The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that evidence of credit card fraud cannot be seized under a search warrant limited to illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia.
In a decision penned by SC associate justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division acquitted Edgar Silvano of violating Republic Act No. 8484, or the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998.
Section 9(e) of the law prohibits the possession of counterfeit access devices, including fake credit cards.
The case stemmed from information received by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) linking Silvano to illegal drug activities, computer hacking, and credit card fraud.
The NBI conducted a test-buy operation in which an informant purchased suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, from Silvano. Laboratory testing confirmed that the substance was shabu.
Agents subsequently obtained a search warrant for violation of RA 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, covering shabu and other drug-related items.
During the search of Silvano’s residence, however, agents also seized computers, automated teller machine cards, laptops, a money counter, a dry seal, and a card-skimming device.
They also recovered two American Express credit cards bearing the name “V S Tan.” An American Express manager later determined that the cards were counterfeit because their numbers did not match the records of the legitimate account holder.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Silvano of possessing counterfeit access devices. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, ruling that the items could be seized under the plain view doctrine even though they were not listed in the warrant.
The SC reversed the lower courts, finding that the requirements of the plain view doctrine were not met.
Under the doctrine, authorities may seize evidence not specified in a warrant if they are lawfully present at the location, discover the item inadvertently, and immediately recognize its connection to a crime.
Although the agents were lawfully inside Silvano’s residence, the court said the discovery of the credit cards was not inadvertent. The NBI already had information linking him to hacking and credit card fraud but did not obtain a search warrant covering those alleged offenses.
The cards were also found inside a non-transparent bag and could not be seen until agents opened it. Their allegedly counterfeit nature was not immediately apparent and was established only after verification with American Express.
The court ruled that the cards were unlawfully seized and could not be admitted as evidence against Silvano. Without the cards, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt under RA 8484 beyond reasonable doubt.
