Evidence of credit card hacking cannot be seized under a search warrant that authorizes only the search for illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao dated 12 February 2026, the Supreme Court’s Third Division acquitted Edgar Silvano of violating Republic Act 8484, or the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998. Section 9(e) of the law prohibits possessing counterfeit access devices, including fake credit cards.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received information that Silvano was involved in illegal drug activities and computer hacking, particularly credit card fraud.

To verify the report, the NBI instructed its informant to purchase methamphetamine hydrochloride from Silvano. A subsequent laboratory test confirmed that the substance was indeed shabu.

A search warrant was obtained by the NBI for violation of RA 9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act, authorizing the search for shabu and other drug-related items.

During the search of Silvano’s 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 “V S Tan.”

Fake Amex cards

An American Express manager later confirmed the cards were fake because their numbers did not match the original account holder’s records.

The Regional Trial Court convicted Silvano of possessing counterfeit access devices.

The Court of Appeals affirmed this, ruling that the items were validly seized even though they were not included in the search warrant because they were in plain view of the officers during the search.

But the high bench reversed the conviction.

It 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.

For the plain view doctrine to apply, the officers must have a lawful reason to be in the place where the evidence is found; the discovery must be inadvertent; and it must be immediately clear that the item may be connected to a crime.

The SC found that these requirements were not met.