CRIM PRO Rule 126

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE GR No. 179408

COMPANY, Petitioner, v. ABIGAIL R. RAZON ALVAREZ AND Date: March 05, 2014
VERNON R. RAZON, Respondents. Ponente: BRION, J.:
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE ABIGAIL R. RAZON ALVAREZ
COMPANY, Petitioner AND VERNON R.
RAZON, Respondents.
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the decision2 dated August 11, 2006 and the
resolution3 dated August 22, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA–G.R. SP No. 89213 on the validity of the
four search warrants issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 115

FACTS
Case timeline for better appreciation:
1. During a test call placed at the PLDT Alternative Calling Patterns Detection Division office, the receiving
phone reflected a PLDT telephone number (2–8243285) as the calling number used, as if the call was
originating from a local telephone in Metro Manila. Upon verification with the PLDT’s Integrated Customer
Management (billing) System, the ACPDD learned that the subscriber of the reflected telephone number is
Abigail R. Razon Alvarez, with address at 17 Dominic Savio St., Savio Compound, Barangay Don Bosco,
Parañaque City. It further learned that several lines are installed at this address with Abigail and Vernon R.
Razon (respondents), among others, as subscribers.
2. In the cards they tested, however, once the caller enters the access and pin numbers, the respondents would
route the call via the internet to a local telephone number (in this case, a PLDT telephone number) which would
connect the call to the receiving phone. Since calls through the internet never pass the toll center of the
PLDT’s IGF, users of these prepaid cards can place a call to any point in the Philippines (provided the
local line is NDD–capable) without the call appearing as coming from abroad.
3. On November 6, 2003 and November 19, 2003, Mr. Narciso of the PLDT’s Quality Control Division, together
with the operatives of the PNP, conducted an ocular inspection and discovered that PLDT telephone lines were
connected to several pieces of equipment
4. December 3, 2003, a consolidated application for a search warrant was filed before Judge Mendiola of the RTC,
for the crimes of theft and violation of PD No. 401 – granted.
Accordingly, four search warrants20 were issued for violations of Article 308, in relation to Article 309, of the
RPC (SW A–1 and SW A–2) and of PD No. 401, as amended (SW B–1 and SW B–2) for the ISR activities
5. On December 10, 2003, a return was made with a complete inventory of the items seized.22
6. On January 14, 2004, the PLDT and the PNP filed with the Department of Justice a joint complaint–affidavit for
theft and for violation of PD No. 401 against the respondents. 23
7. On February 18, 2004, the respondents filed with the RTC a motion to quash24 the search warrants essentially
on the following grounds: first, the RTC had no authority to issue search warrants which were enforced in
Parañaque City; second, the enumeration of the items to be searched and seized lacked particularity; and third,
there was no probable cause for the crime of theft – denied.
ISSUE/S
1. Whether or not “telecommunication or telephone services” be considered as personal property and
susceptible of appropriation under the provisions of Article 308 of RPC – YES.

2. Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in granting the motion to quash the search
warrants (SWA–l and SWA–2) based on whether the commission of an ISR activity meets the elements
of the offense of theft for purposes of quashing an information – YES

3. Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in granting the motion to quash the search
warrants (SWB–l and SWB–2) on the issue of particularity - NO

RATIO
1. On January 13, 2009 (or while the present petition was pending in court), the Court En Banc unanimously
granted PLDT’s motion for reconsideration. In Laurel v. Judge Abrogar, the Court ruled that even prior to the
passage of the RPC, jurisprudence is settled that “any personal property, tangible or intangible, corporeal or
incorporeal, capable of appropriation can be the object of theft.” 40 This jurisprudence, in turn, applied the prevailing
legal meaning of the term “personal property” under the old Civil Code as “anything susceptible of appropriation
and not included in the foregoing chapter (not real property).” 41 PLDT’s telephone service or its business of
providing this was appropriable personal property and was, in fact, the subject of appropriation in an ISR
operation, facilitated by means of the unlawful use of PLDT’s facilities.

It is the use of these communications facilities without the consent of PLDT that constitutes the crime of theft,
which is the unlawful taking of the telephone services and business.

Therefore, 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 is an act of “subtraction” penalized under said
article.42

2. This is based on the requisite - existence of probable cause in connection with one specific offense.

Ordinarily, the CA’s determination under Rule 65 is limited to whether the RTC gravely abused its discretion in
granting or denying the motion to quash based on facts then existing. Nonetheless, the Court recognizes that
supervening facts may transpire after the issuance and implementation of the search warrant that may provide
justification for the quashal of the search warrant via a petition for certiorari.

For one, if the offense for which the warrant is issued is subsequently decriminalized during the pendency of the
petition for certiorari, then the warrant may be quashed.54 For another, a subsequent ruling from the Court that a
similar set of facts and circumstances does not constitute an offense, as alleged in the search warrant application,
may be used as a ground to quash a warrant.55In both instances, the underlying reason for quashing the search
warrant is the absence of probable cause which can only possibly exist when the combination of facts and
circumstances points to the possible commission of an offense that may be evidenced by the personal properties
sought to be seized. To the CA, the second instance mentioned justified the quashal of the search warrants.
With the Court En Banc’s reversal of the earlier Laurel ruling, then the CA’s quashal of these warrants would have
no leg to stand on. This is the dire consequence of failing to appreciate the full import of the doctrine of stare decisis
that the CA ignored.

3. This is based on the requisite - search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the
things to be seized. This requirement of particularity in the description, especially of the things to be seized, is
meant to enable the law enforcers to readily identify the properties to be seized and, thus, prevent the seizure of the
wrong items. It seeks to leave the law enforcers with no discretion at all regarding these articles and to give life to
the constitutional provision against unreasonable searches and seizures.

One of the tests to determine the particularity in the description of objects to be seized under a search warrant
is when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is
being issued.

For clarity, PD No. 401 punishes:

Section 1. Any person who installs any water, electrical, telephone or piped gas connection without previous
authority from xxx the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, xxx

These items could not be the subject of a violation of PD No. 401 since PLDT itself does not claim that these items
themselves comprise the unauthorized installations. For emphasis, what PD No. 401 punishes is the unauthorized
installation of telephone connection without the previous consent of PLDT. In the present case, PLDT has not shown
that connecting printers, scanners, diskettes or tapes to a computer, even if connected to a PLDT telephone line,
would or should require its prior authorization.

Neither could these items be a means of committing a violation of PD No. 401 since these copying, printing and
storage devices in no way aided the respondents in making the unauthorized connections. While these items may be
accessory to the computers and other equipment linked to telephone lines, PD No. 401 does not cover this kind of
items within the scope of the prohibition. To allow the seizure of items under the PLDT’s interpretation would, as
the CA correctly observed, allow the seizure under the warrant of properties for personal use of the respondents.
RULING
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The decision and the resolution of
the Court of Appeals in CA–G.R. SP No. 89213 are hereby MODIFIED in that SW A–l and SW A–2 are hereby
declared valid and constitutional.
NOTES
According to PLDT, the respondents are engaged in a form of network fraud known as International Simple Resale
(ISR) which amounts to theft under the RPC.

ISR is a method of routing and completing international long distance calls using lines, cables, antennae and/or wave
frequencies which are connected directly to the domestic exchange facilities of the country where the call is destined
(terminating country); and, in the process, bypassing the IGF at the terminating country.
2S 2016-17 (BALLUNGAY)