SECOND DIVISION
|
SONY
COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
Petitioner,
- versus - BRIGHT FUTURE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 169156 Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
On application of Inspector Rommel G.
Macatlang of the Philippine National Police, after a complaint was received
from petitioner, Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. (SCEI), eight search
warrants[1]
for copyright and trademark infringement, of which Search Warrant Nos. 05-6336
and 05-6337 are relevant to the present case, were issued by the Manila
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Executive Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr. following
which a raid was conducted on the premises of respondent, Bright Future
Technologies, Inc. (BFTI), on April 1, 2005.
Seized during the raid were the following items:
eight replicating machines
five bonding machines
four printing machines
seven polycarbonate dryers
one table for silk screen
ten moulds
two shredder machines
one color blue centroller
one dryer machine
92 boxes of assorted colors of paint
600 pieces of counterfeit Sony Playstation DVDs
285 boxes of blank CDs
eight boxes of white blank CDs
nine boxes of
two boxes of sputtering targets
18 gallons of UV bonding adhesive
four gallons of DVD bondage
21 gallons of phothum chemicals
four gallons of CPS mesh prep, and
nine gallons of CD lacquer.[2]
BFTI subsequently filed on April 5,
2005 before Branch 24 of the RTC Manila presided by Judge Eugenio
an Urgent Motion to Quash and/or to Exclude or Suppress Evidence and Return
Seized Articles,[3] alleging
as follows, quoted verbatim:
1. The searching team entered the premises and conducted the search without any witness in violation of the Rules of Court;
2. The raiding team planted evidence of 600 compact discs at the scene while no witnesses were present;
3. Certification against forum shopping prescribed by law was not executed;
4. For search warrant to be valid, the master tapes must be presented;
5. The statement made by the affiants in their joint-affidavit in support of the application for the search warrant were false and perjurious;
6. No probable cause exists for the issuance of the warrant;
7. The search conducted was illegal;
8. The place to be searched was not described with particularity;
9.
No bond was posted by the applicant.[4]
SCEI filed an Opposition[5] to
the motion, to which BFTI filed a Reply,[6] the
latter arguing that SCEI had no personality to represent the People of the
On April 11, 2005, acting on a Very
Urgent Motion to Inhibit[8]
filed by SCEI to which BFTI interposed its objection, Judge Eugenio
“voluntarily inhibited” himself from the case.[9] The case was thereafter raffled to Branch 21
of the Manila RTC, presided by Judge Amor A. Reyes.[10]
In the meantime or on
By Order[12]
dated
BFTI filed a Motion for
Reconsideration[13] of the
denial of its motion to quash. It also
filed joint motions “for the inhibition of the Honorable Judge Amor Reyes,”
“for reconsideration of the order of voluntary inhibition dated
In an Order dated
In addressing the issue of SCEI’s
personality to appear in the proceedings, the RTC held that it would treat SCEI’s
counsel as “an officer of [the] Court to argue the other side, so to speak, for
the clarification of issues related to search and seizure cases and to arrive
at a better conclusion and resolution of issues in this case.”[17]
The RTC, however, found that the
two-witness rule under Section 8 of Rule 126 which provides:
SEC. 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses. ─ No search of a house, room or any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. (Underscoring supplied),
was violated and that the searching
team’s use of a bolt cutter to open the searched premises was unnecessary, hence,
it granted BFTI’s Motion for Reconsideration of its April 18, 2005 Order by
Order of August 8, 2005.[18]
BFTI subsequently filed on
Hence, arose SCEI’s present Petition
for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45[23] which
assails the August 8 and
(1) . . . when it disregarded [its] clear right . . . to appear and participate as a private complainant in the search warrant proceedings;
(2) . . . when it granted respondent’s Motion to Quash based on questions of alleged irregularities by the peace officers in enforcing the search warrants.
(a) . . . when it ruled that the use of the bolt cutter violated Section 7 of Rule 126.
(b) . . . when it ruled that the enforcement of the search warrant violated the two-witness rule provided in Section 8 of Rule 126;
[3] . . . when it ordered the immediate release of the seized property prior to the finality of the order quashing the search warrants.
