This case involves a dispute between HPS and PLDT regarding alleged theft of telecommunication services and unauthorized installation of telephone equipment by HPS. PLDT filed a complaint with PAOCTF, resulting in search warrants being issued against HPS. HPS filed a motion to quash the warrants for lack of probable cause. The trial court granted the motion but the CA reversed, finding probable cause. The Supreme Court agreed with the CA, finding that while the test calls done after the warrants were issued did not establish probable cause, other sufficient evidence showed calls were made in violation of law, so the warrants were not improperly quashed despite HPS arguments.
This case involves a dispute between HPS and PLDT regarding alleged theft of telecommunication services and unauthorized installation of telephone equipment by HPS. PLDT filed a complaint with PAOCTF, resulting in search warrants being issued against HPS. HPS filed a motion to quash the warrants for lack of probable cause. The trial court granted the motion but the CA reversed, finding probable cause. The Supreme Court agreed with the CA, finding that while the test calls done after the warrants were issued did not establish probable cause, other sufficient evidence showed calls were made in violation of law, so the warrants were not improperly quashed despite HPS arguments.
This case involves a dispute between HPS and PLDT regarding alleged theft of telecommunication services and unauthorized installation of telephone equipment by HPS. PLDT filed a complaint with PAOCTF, resulting in search warrants being issued against HPS. HPS filed a motion to quash the warrants for lack of probable cause. The trial court granted the motion but the CA reversed, finding probable cause. The Supreme Court agreed with the CA, finding that while the test calls done after the warrants were issued did not establish probable cause, other sufficient evidence showed calls were made in violation of law, so the warrants were not improperly quashed despite HPS arguments.
This case involves a dispute between HPS and PLDT regarding alleged theft of telecommunication services and unauthorized installation of telephone equipment by HPS. PLDT filed a complaint with PAOCTF, resulting in search warrants being issued against HPS. HPS filed a motion to quash the warrants for lack of probable cause. The trial court granted the motion but the CA reversed, finding probable cause. The Supreme Court agreed with the CA, finding that while the test calls done after the warrants were issued did not establish probable cause, other sufficient evidence showed calls were made in violation of law, so the warrants were not improperly quashed despite HPS arguments.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
HPS VS.
PLDT GR NO. 170217 December 10, 2012 FACTS:
On October 20, 2000, upon PLDTs complaint, the PAOCTF filed for the issuance of 2 search warrants for violation of petitioners of Art. 308 of RPC or theft of telecommunication services and PD 401 or the unauthorized installation of telephone communication equipment. According to the PLDT, they were able to monitor the respondents transmitting calls from the USA to the Philippines without passing through PLDTs facilities also known as International simple resale. Witnesses conducted test calls to international numbers passing through the Mabuhay Card. However, these international calls were reflected as local calls only. On the same day the trial court issued the two search warrants. On December 11, 2000, petitioners filed a motion o quash warrant on the grounds that the same does not refer specific offense; there is no probable cause; for being general warrants. On July 7, 2001 release the seized items thus PLDT filed a petition to the CA which reversed the decision, thus this case.
ISSUE: Whether the search warrant was improperly quashed? YES HELD: In the case at bar, both trial court and CA agree that no probable cause existed to justify the issuance of the warrants. The reasoning of the CA is that the test calls conducted in open court with the Mabuhay Card did not lose value. Also the testing of the smart card cannot be used to substantiate the issuance of the warrants since the test calls was done way after the search warrant were issued. However the SC said that the warrants were improperly quashed as there was probable cause. The CA hastily ruled that since the Mabuhay Cards used did not really lose their value, there were no calls conducted. But sufficient amount evidence show that such call were indeed made. GENERAL WARRANTS: The warrant is not a general warrant. The items to be seized were sufficiently identified physically and were identified in relation to the offenses charged.
