HPS Software and Communication
Corporation vs. PLDT
687 SCRA 426
December 10, 2012
FACTS:
On October 20, 2000, upon the complaint
of PLDT, the Presidential Anti-Organized
Crime Task Force filed for the issuance of
two (2) search warrants for violation of
petitioners of Art. 308 of RPC and PD 401
Art. 308 of RPC states who are liable for
theft and PD 401 which penalizes the
unauthorized installation of water, electrical
or telephone connections, the use of
tampered water or electrical meters and
other acts.
The petitioners violated Art. 308 by way of
theft of telecommunications services and
they violated PD 401 because of the
unauthorized installation of their telephone
equipment.
PLDT were able to monitor HPS
transmitting calls from USA to the
Philippines without going through PLDTs
facilities known as International simple
resale.
Witnesses conducted test calls to
international numbers passing through
Mabuhay Card. These international calls
were reflected only as local calls.
The trial court issued two (2) warrant of
arrests on the same day.
On December 11, 2000, petitioners filed a
motion to quash warrant on the grounds
that the same does not refer specific
offense, no probable cause is present for
the warrants were general warrants.
On July 7, 2001, the seized items were
released thus PLDT filed a petition to the
Court of Appeals which reversed the
decision of the RTC
ISSUE:
W/N the search warrants were improperly
quashed?
HELD:
YES.
Both trial court and CA agree that no
probable cause existed to justify the
issuance of the warrants.
CA reasoned out that the test calls
conducted in open court with the Mabuhay
Card did not lose value.
Also, the testing of the smart card cannot
be used to substantiate the issuance of the
warrants since the test calls were done
way after the search warrants were issued.
SC held however that the search warrants
were improperly quashed as there was
probable cause.
The CA erred in ruling that since the
Mabuhay Cards used did not really lose
their value, there were no calls conducted
but sufficient amount of evidence show
that such calls were indeed made.
RULING:
Petition of HPS is DENIED for lack of merit
and petition of PLDT is GRANTED. CAs
ruling was REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
NOTE:
GENERAL WARRANTS - The warrants in
this case are not general warrants. The items
to be seized were sufficiently and particularly
identified physically and were identified in
relation to the offenses charged to the
petitioners.