04/09/2026
The (SC) has ruled that evidence of credit card hacking cannot be seized under a search warrant that authorizes only the search for illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia unless they are discovered in plain view.
In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SCβs Third Division acquitted an accused of violating Republic Act No. (RA) 8484, or π΅π©π¦ ππ€π€π¦π΄π΄ ππ¦π·πͺπ€π¦π΄ ππ¦π¨πΆππ’π΅πͺπ°π― ππ€π΅ π°π§ 1998. Section 9(e) of the law prohibits the possession of counterfeit access devices, including fake credit cards.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received information that the accused was involved in illegal drug activities and computer hacking, particularly credit card fraud.
To verify the report, the NBI instructed the informant to buy methamphetamine hydrochloride (π΄π©π’π£πΆ) from the accused. Laboratory test later confirmed that it was indeed π΄π©π’π£πΆ.
The NBI obtained a search warrant for violation of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, authorizing the search for π΄π©π’π£πΆ and other drug-related items.
During the search of the accusedβs residence, NBI agents seized several items including computers, ATM cards, laptops, a money counter, a dry seal, and a card-scheming device.
They also recovered two American Express credit cards bearing the name βV S Tan.β An American Express manager later confirmed that the cards were fake because their numbers did not match the records of the original account holder.
Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted the accused based on the evidence seized in the implementation of the search warrant.
The SC reversed the conviction and explained that, as a general rule, authorities may seize only items specifically described in a search warrant. One exception is the plain view doctrine, which allows officers to seize evidence they discover while lawfully present in a place.
For the π±ππ’πͺπ― π·πͺπ¦πΈ π₯π°π€π΅π³πͺπ―π¦ to apply, the officers must have a lawful reason to be in the place where the evidence is found; the discovery must be inadvertent or unintentional; and it must be immediately clear that the item may be connected to a crime.
The SC found that only the first requirement was met.
The search warrant covered only illegal drugs and related paraphernalia. It did not authorize the seizure of credit cards or other access devices.
Their discovery of the credit cards was also not made in plain view. The credit cards were inside a non-transparent bag. Their contents could not be seen until the bag was opened. Even then, the cards did not appear fake on their face. Their alleged connection to a crime became apparent only because of the NBIβs prior information and their subsequent verification by American Express.
Although the NBI agents were lawfully inside the accusedβs residence, their discovery of the credit cards was not accidental. The agents already had information linking the accused to alleged credit card fraud and hacking but did not obtain a search warrant covering those offenses.
The SC thus ruled that the credit cards were unlawfully seized and could not be used as evidence against the accused. Without them, the prosecution failed to prove his guilt under RA 8484.
Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172645
Read the full text of the Decision athttps://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/273931.pdf
Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIOβs Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution
