View full case

WORLDWIDE WEB CORPORATION v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Police Chief Inspector Napoleon Villegas filed applications for search warrants before the RTC of Quezon City to search the office premises of petitioner Worldwide Web Corporation (WWC) and petitioner Planet Internet Corporation (Planet Internet). The applications alleged that petitioners were conducting illegal toll bypass operations, which violated Presidential Decree No. 401 and caused damage to the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT). During the hearing, testimony was given by Jose Enrico Rivera and Raymund Gali of the Alternative Calling Pattern Detection Division of PLDT. Rivera explained that petitioners were able to provide international long distance call services by bypassing PLDT's international gateway facilities (IGFs). Gali testified that GlobalTalk, an internet-based international call service, was used to make international calls that bypassed PLDT's IGF. Based on PLDT's records, the telephone number registered to WWC was used for this service, but an ocular inspection revealed that the occupant of the unit was Planet Internet. Gali further alleged that petitioners violated Presidential Decree No. 401, committed theft, evaded payment of charges, and violated Memorandum Circular No. 6-2-92 of the National Telecommunications Commission. PLDT claimed that it suffered revenues losses and deprivation of foreign exchange revenues, as well as evasion of taxes, license fees, and charges.

The trial court granted the application for search warrants, which authorized the seizure of various items from the office premises of the petitioners. Search warrants were issued against WWC, Adriel S. Mirto, Kevin L. Tan, Cherryll L. Yu, Carmelo J. Canto III, Ferdinand B. Masi, Message One International Corporation, Nova Christine L. Dela Cruz, Robertson S. Chiang, and Nolan B. Sison for violation of theft in relation to the Revised Penal Code. Another search warrant was issued against Planet Internet Corporation/Mercury One, Robertson S. Chiang, Nikki S. Chiang, Maria Sy Be Chiang, Ben C. Javellana, and Carmelita Tuason for violation of P.D. 401. The search warrants authorized the seizure of various equipment and documents related to the use and securing of telephone lines and equipment. The search warrants were implemented on the same day by RISOO operatives of the National Capital Region Police Office. Over a hundred items were seized, including CPUs, monitors, wires, cables, diskettes, files, and a laptop computer. Personal diskettes of Planet Internet's employees were also confiscated, and areas unrelated to the transmission of international calls were searched. Petitioners WWC, Cherryll Yu, and Planet Internet filed motions to quash the search warrants, arguing that there was no probable cause, toll bypass was not a crime, the warrants were general warrants, and the seized items were "fruits of the poisonous tree." PLDT opposed the motions to quash and argued that the test calls mentioned in the search warrants passed the inspection of Eastern Telecommunications (Philippines) Inc. and Capital Wireless. The RTC granted the motions to quash, ruling that the warrants issued were in the nature of general warrants. PLDT's motion for reconsideration was denied.

PLDT filed a request for the issuance of search warrants against several individuals and entities, including petitioners WWC, Cherryll Yu, and Planet Internet, alleging that they were engaged in the unauthorized transmission and distribution of PLDT's copyrighted channels. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the request and issued the search warrants. Subsequently, the petitioners filed separate motions to quash the search warrants. WWC argued that the search warrants were overly broad and violated their constitutional rights. Cherryll Yu contended that the search warrants were issued without probable cause. Planet Internet claimed that the search warrants should be quashed because PLDT was not the proper party to file the request for their issuance. The RTC granted the motions to quash filed by WWC and Cherryll Yu, finding that the search warrants violated their constitutional rights. However, it denied Planet Internet's motion on the ground that PLDT had failed to obtain the conformity of the City Prosecutor prior to filing the motion, as required by the Rules on Criminal Procedure. PLDT appealed the RTC's ruling to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC's resolutions and declared the search warrants valid and effective. Petitioners filed motions for reconsideration, arguing that PLDT should have filed a petition for certiorari instead of an appeal before the CA. The CA denied their motions. Petitioners WWC, Cherryll Yu, and Planet Internet separately filed Rule 45 petitions to assail the CA's decision and resolution. The Supreme Court consolidated the two petitions.

ISSUES:

  1. Procedural matters

    1.1. Whether PLDT, without the conformity of the public prosecutor, had the personality to question the quashal of the search warrants.

    1.2. Whether PLDT assailed the quashal orders via an appeal rather than a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

  2. Substantive matters

    2.1. Whether the assailed search warrants were issued upon probable cause, considering that the acts complained of do not constitute theft.

    2.2. Whether the CA erred in holding that the assailed search warrants were not general warrants.

RULING:

  1. Procedural matters

    1.1. An application for a search warrant is not a criminal action; hence, conformity of the public prosecutor is not necessary for an aggrieved party to question an order quashing search warrants.

    1.2. An order quashing a search warrant issued independently of a criminal action partakes of a final order and can be appealed.

  2. Substantive matters

    2.1. A trial judge's finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is given deference, provided it is based on substantial evidence. Given the case facts, probable cause was established as the actions of the petitioners potentially constituted theft and unauthorized installation of telephone connections.

    2.2. The requirement of particularity in the description of things to be seized is fulfilled when the items described bear a direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is sought. The court ruled that the search warrants sufficiently described the items to be seized.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Probable Cause: Courts give respect to a trial judge’s finding of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant if there is a substantial basis for it.

  • Final Order: An order quashing a search warrant issued independently is a final order and is appealable.

  • Particularity Requirement: Search warrants must particularly describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized. This description must be as specific as the circumstances reasonably allow and should bear a direct relation to the offense.

  • Conformity of Public Prosecutor: Conformity of the public prosecutor is not required to question an order quashing a search warrant since the application for a search warrant is not a criminal action.

  • Nullum Crimen, Nulla Poena Sine Lege: There is no crime if there is no law punishing it. The distinction must be made between charging a crime directly and the use of technologies or practices (like toll bypass) that amount to recognized criminal acts such as theft.