EVIDENCE of credit card hacking cannot be lawfully seized under a search warrant that authorizes only the search for illegal drugs and drug-related paraphernalia, the Supreme Court said in its ruling made public on Friday.
As a result, the Supreme Court’s Third Division acquitted one Edgar Silvano of violating Republic Act (RA) 8484, or the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998, which prohibits possessing counterfeit access devices, including fake credit cards.
The case stemmed from information the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received, linking Silvano to both illegal drug activities and computer hacking, specifically credit card fraud.
To verify the report, the NBI instructed an informant to purchase methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, from Silvano. Laboratory tests later confirmed the substance was indeed shabu.
Armed with the confirmation, the NBI secured a search warrant for violating RA 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, which explicitly authorized the search only for shabu and other drug-related items.
During the search of Silvano’s residence, NBI agents seized several items outside the warrant’s scope: computers, ATM (automated teller machine) cards, laptops, a money counter, a dry seal, and a card-scheming device.
They also recovered two American Express credit cards bearing the name “V S Tan.” An American Express manager’s verification confirmed the cards were counterfeit, as their numbers did not match the original account holder’s records.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Silvano of possessing counterfeit access devices, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The appellate court ruled that the items were validly seized under the plain view doctrine, even though they were not specified in the search warrant, because they were discovered in plain sight during the lawful search.
But the high court, in its decision penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, explained that as a general rule, authorities may seize only those items specifically described in a search warrant.
But the Court cited an exception — the plain view doctrine — which permits officers to seize evidence they inadvertently discover while lawfully present in a location.
For the plain view doctrine to apply, three conditions must be met: first, the officers must have a lawful reason to be in the place where the evidence is found; second, the discovery must be unintentional; and third, it must be immediately apparent that the item is connected to a crime.
The high court found that these requirements were not satisfied.
While the NBI agents were lawfully inside Silvano’s residence, the discovery of the credit cards was far from accidental. The agents already had prior information linking Silvano to alleged credit card fraud and hacking, yet they did not secure a separate search warrant covering those specific offenses, the ruling said.
It further noted that the credit cards were found inside a non-transparent bag, rendering their contents invisible until the bag was opened. Even then, the cards did not appear counterfeit on their face.
The high tribunal thus ruled that the credit cards were unlawfully seized and therefore inadmissible as evidence against Silvano. Without this evidence, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt under RA 8484, leading to his acquittal.
