Rule 126: Search and Seizure
RTC granted the quashal on the ground of general warrants. CA reversed and upheld
WORLDWIDE WEB CORP v. YU
GR 161106 Jan. 13, 2014
Facts:
Police Chief Inspector Villegas of the PNP filed for applications for warrants before
the RTC of QC to search the office of Worldwide Web Corp (WWC) located at
Eastwood, QC, as well as the office of Plant Internet Corp (Planet) at San Antonio,
Pasig.
 The applications alleged that the petitioners were conducting illegal toll bypass
operations which amounted to theft and violation of PD 401 (unauthorized
installation of water, electrical or telephone connections), to the damage of PLDT.
The trial court conducted a hearing on the application for search warrants.
 One of PLDT witnesses’, Rivera, conducted an ocular inspection of WWC’s
office occupied by Planet and testified on the unauthorized use of telephone
connections.
 During the hearing, the trial court required the identification of the office
premises/units to be searched, as well as their floor plans showing the location of
particular computers and servers that would be taken.
RTC then granted the application for search warrants.
 1st warrant: for violation of theft against WWC: “computers or any equipment
or device capable of accepting info; software diskettes, tapes, used for recording
or storing info; and manuals, forms, access codes, billing statement, receipts
relating to securing and using telephone lines or equipment.”
 2nd warrant: for violation of PD 401 against Planet: “modems or routers or
equipment that enables data terminal equipments such as computers to
communicate with other equipments; computers or device capable of accepting
information; lines, cables, antennas capable of transmitting airwaves or
frequency; multiplexers to enablepassing through cable or transmission lines;
PABX or switching equipment; software, diskettes; manuals, forms, access
codes.”
 3rd warrant: for theft against Planet: items same as 2nd warrant.
The search warrant was served on the same day and over hundred items were seized,
including 15 CPUs, 10 monitors, numerous wires, cables, diskettes, and filed, and a
laptop.
Planet claims that even personal diskettes of employees were confiscated; areas like
President’s Office and Info Desk were searched; and voltage regulators and broken
computers also seaized.
Petitioners filed a motion to quash the warrants on the grounds of (1) without probable
cause; (2) acts did not constitute theft, (3) general warrants, (4) fruits of poisonous
tree.
validity.
Issues and Held:
W/N an application for search warrant is a criminal action? NO.
 It was contended that PLDT had no personality to question the quashal; without
the conformity of the public prosecutor as required in Rule 110.
Held: An application for a search warrant is not a criminal action; conformity of
the public prosecutor is not necessary to give the aggrieved party personality to
question an order quashing search warrants
An application for a search warrant is a "special criminal process," rather than a
criminal action.
For, indeed, a warrant, such as a warrant of arrest or a search warrant, merely
constitutes process. A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process akin to a
writ of discovery. Such warrant is definitively considered merely as a process,
generally issued by a court in the exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction, and not a
criminal action to be entertained by a court pursuant to its original jurisdiction.
Clearly then, an application for a search warrant is not a criminal action. Meanwhile,
we have consistently recognized the right of parties to question orders quashing those
warrants. Accordingly, we sustain the CA’s ruling that the conformity of the public
prosecutor is not necessary before an aggrieved party moves for reconsideration of an
order granting a motion to quash search warrants.
W/N the order quashing the warrant is a final order, which can be appealed?
YES.
 It was contended that the motion to quash was interlocutory, and PLDT should
have filed under Rule 65 instead.
A final order is defined as one which disposes of the whole subject matter or terminates
a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing to be done but to enforce by
execution what has been determined; on the other hand. an order is interlocutory if it
does not dispose of a case completely, but leaves something more to be done upon its
merits.
Where the warrant is issued as an incident in a pending criminal case, the quashal is
merely interlocutory since there is something more to be done in the criminal case.
Where a warrant is issued in anticipation of a criminal case, the quashal ENDS the
juridical process.
Here, the application was instituted as principal proceedings and NOT as incidents
to pending criminal actions. Hence, when they were quashed by the RTC, they
were final orders. PLDT correct in appealing.
W/N the finding of probable cause of trial judge should be accorded respect by
reviewing courts? YES.
Probable cause requires “such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and the object sought in
connection with the offense are in the place to be searched.”
