumed that a judicial function has been
regularly performed, absent a showing to the contrary.
Petitioners argue that there is no law punishing toll bypass, the act
complained of by PLDT. Thus, no offense was committed that would
justify the issuance of the search warrants.
In Laurel v. Abrogar, we have already held that the use of PLDTs
communications facilities without its consent constitutes theft of its
telephone services and business.
The business of providing telecommunication and the telephone
service are personal property under Article 308 of the Revised Penal
Code, and the act of engaging in ISR (international simple resale) is
an act of "subtraction" penalized under said article. However, the
Amended Information describes the thing taken as, "international
long distance calls," and only later mentions "stealing the business
from PLDT" as the manner by which the gain was derived by the
accused. In order to correct this inaccuracy of description, this case
must be remanded to the trial court and the prosecution directed to
amend the Amended Information, to clearly state that the property
subject of the theft are the services and business of respondent
PLDT.
Furthermore, toll bypass operations could not have been
accomplished without the installation of telecommunications
equipment to the PLDT telephone lines. Thus, petitioners may also
be held liable for violation of P.D. 401 (use of telephone connections
w/o authority of PLDT).
A trial judges finding of probable cause may be set aside and the
search warrant issued by him based on his finding may be quashed
if the person against whom the warrant is issued presents clear and
convincing evidence that when the police officers and witnesses
testified, they committed a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard
for the truth on matters that are essential or necessary to a showing
of probable cause.
Innocent and negligent omissions or misrepresentation of witnesses
will not cause the quashal of a search warrant. In this case, the
testimonies of Rivera and Gali that the test calls they conducted did
not pass through PLDTs IGF are true. They neglected, however, to
look into the possibility that the test calls may have passed through
other IGFs in the Philippines, which was exactly what happened.
Nevertheless, the witnesses did not commit a deliberate falsehood.
Even Planet Internet stated that the conclusion that the test calls
bypassed all IGFs in the country was made "carelessly and
haphazardly."
3. 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." It is one that allows the "seizure of one thing under a warrant
describing another" and gives the officer executing the warrant the
discretion over which items to take.
The Court has been mindful of the difficulty faced by law
enforcement officers in describing the items to be searched,
especially when these items are technical in nature, and when the
extent of the illegal operation is largely unknown to them.
Indeed, the law does not require that the things to be seized must be
described in precise and minute detail as to leave no room for doubt
on the part of the searching authorities. Any description of the place
or thing to be searched that will enable the officer making the search
with reasonable certainty to locate such place or thing is sufficient.
To our mind, 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.