The Supreme Court has acquitted Edgar Silvano y Dollar, Jr. of violating Section 9(e) of Republic Act No. 8484, the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998, after ruling that the two American Express credit cards seized from his residence were inadmissible in evidence because they were not validly seized under the plain view doctrine. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and ordered Silvano's immediate acquittal for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Case
On July 13, 2016, agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) executed a search warrant at Unit 404, Ohana Place Residence in Las Piñas City — the residence of Silvano — in connection with a drug investigation. The NBI had received information that Silvano was selling illegal drugs and was also involved in computer hacking and credit card fraud. Acting on the drug-related information, NBI Atty. Eduardo Ramos applied for and obtained a search warrant covering only methamphetamine hydrochloride and drug paraphernalia. No search warrant was applied for in connection with any alleged access device fraud or cybercrime.
During the search, agents found several computers, ATM cards, a money counter, a dry seal, boxes of notarial seals, a card-scheming device, and two American Express credit cards placed inside a bag. The cards bore account numbers 371328108853009 and 379731990131008. After the search, an NBI agent called Jeralyn Jalagat, manager of Global Security Services for American Express, who confirmed that the cards, under the name V S Tan, did not match the original account holder and were counterfeit.
Two separate Informations were filed against Silvano. In Criminal Case No. 16-0792, he was charged with possession of counterfeit access devices. In Criminal Case No. 16-0793, he was charged with possession of device-making or altering equipment. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Silvano guilty in Criminal Case No. 16-0792 and sentenced him to imprisonment of six years, as minimum, to ten years, as maximum, and a fine of PHP 10,000.00, while acquitting him in Criminal Case No. 16-0793. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Silvano then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Issue
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the two American Express credit cards seized during the execution of a drug search warrant were validly obtained under the plain view doctrine, and whether, without those cards, the prosecution could sustain Silvano's conviction for possession of a counterfeit access device under Section 9(e) of Republic Act No. 8484.
The Ruling
The Supreme Court granted Silvano's Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Court declared that the two American Express credit cards were not seized in plain view and could not be used in evidence against Silvano. Without the cards, the prosecution utterly failed to present the very access device itself, and Silvano could not be held liable under Section 9(e) of Republic Act No. 8484.
The Court's dispositive order reads: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The November 24, 2023 Decision and the May 17, 2024 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 47174 are REVERSED. Petitioner Edgar Silvano y Dollar, Jr. is ACQUITTED of the crime under Section 9(e) of Republic Act No. 8484 for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Let entry of judgment be ISSUED IMMEDIATELY."
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 273931
- Date of offense: July 13, 2016
- CA Decision reversed: November 24, 2023
- CA Resolution reversed: May 17, 2024
- RTC sentence (now reversed): 6 years minimum to 10 years maximum imprisonment; PHP 10,000.00 fine
- Two counterfeit American Express cards seized (account numbers 371328108853009 and 379731990131008)
- Criminal Case Nos. 16-0792 and 16-0793
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that the plain view doctrine requires three concurrent requisites: (1) lawful presence of the officers, (2) inadvertent discovery, and (3) immediate apparentness of the incriminating character of the object. The Court found that only the first requisite — lawful presence — was satisfied.
On inadvertence, the Court noted that the NBI agents already had prior information about Silvano's alleged hacking and credit card fraud activities before the search, yet they deliberately chose not to apply for a search warrant covering access device fraud or cybercrime. The discovery of any evidence related to access device fraud therefore could not be considered inadvertent.
On immediate apparentness, the Court found that the credit cards were placed inside a non-transparent bag, meaning their incriminating character was not in plain view before the bag was opened. The Court further noted that even a visible deck of credit cards is not, by itself, contraband. Their incriminating nature was not immediately apparent without further checking of names, banks, accounts, or matching to reported fraud — as was in fact done in this case.
The Court also distinguished this case from Comamo v. People (G.R. No. 236548, March 4, 2025), where additional firearms seized were found to be related to the criminal charge described in the search warrant. Here, a violation of Republic Act No. 8484 is unrelated to drug offenses, and no recognized exception to the warrant requirement applied.
The Court further held that under Republic Act No. 8484, the corpus delicti of possession of a counterfeit access device is not merely the access device itself, but also evidence proving that it is counterfeit. With the cards excluded, the prosecution could not present the access device itself, a required element of the offense.
Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines, G.R. No. 273931, Third Division.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.