 It is presumed that a judicial function has been regularly performed, absent a
showing to the contrary.
The transcript of stenographic notes during the hearing showed that judge asked
searching questions and sought clarification on the alleged illegal toll bypass
operation.
A trial judge’s finding of probable cause may be set aside and the search warrant issued
by him based on his finding may be quashed if the person against whom the warrant
is issued presents clear and convincing evidence that when the police officers and
witnesses testified, they committed a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for
the truth on matters that are essential or necessary to a showing of probable
cause.
 In that case, the finding of probable cause is a nullity, because the trial judge was
intentionally misled by the witnesses.
On the other hand, innocent and negligent omissions or misrepresentation of
witnesses will not cause the quashal of a search warrant.
 In this case, the testimonies of Rivera and Gali that the test calls they conducted
did not pass through PLDT’s IGF are true.
 They neglected, however, to look into the possibility that the test calls may have
passed through other IGFs in the Philippines, which was exactly what
happened.
 Nevertheless, the witnesses did not commit a deliberate falsehood. Even Planet
Internet stated that the conclusion that the test calls bypassed all IGFs in the
country was made "carelessly and haphazardly.”
W/N illegal toll bypass operations is punishable? YES.
Petitioners insist that the determination of probable cause necessitates the prior
determination of whether a crime is committed; and since there is not crime punishing
toll bypass, there is no justification for the warrants.
In the application the crime was not toll bypass per se, but of theft committed by
means of toll bypass. There is theft in the use of PLDT’s communication facilities
without consent.
Furthermore, it could not have been accomplished without the installation of telecom
equipments, hence, PD 401.
W/N the requirement of particularity was fulfilled? YES.
Petitioners claim that the subject search warrants were in the nature of general warrants
because the descriptions therein of the objects to be seized are so broad and all-
encompassing as to give the implementing officers wide discretion over which articles
to seize.
 In fact, the CA observed that the targets of the search warrants were not illegal
per se, and that they were "innocuous goods." Thus, the police officers were
given blanket authority to determine whether the objects were legal or not, as in
fact even pieces of computer equipment not involved in telecommunications or
Internet service were confiscated.
A general warrant is that which is not particular as to the person/property to be seized.
It allows the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing the other, and gives the
officer the discretion over which items to take.
 Such discretion is abhorrent, as it makes the person, against whom the warrant is
issued, vulnerable to abuses
HOWEVER, technical precision of description is not required. Any description of the
place or thing to be searched that will enable the officer with reasonable certainty to
locate it is sufficient.
A search warrant need not describe the items to be seized in precise and minute detail.
The warrant is valid when it enables the police officers to readily identify the
properties to be seized and leaves them with no discretion regarding the articles
to be seized.
 A search warrant fulfills the requirement when the things described are limited
to those that bear a direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is
being issued
In this case, considering that items that looked like "innocuous goods" were being used
to pursue an illegal operation that amounts to theft, law enforcement officers would be
hard put to secure a search warrant if they were required to pinpoint items with one
hundred percent precision.
To our mind, PLDT was able to establish the connection between the items to be
searched as identified in the warrants and the crime of theft of its telephone services
and business. Prior to the application for the search warrants, Rivera conducted ocular
inspection of the premises of petitioners a d was then able to confirm that they had
utilized various telecommunications equipment consisting of computers, lines, cables,
antennas, modems, or routers, multiplexers, PABX or switching equipment, a d
support equipment such as software, diskettes, tapes, manuals and other documentary
records to support the illegal toll bypass operations."
The warrants were NOT general warrants. The Court has been mindful of the
difficulty in describing the items to be searched, especially when they are
technical in nature, and when the illegal operation is largely unknown to them
 People v De Grano
G.R. No. 167710 June 5, 2009
Summary:
The RTC then convicted Joven, Armando, Domingo, and Estanislao of murder but
only Estanislao was present at the promulgation of judgment. Because of an MR by
respondents, Joven and Armando were acquitted and as to Domingo and Estanislao,
the crime was downgraded to homicide. Petitioner appealed before the CA, CA
dismissed due to double jeopardy.
RTC shouldn’t have granted the MR since they were not present the promulgation.
Thus, they lost any relief or remedy. Consequently, judgment as to them was void
and appeal does not violate their right against double jeopardy.
