D E C I S I O N
(3rd Division)
MELO, J.:
I. THE FACTS
As a consequence of a complaint filed by the Motion
Picture Association of America, Inc., NBI agents
conducted surveillance operations on certain
video establishments, among them respondent FGT Video Network, Inc.
(FGT), for “unauthorized sale, rental,
reproduction and/or disposition of copyrighted film," a violation of PD
49 (the old Intellectual Property Law). After an NBI agent was able to have copyrighted motion pictures “Cleopatra” (owned by 20th Century Fox) and “The Ten Commandments” (owned by Paramount) reproduced in
video format in FGT, the NBI applied for and was able to obtain from the respondent
judge the subject Search Warrant No. 45 which reads:
TO ANY PEACE OFFICER:
GREETINGS:
It appearing to the
satisfaction of the Undersigned after examining under oath NBI Senior Agent
Lauro C. Reyes and his witnesses Mr. Danilo Manalang and Ms. Rebecca
Benitez-Cruz, that there is a probable cause to believe that Violation of
Section 56 P.D. No. 49 as amended by P.D. No. 1988 (otherwise known as the
Decree on Protection of Intellectual Property) has been committed and that
there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that FGT Video Network, Inc.,
Manuel Mendoza, Alfredo C. Ongyanco, Eric Apolonio, Susan Yang and Eduardo
Yotoko are responsible and have in control/possession at No. 4 Epifanio de los
Santos corner Connecticut, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila (per attached
sketch and list of MPAA member Company Titles) the following properties to wit:
(a)
Pirated
video tapes of the copyrighted motion pictures/films the titles of which are
mentioned in the attached list;
(b)
Posters,
advertising leaflets, flyers, brochures, invoices, lists of titles being
reproduced or retaped, journals, ledgers, jon (sic) order slips,
delivery slips and books of accounts bearing and/or mentioning the pirated
films with titles (as per attached list), or otherwise used in the
reproduction/retaping business of the defendants;
(c) Television sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders,
tape head cleaners, accessories, equipment and other machines and paraphernalia
or materials used or intended to be used in the unlawful sale, lease,
distribution, or possession for purpose of sale, lease, distribution,
circulation or public exhibition of the above-mentioned pirated video tapes
which they are keeping and concealing in the premises above-described, which
should be seized and brought to the Undersigned.
You are hereby
commanded to make an immediate search at any time in the day between 8:00 A.M.
to 5:00 P.M. of the premises above-described and forthwith seize and take
possession of the above-enumerated personal properties, and bring said
properties to the undersigned immediately upon implementation to be dealt with
as the law directs.
In
the course of the implementation of the search warrant in the premises of FGT,
the NBI agents found and seized various video tapes of copyrighted films
owned and exclusively distributed by petitioners. Also seized were machines and
equipment, television sets, paraphernalia, materials, accessories, rewinders,
tape head cleaners, statements of order, return slips, video prints, flyers,
production orders, and posters.
FGT moved for the release of the seized television sets,
video cassette recorders, rewinders, tape head cleaners, accessories, equipment
and other machines or paraphernalia seized by virtue of the subject warrant. It
argued that as a licensed video reproducer, it
had the right possess the seized reproduction equipment, which are not illegal per se, but are rather exclusively used and intended to
be used for reproduction and not in the “sale, lease, distribution or
possession for purposes of sale, lease distribution, circulation or public
exhibition of pirated video tapes.”
Finding that FGT was a registered and
duly licensed distributor and in certain instances and under special
instructions and conditions reproducer of videograms and that, therefore, its
right to possess and use the seized equipment had been placed in serious doubt,
the lower court ordered the return of the “television sets, video cassette
recorders, rewinders, tape head cleaners, accessories, equipment and other
machines or paraphernalia” to FGT.
II. THE ISSUE
Did
the respondent judge act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction in ordering the immediate return of some of the items seized by
virtue of the search warrant?
III. THE RULING
[The High Tribunal
DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the order of the respondent Judge Flores.]
NO, the respondent judge DID NOT act with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering the immediate return
of some of the items seized by virtue of the search warrant.
Search Warrant No. 45 fails to satisfy the test of legality. This is more
so because the Court has previously decided a case dealing with virtually the
same kind of search warrant. In 20th Century Fox vs. CA, the Court upheld the
legality of the order of the lower court lifting the search warrant issued
under circumstances similar to those obtaining in the case at bar. A striking
similarity between this case and 20th Century Fox is the fact that Search Warrant
No. 45, specifically paragraph (c) thereof describing the articles to be
seized, contains an almost identical description as the warrant issued in the 20th Century Fox case,
to wit:
(c)
Television sets, Video Cassettes Recorders, rewinders, tape head cleaners,
accessories, equipments and other machines used or intended to be used in the
unlawful reproduction, sale, rental/lease, distribution of the above-mentioned video
tapes which she is keeping and concealing in the premises above-described.
On the propriety of the seizure of the articles above-described, the
Court held in 20th Century
Fox:
Television
sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders and tape cleaners are articles which
can be found in a video tape store engaged in the legitimate business of
lending or renting out betamax tapes. In short, these articles and appliances are generally connected
with, or related to a legitimate business not necessarily involving piracy of
intellectual property or infringement of copyright laws. Hence, including these
articles without specification and/or particularity that they were really
instruments in violating an Anti-Piracy law makes the search warrant too
general which could result in the confiscation of all items found in any
video store.
The language used in paragraph (c)
of Search Warrant No. 45 is thus too all-embracing as to include all the
paraphernalia of FGT in the operation of its business. As the search warrant is
in the nature of a general one, it is constitutionally objectionable.
The Court concluded that the respondent judge
did not gravely abuse his discretion in ordering the immediate release of the
enumerated items, but that he was merely correcting his own erroneous
conclusions in issuing Search Warrant No. 45. This can be gleaned from his
statement that “. . . the machines and equipment could have been used or
intended to be used in the illegal reproduction of tapes of the copyrighted
motion pictures/films, yet, it cannot be said with moral certainty that the
machines or equipment(s) were used in violating the law by the mere fact that
pirated video tapes of the copyrighted motion pictures/films were reproduced.
As already stated, FGT
Video Network, Inc. is a registered and duly licensed distributor and in
certain instances and under special instructions . . . reproducer of
videograms, and as such, it has the right to keep in its possession, maintain
and operate reproduction equipment(s) and paraphernalia(s).”
No comments:
Post a Comment