G.R. No. 191080; November 21, 2011
FREDRIK FELIX P. NOGALES, GIANCARLO P. NOGALES, ROGELIO P. NOGALES, MELINDA P. NOGALES, PRISCILA B. CABRERA, Phil-Pacific Outsourcing Services CorpORATION and 3 x 8 Internet, represented by its proprietor Michael Christopher A. Nogales, Petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and Presiding Judge TITA BUGHAO ALISUAG, Branch 1, Regional Trial Court, Manila, Respondents.

FACTS

On July 30, 2007, Special Investigator Garry Meñez (SI Meñez) of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) applied for a search warrant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 1, presided by Judge Tita Bughao Alisuag. The application sought authority to search the premises of petitioner Phil-Pacific Outsourcing Services Corporation located at the Mezzanine Floor, Glorietta De Manila Building, 776 San Sebastian St., University Belt, Manila, and to seize items allegedly used in the creation and selling of pornographic internet websites. The items listed included computer sets, television sets, internet servers, fax machines, pornographic films and materials, web cameras, telephone sets, photocopying machines, lists of clients, and other tools used in the commission of the crime.
On August 3, 2007, Judge Alisuag conducted a hearing, personally examining SI Meñez and two witnesses (Isabel Cortez y Andrade and Mark Anthony C. Sebastian) through searching questions, with their answers recorded. Their affidavits were submitted as supporting evidence. On the same day, the search warrant was issued for violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to R.A. 8792 (Electronic Commerce Act). The warrant named Jun Nicolas, Loren Nuestra, Frederick Felix P. Nogales, Gian Carlo P. Nogales, Rogelio P. Nogales, Melinda P. Nogales, Priscila B. Cabrera, and/or occupants of Phil-Pacific Outsourcing Services Corporation.
The warrant was implemented on August 7, 2007, resulting in the seizure of ten units each of Central Processing Units (CPUs), monitors, keyboards, mice, and AVRs. A return was filed on August 8, 2007.
The named persons filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant and Return Seized Properties, arguing, among other grounds, that: they did not have programmers or website servers; the imputed websites were owned by foreign companies and located outside the Philippines; the NBI witnesses’ testimony was contradicted by documentary evidence; the NBI withheld information and took advantage of the court’s limited knowledge; the NBI raided the wrong establishment; and the element of publicity for the crime under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code was absent.
On December 26, 2007, the RTC denied the motion, holding that: publicity was present as the corporation was persuading clients via call center agents to log on to pornographic sites, which constituted advertisement; the non-recovery of some listed items or the absence of named persons did not negate the commission of a crime, especially since pornographic materials were found on seized computers; probable cause existed for the issuance of the warrant; and the warrant was issued in accordance with procedural rules, with no impropriety in its issuance or irregularity in its enforcement.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC in its Order dated August 6, 2008. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s order with modification in its Decision dated August 19, 2009, and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated January 25, 2010. Petitioners then filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the search warrant and in denying the motion to quash it, specifically concerning the existence of probable cause and the presence of the element of publicity required for a violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the issuance of the search warrant was based on a finding of probable cause, which was established through the personal examination by the judge of the applicant and his witnesses under oath, as required by the Rules of Court. The judge asked searching questions, and the witnesses’ affidavits were submitted as evidence. Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable, discreet, and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought are in the place to be searched. The Court found that this standard was met.
Regarding the element of publicity under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court sustained the RTC’s finding that it was present. The RTC reasoned that Phil-Pacific, through its call center agents, was persuading clients to log on to pornographic sites listed on its webpage, which constituted a form of advertisement and publicity. The Court also noted that the non-recovery of all items listed in the warrant or the absence of the named persons during the search does not invalidate the warrant or negate the commission of a crime, as the implementing officers found pornographic materials in the seized computers.
The Court further ruled that the search warrant was issued in accordance with Sections 3 to 6, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court. A search warrant may only be quashed if there is an impropriety in its issuance or an irregularity in its enforcement. The Court found no such impropriety or irregularity. Therefore, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant and denying the motion to quash. The petition for certiorari was without merit.