Facts:
An Information for the murder of Mendoza was filed with RTC against respondents
Joven, Armando, Estanislao, together with their co-accused Leonides, Domingo and
Leonardo who were then at large.
 Duly arraigned, Joven, Armando, and Estanislao pleaded not guilty to the crime
as charged; while their co-accused Leonides, Leonardo, and Domingo remained
at-large.
 Thereafter, respondents filed a motion for bail contending that the prosecutions
evidence was not strong.
Before the transfer of the case to the RTC of Manila (since one of the accused was a
Mayor of Batangas) and after hearing and determination that the evidence against the
accused was not strong, the RTC granted bail.
 The CA denied the challenge to the grant, but the SC set aside the order granting
bail. Accordingly, a warrant of arrest was issued for the respondents but only
Estanislao was re-arrested.
The RTC then convicted Joven, Armando, Domingo, and Estanislao of murder. Only
Estanislao was present at the promulgation despite due notice to the other
respondents.
Respondents then filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration. The RTC then
modified its decision by acquitting Joven and Armando and downgrading the
conviction of Domingo and Estanislao from murder to homicide.
People of the Philippines filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. However, the
CA denied the same ruling that the rule on double jeopardy prohibits the state from
appealing or filing a petition for review of a judgment of acquittal that was based on
the merits of the case.
 Also based on other technical matters such as lack of proper verification and
certificate against forum shopping, lack of participation of OSG
Issue: WON the petition for certiorari before the CA violates the respondents’
right against double jeopardy
Held: NO.
A writ of certiorari is warranted when (1) any tribunal, board or officer has acted
without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (2) there is no appeal, nor any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
By way of exception, a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case may be assailed in a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, but only upon a clear
showing by the petitioner that the lower court, in acquitting the accused, committed
not merely reversible errors of judgment but also grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, or to a denial of due process, thus rendering the
assailed judgment void.
In which event, the accused cannot be considered at risk of double jeopardy.
Under English common law, exceptions to the pleas of prior conviction or acquittal
existed where the trial court lacked jurisdiction, the theory being that a defendant
before such a court was not actually placed in jeopardy. Hence, any acquittal or
conviction before a court having no jurisdiction would not violate the principle of
double jeopardy since it failed to attach in the first place.
Once an accused jumps bail or flees to a foreign country, or escapes from prison
or confinement, he loses his standing in court; and unless he surrenders or
submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to
seek relief from the court.
When the Decision of conviction was promulgated, only Estanislao was
present. Subsequently thereafter, without surrendering and explaining the reasons for
their absence, Joven, Armando, and Domingo joined Estanislao in their Joint Motion
for Reconsideration. In blatant disregard of the Rules, the RTC not only failed to cause
the arrest of the respondents who were at large, it also took cognizance of the joint
motion.
The RTC clearly exceeded its jurisdiction when it entertained the joint Motion for
Reconsideration with respect to the respondents who were at large. It should have
considered the joint motion as a motion for reconsideration that was solely filed by
Estanislao. Being at large, Joven and Domingo have not regained their standing
in court.
Thus, Joven, Armando, and Domingo, were not placed in double jeopardy
because, from the very beginning, the lower tribunal had acted without
jurisdiction. Verily, any ruling issued without jurisdiction is, in legal contemplation,
necessarily null and void and does not exist. In criminal cases, it cannot be the source
of an acquittal.

However, with respect to Estanislao, the RTC committed no reversible error

when it entertained the Motion for Reconsideration. He was in custody and was
present at the promulgation of the judgment. Hence, the RTC never lost jurisdiction
over his person. Consequently, the RTCs ruling downgrading his conviction from
murder to homicide stands. For Estanislao, and for him alone, the proscription against
double jeopardy applies.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolutions dated January 25,

2005 and April 5, 2005, issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 88160,
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The pertinent portions of the Order dated April
15, 2004 issued by the Regional Trial Court, convicting Domingo Landicho of the
crime of Homicide and acquitting Armando de Grano and Joven de Grano,
are ANNULLED and DELETED. In all other aspects, the Order stands.

To the extent herein altered or modified, the pertinent portions of the Decision
dated April 25, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court are REINSTATED.