Title
Supreme Court
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. vs. Razon Alvarez
Case
G.R. No. 179408
Decision Date
Mar 5, 2014
PLDT investigated network fraud involving prepaid cards routing international calls as local, bypassing its gateway. Search warrants for theft were upheld, but parts for PD 401 violations were voided for lack of particularity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 179408)

Factual Background

  1. ACPDD purchased prepaid international calling cards marketed in the United Kingdom. Test calls using an IDD-capable line and a caller-ID-equipped receiving phone displayed PLDT numbers belonging to respondents, as confirmed by PLDT’s billing system.
  2. Validation tests conducted at NTC premises yielded identical results. Subsequent tests with other prepaid cards (Unity Card, IDT Supercalling Card) likewise traced calls to PLDT numbers registered to respondents at two Parañaque City addresses.
  3. Technical finding: Respondents routed incoming international calls via the Internet to local PLDT lines, bypassing PLDT’s international gateway facility and avoiding standard toll routing.
  4. Ocular inspections (November 6 and 19, 2003) at 17 Dominic Savio Street and No. 38 Indonesia Street uncovered multiple PLDT lines connected to routers, modems, a Meridian Subscriber Unit with rooftop antenna, PCs, printers, scanners, and other telecommunications equipment.

Procedural History

• December 3, 2003: Consolidated application for four search warrants filed with RTC, Pasay City, Branch 115, covering alleged theft (Revised Penal Code Articles 308 and 309) and violation of PD No. 401.
• Warrant execution on December 3, 2003; inventory of seized items returned December 10, 2003.
• January 14, 2004: PLDT and PNP filed complaint-affidavit against respondents for theft and PD 401 violation.
• February 18, 2004: Respondents filed motion to quash search warrants before the RTC on grounds of lack of authority, overbroad and non-particularized descriptions, and absence of probable cause.
• RTC denied the motion (July 6, 2004); respondents’ reconsideration denied; respondents elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) by certiorari.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

• SW A-1 and SW A-2 (theft): Quashed as issued for “non-existent crimes,” since PLDT’s services and business were deemed non-personal properties. Reliance on the Division ruling in Laurel v. Judge Abrogar.
• SW B-1 and SW B-2 (PD 401): Paragraphs 1–6 upheld as sufficiently particular. Paragraphs 7–9 (printers, scanners, software, documents) voided for lack of particularity.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  1. Laurel Division decision was not final; not binding under stare decisis.
  2. Search warrants require only probable cause linking items to a crime and location, not full element analysis.
  3. PD 401 paragraphs nullified by CA are directly related to unauthorized telephone installations and constitute fruits or means of the offense.

Respondents’ Arguments

  1. Laurel, though not final, represents persuasive jurisprudence on theft of telecommunications services.
  2. Paragraphs 7–9 of SW B warrants are overly broad and bear no relation to PD 401, which penalizes unauthorized water, electrical or telephone connections.

Supreme Court’s Analysis of Search Warrant Issuance

Applicable Law: 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2; Rule 126, Sections 4–5, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Requisites:
• Probable cause determined personally by judge under oath, establishing (a) that an offense has been committed and (b) that the items sought are connected to that offense and located in the place to be searched.
• Descriptions of place and items must be particular.
Remedy: Motion to quash for any failure to comply, reviewable by certiorari (Rule 65) on grave abuse of discretion.

Application to SW A-1 and SW A-2

• At issuance, RTC complied with all constitutional and procedural requisites, presented facts and circumstances of ISR activities pointing to theft of PLDT’s services and business.
• Certiorari review is ordinarily confined to discretion exercised at issuance; new jurisprudence (Laurel Division) pending reconsideration cannot invalidate



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms