HPS v. PLDT Crim Digest

HPS v. PLDT

G.R. No. 170217; December 10, 2012 Facts:

−

−

− − − − −

− − − −

This This case case involv involves es a compla complaint int for an issuan issuance ce of search search warra warrant nt to !" #orpor #orporati ation on for  $iolation $iolation of %rticle &0' of the Revise( !enal #o(e an( Theft of Telephone Telephone "ervices an( violation of !.D. )01 for unauthori*e( installation of telephone communication e+uipment. The witnesses testifie( that the abuha- #ar( use( for international out/oin/ calls were bein/ reflecte( onl- as local calls an( upon verification the car( was re/istere( to !hilip ap whose a((ress is the !" "oftware #orporation. %fter evi(ence was presente(, the trial court issue( two search warrants for violation of %rt. &0' of the R!# an( !.D. !.D. )01, which were imme(iatel- carrie( out b - the police. The oint oint 3r(er (irects (irects the !hilippin !hilippinee National National !olice4"pe !olice4"pecial cial Tas5 Tas5 6orce Group4$is Group4$isa-as a-as to retrieve possession an( custo(- of all sei*e( items pen(in/ to !DT. !hilip ap ap then file( a otion to "+uash an( suppresses the sei*e( evi(ence on the basis that the(i( not have an- probable cause an( were serve( as /eneral warrants. The same court /rante( otion to "+uash that (irecte( to return the sei*e( items at once to !" #orporation. !DT !DT file( a petiti petition on for certiorar certiorarii un(er Rule 89 with the #ourt of %ppeals assailin/ the (ecision of the release of e+uipment (espite the fact that the oint 3r(er (ate( a- 2&, 2001 was not -et final. The court /rante( sai( petition insofar as it release( the item sei*e(. This case involves two consoli(ate( petitions for certiorari un(er Rule )9 of the Rules of #ourt that see5s to annul a rulin/ re/ar(in/ a oint 3r(er b- the #ourt of %ppeals on a- 2&, 2001. The other petition see5s to nullif- the arch 28, 200) (ecision as well as "eptember 27, 2009 Resolution. The arch 28, 200) (ecision mo(ifie( the a- 2&, 2001 oint 3r(er (irectin/ the imme(iate return of the sei*e( items to !" #orporation.

CRIMINAL LAW Issue:  :3N

!DT has le/al personalit- to file the petition for certiorari without the consent or approval of the "olicitor General.

Held/Ratio:  es.

nli5e an or(inar- criminal action, what is involve( in this case is a search warrant  procee(in/, which is not a criminal action but a special criminal procee(in/. >s peti petiti tion on for for cert certio iora rari ri shou shoul( l( have have been been (ism (ismis isse se( ( sinc sincee no moti motion on for  for  reconsi(eration was file( b- !DT from assaile( =oint or(er.

Issue:

reasons. The court consi(ers that there was proper proper filin/ of the petition Held/Ratio: No, an( with specific reasons.  because of the peculiar circumstances obtainin/ obtainin/ in this case (espite the the non4fulfillment of the re+uirement of the filin/ of a motion for reconsi(eration. The /eneral rule is that a motion for reconsi(eration is a con(it con(ition ion  sine qua non  before a petition for certiorari ma- lie but such rule is not absolute as  =urispru(ence show. 3ne of which is when petitioner was (eprive( of (ue process an( there is e?treme

ur/enc- for relief, apparent in the !DT>s situation. This is when the trial court e?pe(itiousl- release( the items without waitin/ for !DT to file its memoran(um. Issue:

:3N !DT committe( forum shoppin/.

Held/Ratio: No.

There is forum shoppin/ when, between an action pen(in/ before the court an( another  one, there e?ists 1 i(entit- of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; 2 i(entit- of ri/hts asserte( an( relief pra-e( for, the relief bein/ foun(e( on the same facts; an( & the i(entit- of the two prece(in/ particulars is such that an- =u(/ment ren(ere( in the other action will, re/ar(less of which part- is successful, amount to res judicata in the action un(er consi(eration; sai( re+uisites also constitutive of the re+uisites for auter action pendant or lis pendens. s action on +uashin/ the search warrant while the other is a petition for certiorari is an in+uir- whether trial court committe( /rave abuse when he or(ere( the release sei*e( items

Issue:

:3N two 2 search warrants were improperl- s+uashe(.

Held/Ratio: No.

The court is impresse( with merit on the ar/ument of !DT that stresses that probable cause is the re+uisite in hol(in/ a search warrant vali(. !robable cause re+uires facts an( circumstances that woul( lea( a reasonable pru(ent man to believe that an offense has been committe(. s witness usin/ abuha- car( an( the probable cause necessar- to en/en(er  a belief that !" #orporation ha( probabl- committe( the crime of Theft.

Issue:

:3N the sub=ect search warrants are in the nature of /eneral warrants.

Held/Ratio:  No.

% search warrant must particularl- (escribe the place to be searche( an( persons or  thin/s to be sei*e( otherwise it is consi(ere( to be /eneral an( of no effect.
Issue:

:3N the release of items sei*e( b- virtue of the sub=ect search warrants was proper.

Held/Ratio: No.

#learl- in this case the release of the sei*e( items was enforce( prematurel- an( without an- previous motion for e?ecution on recor( since it shoul( be (one upon the e?piration of the perio( to appeal an( if no appeal has been (ul- perfecte(.