Worldwide Web Corporation v.

People
GR No. 161106 & 161266 13 January 2014 Sereno, CJ.
CRIMPRO: Rule 110, Sec. 5 Yed
Petitioners Respondents
GR No. 161106- Worldwide Web Corporation People of the Philippines and Philippine Long
and Cherryll L. Yu Distance Telephone Company

GR No. 161266- Planet Internet Corp. Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company
Recit Ready Summary
Police Chief Inspector Villegas of the RISOO filed applications for search warrants against petitioners
WWC and Planet Internet to search their office premises for an allegedly conducting toll bypass
operations which amounts to theft and violation of PD 401. Such applications were granted and
several items were seized. The petitioners filed a motion to quash the search warrants which the RTC
granted. On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside RTC’s order and upheld the validity of the search
warrants. Petitioners allege that CA erred in giving due course to respondent PLDT’s appeal since
the latter has no authority to question the quashal of the search warrants without the conformity of
the public prosecutor, in violation of Rule 110, Sec. 5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court
ruled that such provision requires the direction and control of the public prosecutor in the prosecution
of “all criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information” BUT the present case involves a
search warrant which is not a criminal action commenced by a complaint or information but a special
criminal process obtained by filing and application. Therefore, the conformity of the prosecutor is not
necessary to question the quashal order.
Facts of the Case
Police Chief Inspector Napoleon Villegas of the Regional Intelligence Special Operation Office
(RISOO) of the Philippine National Police filed applications for warrants to search the offices of
petitioners Worldwide Web Corporation (WWC) and Planet Internet Corporation (Planet Internet) for
allegedly conducting illegal toll bypass operations, 1 amounting to theft and to the violation of PD No.
401 (Penalizing the Unauthorized Installation of Water, Electrical or Telephone Connections, the Use
of Tampered Water or Electrical Meters and Other Acts). Consequently, defendant Philippines and
Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) was prejudiced. After a hearing, RTC granted
the application and over a hundred items were seized. Petitioners filed motions to quash the search
warrants on the following grounds:
1. issued without probable cause since acts complained of do not constitute theft;
2. toll bypass was not a crime;
3. the warrants were general warrants; and
4. objects seized were fruits of the poisonous tree

RTC granted the motions to quash but on appeal, the CA reversed and set aside. The search warrants
were declared valid and effective. Thus, Rule 45 petitions were separately filed by the petitioners.

Petitioners’ contentions:
1. CA erred in granting the respondent’s appeal because PLDT had no authority to question
the quashal of the warrants without the conformity of the public prosecutor because it
violates Rule 110, Sec. 5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
2. The RTC ruling on the motions to quash was interlocutory so it can’t be appealed under
Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. PLDT should have filed a Rule 65 petition.
Issues (Procedural only) Ruling

1According to PLDT, toll bypass enables international calls to appear as local calls and not
overseas calls, thus effectively evading payment to the PLDT of access, termination or bypass
charges, and accounting rates; payment to the government of taxes; and compliance with NTC
regulatory requirements.
 1. Whether PLDT, without conformity of the public prosecutor, had personality Yes
to question the quashal of the search warrants
2. Whether the appeal under Rule 41 was proper 2 Yes
Rationale/Analysis/Legal Basis
1. According to Rule 110, Sec. 5, the public prosecutor has direction and control of the prosecution
of “all criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information.” However, a search warrant is
not obtained by filing a complaint or and information. It is obtained by filing an application for the
same. An application for a search warrant is a special criminal process rather than a criminal
action. The power to issue the former is inherent in all courts while that of the latter is lodged in
specific courts of indicated competence. The requisites, procedure, and purpose for the issuance
of a search warrant are also different from those for the institution of a criminal action. It is clear
therefore that an application for a search warrant is not a criminal action. The Court has also
recognized the right of parties to question such quashal orders and the conformity of the public
prosecutor is not necessary before an aggrieved party may move for reconsideration.
2. An application of search warrant is a judicial process conducted either as an incident in a main
criminal case already filed in court or in anticipation of one yet to be filed. Whether the main
criminal case has already been filed is important in determining the proper remedy from a grant
or denial of a motion to quash. If the issued warrant is an incident in a pending criminal case, its
quashal is merely interlocutory and there is still something more to be done in the case (the
determination or guilt of accused). On the other hand, if the warrant was issued in anticipation of
a criminal case yet to be filed, the order quashing the warrant ends the judicial process. Nothing
more is to be done after. In the present case, the applications for search warrants were instituted
as principal proceedings and not as incidents to a pending criminal case. The quashal orders were
final and not interlocutory. Therefor, an appeal is proper.
Disposition
Petition DENIED. CA decision is AFFIRMED.
Separate Opinions

2 Not really relevant to the topic but I included it since it’s a procedural issue also hehe