The Supreme Court (SC) has acquitted a man convicted of access device fraud after ruling that credit cards seized during a search for illegal drugs were inadmissible because their seizure did not fall under the plain view exception to the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.  

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC Third Division granted Edgar Silvano Jr.’s petition, reversed the Court of Appeals (CA), and acquitted him of violating Section 9(e) of Republic Act No. 8484, or the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998, for failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 

“Evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable search and seizure is inadmissible for any purpose,” the Court said. 

FACTS AND ISSUE

The case stemmed from information received by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) that Silvano was allegedly selling illegal drugs and involved in credit card hacking, prompting agents to obtain a search warrant after an informant allegedly bought methamphetamine hydrochloride from him. 

While implementing the warrant at Silvano’s Las Piñas City residence, agents recovered several credit cards, including two American Express cards that the prosecution alleged were counterfeit based on subsequent verification. 

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Silvano of violating Section 9(e) of RA 8484, which the CA affirmed after finding that the cards were readily identifiable and could be seized under the plain view doctrine despite not being specified in the warrant.  

Silvano appealed to the SC, challenging the identification and handling of the cards and their seizure under the plain view doctrine, among other issues bearing on whether his conviction could be sustained. 

RULING

The SC held that the chain-of-custody rule for dangerous drugs does not extend to non-drug objects, as unique and readily identifiable evidence may instead be authenticated through testimony from a witness with personal knowledge.  

The prosecution nevertheless failed to establish the cards’ identity and integrity because the inventory referred only to several credit cards without specifying or individually identifying them, while the two American Express cards did not appear in the photograph of the bag’s contents. 

“Contrary to the findings of the RTC and the CA, this Court finds that the integrity and identity of the subject American Express credit cards were not sufficiently established by the prosecution,” the SC said, finding that they carried no probative value. 

Even assuming their identity and integrity had been established, the SC found the cards inadmissible because their seizure failed the plain view doctrine, which requires lawful presence, inadvertent discovery and an immediately apparent incriminating character. 

While the agents were lawfully inside Silvano’s residence, the Court found the other requirements absent because they already knew of his alleged credit card hacking but obtained only a warrant for drug offenses, while the cards were inside a non-transparent bag and required further verification before their incriminating nature could become apparent. 

“All told, the Court finds that the two American Express credit cards subject of this case were not seized in plain view and cannot, therefore, be used in evidence against Silvano,” the SC ruled. 

With the cards excluded, the SC held that the prosecution could not establish the offense, which requires proof of both the access device and its counterfeit character, warranting Silvano’s acquittal.

Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.