CRIM PRO
Rule 126
PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, Petitioner , v. ABIGAIL R. RAZON ALVAREZ AND VERNON R. RAZON, Respondents.
GR No. 179408
Date: March 05, 2014
Ponente: BRION, J. BRION, J.:: PHILIPPINE LONG COMPANY, Petitioner
DISTANCE
TELEPHONE
ABIGAI ABIGAIL L R. RAZON RAZON ALV ALVAREZ AND VERNON R. RAZON, Respondents. Before the Court is a etition for re!ie" on certiorari1 assailin# the $ecision 2 $ate$ %u#ust 11, 2006 an$ the resolution& $ate$ %u#ust 22, 200' of the Court of %eals (CA (CA)) in C%*+.R. P -o. /21& on the !ali$it of the four search "arrants issue$ the Re#ional rial Court ( RTC ( RTC ) of Pasa Cit, Branch 115
3%C Case tieline for etter areciation: 1. Durin# a test call lace$ at the PD %lternati!e Callin# Patterns Detection Di!ision office, the recei!in# hone reflecte$ a PD telehone nuer (2*24&25) as the callin# nuer use$, as if the the call "as ori#inatin# fro a local telehone in Metro Manila. on !erification "ith the PD7s Inte#rate$ Inte#rate$ Custoer Mana#eent (illin#) ste, the %CPDD learne$ that the suscrier of the reflecte$ telehone nuer is %i#ail R. Ra8on %l!are8, "ith a$$ress at 1' Doinic a!io t., a!io Cooun$, Baran#a Don Bosco, Para9aue Cit. It further learne$ that se!eral lines are installe$ at this a$$ress "ith %i#ail an$ ;ernon R. Ra8on (respondents (respondents), ), aon# others, as suscriers. 2. In the car$s the teste$, ho"e!er, once the caller enters the access an$ in nuers, the reson$ents "oul$ route the call via the via the internet to a local telehone nuer (in this case, a PD telehone nuer) "hich "oul$ connect the call to the recei!in# hone. Since calls t!"#$ te inte!net ne%e! &ass te t"ll cente! "' te PLDT(s IG), #se!s "' tese &!e&ai* ca!*s can &lace a call t" an+ &"int in te Pili&&ines &!"%i*e* te l"cal line is NDD-ca&ale/ 0it"#t te call a&&ea!in$ as c"1in$ '!"1 a!"a*. 3. On -o!eer 6, 200& an$ -o!eer 1/, 200&, Mr. -arciso of the PD7s oint colaint*affi$a!it for theft an$ for !iolation of PD -o. 401 a#ainst the reson$ents.2& 7. On 3eruar 1, 2004, the reson$ents file$ "ith the RC a otion to uash 24 the search "arrants essentiall on the follo"in# #roun$s: first #roun$s: first , the RC ha$ no authorit to issue search "arrants "hich "ere enforce$ in Para9aue Cit? second Cit? second , the enuer enuerati ation on of the ites ites to e search searche$ e$ an$ sei8e$ sei8e$ lac@e$ lac@e$ artic articula ulari rit? t? an$ third , there "as no roale cause for the crie of theft * $enie$. IA 1. hether or not telecounication or telehone ser!icesE e consi$ere$ as ersonal roert an$
suscetile of aroriation un$er the ro!isions of %rticle &0 of RPC * FA. 2. hether or not the C% #ra!el ause$ its $iscretion in #rantin# the otion to uash the search
"arrants (SWA–l and SWA–2) SWA–2) ase$ on "hether the coission of an IR acti!it eets the eleents of the the offense of theft theft for uroses of uashin# an inforation inforation * FA 3. hether or not the C% #ra!el ause$ its $iscretion in #rantin# the otion to uash the search
"arrants (SWB–l and SWB–2) on SWB–2) on the issue of articularit G -O R%IO 1. On 2an#a!+ 34, 5667 (or 0ile te &!esent &etiti"n 0as &en*in$ in c"#!t ), the Court n Court n Banc unaniousl #rante$ PD7s otion for reconsi$eration. In !a"rel v. #"d$e A%ro$ar A%ro$ar , the Court rule$ that e!en rior to the assa#e of the RPC, >urisru$ence is settle$ that an ersonal roert, tan#ile or intan#ile, cororeal or incororeal, caale of aroriation can e the o>ect of theft.E 40 his >urisru$ence, in turn, alie$ the
