09. Pldt vs. Alvarez

PLDT vs. ALVAREZ (Sorry mahaba!!!) GR No. 17940 0 "ar#h $004 %A&TS To prevent or stop network fraud, PLDT’s ACP Detection Division ( ACPDD ( ACPDD)) regularly visits foreign countries to conduct market researc on various prepaid pone cards offered a!road tat allow teir users to make overseas calls to PLDT su!scri!ers in te Pilippines at a ceaper rate" During a test call placed at te PLDT#ACPDD office, te receiving pone reflected a PLDT telepone num!er ($#%$&'$%) as te calling calling num!er num!er used, used, as if te call call was origin originati ating ng from a local local telep telepone one in etro etro anila anila"" *pon *pon verification wit te PLDT’s +ntegrated Customer anagement (!illing) ystem, te ACPDD learned tat te su!scri!er of te reflected telepone num!er is A!igail -" -a.on Alvare." +t furter learned tat several lines are installed at tis address wit A!igail and /ernon -" -a.on ( respondents ), among oters, as su!scri!ers" To validate its findings, te ACPDD conducted various test calls and tey all revealed te same results" Te caller0id reflected telepone num!ers tat are in various names wit a common address" +t turned out tat te actual occupant of tese premises is also Alvare."

According to PLDT, ad an ordinary and legitimate call !een made, te screen of te caller#id#e1uipped receiving pone would not reflect a local num!er or any num!er at all" +n te cards tey tested, owever, once te caller enters te access and pin num!ers, te respondents would route te call via te via te internet to a local telepone num!er (in tis case, a PLDT telepone num!er) wic would connect te call to te receiving pone" ince calls troug te internet never pass te toll center of te PLDT’s +23, users of  tese prepaid cards can place a call to any point in te Pilippines (provided te local line is 4DD#  capa!le) witout te call appearing as coming from a!road" u!se1uently r" Lawrence 4arciso of te PLDT’s 5uality Control Division, togeter wit te operatives of te Pilippine 4ational Police ( PNP  ( PNP ), ), conducted an ocular inspection at 6 st address" During te ocular  inspection, A!igail -a.on allowed tem to gain entry and ceck te telepone installation witin te  premises" *pon entering te ad7acent ad7acent room, tey noticed tat te PLDT telepone telepone lines were connected to te e1uipment situated at multo0layered rack" Te e1uipment room contained various devices" Te routers were connected to a unit tat as an outdoor antenna installed on te top of te roof" 8n te $ nd address, tey also found similar scenario" Police uperintendent 2il!ert C" Cru. filed a consolidated application for a searc warrant !efore 9udge 3rancisco 2" endiola of te -TC, for te crimes of teft and violation of PD 4o" &:6" According to PLDT, te respondents are engaged in a form of network fraud known as +nternational imple -esale ( ISR)  ISR) wic amounts to teft under te -PC" +- is a metod of routing and completing international long distance calls using lines, ca!les, antennae and;or wave fre1uencies wic are connected directly to te domestic e, of te -PC ( SW   A–1 and SW A–2) A–2) and of PD 4o" &:6, as amended ( SW B–1 and SW B–2) B–2 ) for te +- activities !eing conducted at te said premises" P4P searced te premises and a return was made wit a complete inventory of te items sei.ed" Te PLDT and te P4P filed wit te Department of 9ustice a 7oint complaint#affidavit complaint#affidavit for teft and for violation of PD 4o" &:6 against te respondents" -espondents filed wit te -TC a motion to 1uas te searc warrants essentially on te following grounds? first  grounds? first , te -TC ad no autority to issue searc warrants wic were enforced in Para@a1ue City= second  City= second , te enumeration of te items to !e searced and sei.ed lacked particularity= and third , tere

was no pro!a!le cause for te crime of teft" -TC denied it" -espondents filed a petition for certiorari wit CA" +t 1uased searc warrants 6 and $ for teft on te ground tat tey were issued for 'o *+,s-*- #r,m*s'. According to te CA, inerent in te determination of pro!a!le cause for te issuance of searc warrant is te accompanying determination tat an offense as !een committed" it respect it respect to S / a2 S /$  (for violation of PD 4o" &:6), te CA upeld paragraps one to si< of te enumeration of items su!7ect of te searc" Te CA eld tat te stock prase Bor similar  e1uipment or device found in paragraps one to si< of te searc warrants did not make it suffer from generality since eac paragrap’s enumeration of items was sufficiently 1ualified !y te citation of te specific o!7ects to !e sei.ed and !y its functions wic are inerently connected wit te crime allegedly committed" Te CA, owever, nullified te ensuing paragraps, , % and >, for lack of particularity and ordered te return of te items sei.ed under tese provisions" ile te same stock prase appears in paragraps  and %, te properties descri!ed terein # i.e., printer and scanner, software, diskette and tapes # include even tose for te respondentsE personal use, making te description of te tings to !e sei.ed too general in nature" it te denial of its motion for reconsideration, PLDT went to tis Court via tis -ule &  petition" 3SSE eter te CA correctly ruled tat te -TC gravely a!used its discretion insofar as it refused to 1uas  paragraps  to > of  F#l and F#$ 5ELD A. %rom -h* 6r,sm o R8*  CA voided te searc warrant !y applying te doctrine in Century 3o< case wic added a new re1uirement in determining te pro!a!le cause for te issuance of searc warrant in copyrigt infringement cases # te production of te mas-*r -a6* for comparison wit allegedly pirate copies" C ruled tat te $: t Century 3o< case cannot !e retroactively applied to te instant case to 7ustify te 1uasal  %0:'" GTeH petitionersE consistent position tat te order of te lower courtG,H