(a)
. . . when it released the seized
properties by virtue of the filing of a bond by the respondent.[24]
The issue of whether a private complainant,
like SCEI, has the right to participate in search warrant proceedings was addressed
in the affirmative in United Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip:[25]
. . . [A] private individual or a private corporation complaining to the NBI or to a government agency charged with the enforcement of special penal laws, such as the BFAD, may appear, participate and file pleadings in the search warrant proceedings to maintain, inter alia, the validity of the search warrant issued by the court and the admissibility of the properties seized in anticipation of a criminal case to be filed; such private party may do so in collaboration with the NBI or such government agency. The party may file an opposition to a motion to quash the search warrant issued by the court, or a motion for the reconsideration of the court order granting such motion to quash.[26] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
When SCEI then opposed BFTI’s Urgent
Motion to Quash and/or to Suppress or Exclude Evidence and Return
Seized Articles (emphasis supplied), the RTC correctly recognized the
participation of SCEI in the proceedings.
As for the use of a bolt cutter to gain
access to the premises of BFTI, it was, under the circumstances, reasonable, contrary
to the RTC’s finding that it was unnecessary. For, as the RTC itself found, after
the members of the searching team introduced themselves to the security guards of
BFTI and showed them the search warrants, the guards refused to receive the
warrants and to open the premises, they claiming that “they are not in control
of the case.”[27] The conditions required under Section 7 of
Rule 126 were thus complied with:
The officer, if refused admittance to the
place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority,
may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part
of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or
any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein. (Underscoring supplied)
The RTC’s finding that the
two-witness rule governing the execution of search warrant was not complied
with, which rule is mandatory to ensure regularity in the execution of the
search warrant,[28] is in
order, however.
Observed the RTC:
At this point, it is worthy of note [sic] the two statements issued by Barangay Police Subrino P. de Castro and Gaudencio A. Masambique who affirmed in their testimonies in Court that, to wit:
x x x x
3. Noong ako ay makarating sa nasabing lugar nadatnan ko ang mga pulis at mga miyembro ng Raiding Team na nasa loob na ng gusali ng Bright Future at nagsisiyasat sa mga gamit at makinaryang naroroon. Pagkatapos ay nilapitan ako ng isang pulis at ipinatanggap sa akin ang nasabing search warrant.
The
police were already searching (“nagsisiyasat”)
the area of respondent BFTI in clear violation of the two-witness rule provided
for by Section 8 of Rule 126. These
statements of the two Barangay Police ostensibly arriving late while a search
was going on was corroborated by Insp. Macatlang’s testimony that the Barangay
officials arrived at about 11:30 PM to 12 AM.[29] (Underscoring supplied)
The RTC did not thus err in ordering
the quashal of the search warrants.
SCEI insists, however, that the
searching team waited for the arrival of the barangay officials who were
summoned to witness the search,[30]
and that “[e]ven when the enforcing officers were moving towards the actual
BFTI premises . . . they were accompanied at all times by one of the
security guards on duty until the barangay
officials arrived.”[31] SCEI’s position raises an issue of fact which
is not proper for consideration in a petition for review on certiorari before
this Court under Rule 45, which is supposed to cover only issues of law.[32] In any
event, a security guard may not be considered a “lawful occupant” or “a member
of [the lawful occupant’s] family” under the earlier quoted Section 8 of Rule
126.
As the two-witness rule was not complied
with, the objects seized during the
A final word. The RTC order requiring BFTI to file a bond
to ensure the return of the seized items should the Department of Justice find
probable cause against it in I.S. No. 2005-315, SCEI v. Anthony Bryan B. Sy, et al., has no
basis in law. Besides, the seized items being
inadmissible in evidence, it would serve no purpose to ensure their return.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
The August 8, 2005 Order of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8 granting the Urgent Motion to Quash filed
by respondent, Bright Future Technologies, Inc., is AFFIRMED.
The
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
DANTE
O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation,
it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] RTC records, Vol. I, pp. 181-182, 184-185, 187-188, 190-191, 193-194, 196-197, 199-200, 202-203.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Vide
RTC records, Vol. I, p. 527.
[11] RTC records, Vol. 2, pp. 222-231; Rollo,
p. 14.
[12] RTC records,Vol. 1, pp. 538-540.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16] Vide RTC records, Vol. 2, p. 4.
[17] RTC records, Vol. 3, p. 261.
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23] Rollo, pp. 3-44.
[24]
[25] G.R. No. 163858,
[26]
[27] RTC records, Vol. 3, p. 264.
[28] People v. Gesmundo, G.R. No. 89373,
[29] RTC records, Vol. 3, pp. 263-264. Vide
RTC records, Vol. 2, pp. 191-192; RTC records, Vol. 3, pp. 129-133, 136-139.
[30] Rollo, p. 35.
[31]
[32] Vide
Rules of Court, Rule 41,
Section 2 (c); Sps. Calvo v. Sps. Vergara, 423
Phil. 939, 947 (2001).
[33] Vide
Rep. of the