Case Digest (G.R. No. 198270)
Facts:
In the case Juno Batistis vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 181571, December 16, 2009), the petitioner, Juno Batistis, was charged and convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24 of Manila, on January 23, 2006, for violating Sections 155 (infringement of trademark) and 168 (unfair competition) of the Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293). The trademark involved was Fundador, a brandy product registered and owned by Pedro Domecq, S.A. of Spain, which was exclusively distributed in the Philippines by Allied Domecq Philippines, Inc. The registered trademark protection was effective since 1968, renewed in 1990. Batistis was accused of manufacturing, selling, and distributing counterfeit Fundador products within Manila.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agents, upon request by Allied Domecq Philippines, conducted a test-buy operation in Batistis’ premises located at 1664 Onyx Street, San Andres Bukid, Sta. Ana, Manila. The agents found and seiz
...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 198270)
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioner Juno Batistis was charged for violations of the Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293), specifically Section 155 (infringement of trademark) and Section 168 (unfair competition).
- Allied Domecq Philippines, Inc., authorized distributor of Fundador brandy products imported from Spain, filed the complaint against Batistis.
- Fundador trademark was registered in the Philippines Patent Office on July 12, 1968, and renewed in 1990.
- Investigation and Search
- National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted a test-buy at Batistis’ premises, confirming his involvement in manufacture, sale, and distribution of counterfeit Fundador brandy products.
- Based on test-buy results, Judge Eugenio issued Search Warrant No. 01-2576 on December 20, 2001, authorizing search of Batistis’ premises in Manila.
- Items seized included:
- 241 empty Fundador bottles, 163 Fundador boxes, half sack of Fundador plastic caps, 2 filled Fundador bottles, and various empty bottles of other brands.
- Formal Charges and Trial
- Batistis was formally charged with two offenses: infringement of trademark and unfair competition.
- The information alleged unauthorized reproduction and sale of counterfeit Fundador products intended to deceive the public.
- Batistis pleaded not guilty and trial ensued.
- RTC Decision (January 23, 2006)
- RTC found Batistis guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both the trademark infringement and unfair competition charges.
- He was sentenced to two years imprisonment and fined fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) for each offense.
- Ordered to indemnify Allied Domecq Philippines, Inc. the amount of twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000) as actual damages.
- Confiscated items were ordered destroyed.
- Court of Appeals (CA) Decision (September 13, 2007)
- CA affirmed Batistis’ conviction for infringement of trademark under Section 155 of the Intellectual Property Code.
- CA reversed the unfair competition conviction due to failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- CA affirmed the penalty of two years imprisonment and fifty thousand pesos fine for the trademark infringement.
- Present Appeal
- Batistis appealed via petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court to challenge the CA’s affirmation of the infringement conviction.
- He argued the RTC erred in convicting him based solely on self-serving affidavits and testimonies of NBI officers.
- Additional claims included absence during search, one NBI agent’s failure to promptly identify him, and alleged evidence not found in his house.
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Juno Batistis’ conviction for infringement of trademark.
- Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in its appreciation of evidence in convicting Batistis, given the alleged weaknesses in the testimonies and the circumstances of the search and seizure.
- Whether the penalty imposed should be a straight sentence or an indeterminate sentence in accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)