HPS Software and Communication Corporation vs. PLDT G.R. Nos. 170217 & 170694; 10 December 2012; Leonardo-de Castro, J. SUMMARY The case is is a consolidation consolidation of 2 petitions petitions for review review on certiorari certiorari each each seeking to annul a ruling ruling of the CA setting aside an RTC ruling which directed the immediate return of seized items to HPS and another CA ruling which armed an RTC order to release the seized euipment! The controvers" originated from 2 search warrants for violation of RPC#$% for Theft of Telephone Services and for &iolation of P'($) for unauthorized installation of telephone communication euipment following the complaint of P*'T accusing HPS of conducting +SR or unauthorized sale of international long distance calls! The warrants were issued ," the TC to seize instruments of the crime after ,eing satis-ed with the adavits and sworn testimon" of the complainant.s witnesses witnesses that the" saw telephone euipment inside the respondents. compound ,eing used for the purpose of conducting +SR! After the implementation of the warrants/ warrants/ the motions to uash the warrants and return the things seized were -led which were granted ," the RTC! There were were 0 issues issues for the SC.s resolution! resolution! 1irstl"/ 1irstl"/ on whether whether P*'T possessed possessed the legal legal personalit" to -le the petition in light of respondents. respondents. claim that/ in criminal appeals/ appeals/ it is the Solen which has the e3clusive and sole power to -le appeals in ,ehalf of eo!"e/ eo!"e/ SC held that P*'T did ,ecause the petition -led did not involve an ordinar" criminal criminal action/ nor a civil action/ ,ut a special criminal process! Secondl"/ on whether P*'T.s petition for certiorari certiorari should have ,een dismissed outright ," the CA since no 4R was -led ,efore the RTC order/ SC held that despite the non5ful-lment of the reuirement reuirement of 4R -ling/ the peculiar circumstances circumstances surrounding the case o6ered e3ceptions to the rule/ that is/ P*'T.s deprivation of due process when the RTC e3peditiousl" released the items seized ," virtue of the su,7ect search warrants without waiting for P*'T to -le its memorandum and despite the fact that no motion for e3ecution was -led ," respondents which was reuired! Thirdl"/ on whether P*'T was engaged in forum shopping when it -led a petition for certiorari despite the fact that it had previousl" -led an appeal from the RTC order/ SC held that no/ P*'T did not ,ecause the 2 motions posed di6erent di6erent causes of action/ i!e!/ the appeal that P*'T elevated to the CA was an e3amination of the validit" of the trial court.s action of uashing the search warrants that it initiall" issued while/ on the other hand/ the petition for certiorari was an inuir" on whether the TC 7udge committed grave a,use of discretion when he ordered the release of the seized items su,7ect of the search warrants despite the fact that the RTC order had not "et ,ecome -nal and e3ecutor"! 1ourthl"/ on whether the 2 search warrants were improperl" uashed/ SC held that "es/ the" were ,ecause8 9): evidence presented were sucient to show pro,a,le cause to issue su,7ect warrants; and 92: su,7ect warrants weren.t general warrants ,ecause the items to ,e seized were sucientl" identi-ed ph"sicall" and their relation to the o6enses charged were also speci-call" identi-ed! *astl"/ on whether the release of the items seized was proper/ SC held that no/ it wasn.t therefore agreeing with one of the CA ruling that there was indeed grave a,use of discretion! DOCTR!"S <)= An +nternational Simple Resale 9+SR: activit" is an act of su,traction covered ," the provisions on Theft/ and that the ,usiness of providing telecommunication or telephone service is personal propert"/ propert"/ which can ,e the o,7ect of Theft under Article #$% of the RPC! <2= A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal action/ much less a civil action/ ,ut a special criminal process! <#= Pro,a,le cause/ as a condition for the issuance of a search warrant/ is such reasons supported ," facts and circumstances circumstances as will warrant a cautious man to ,elieve that his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are legall" 7ust and proper!
<0= The uantum of evidence reuired to prove pro,a,le cause is not the same uantum of evidence needed to esta,lish proof ,e"ond reasona,le dou,t which is reuired in a criminal case that ma" ,e su,seuentl" -led! <>= A search warrant issued must particularl" descri,e the place to ,e searched and persons or things to ,e seized in order for it to ,e valid/ otherwise/ it is considered as a general warrant which is proscri,ed ," ,oth 7urisprudence and the )?%@ Constitution!
