Case Summary (G.R. No. 76649-51)
Petitioner
20th Century Fox Film Corporation, through counsel, filed a letter-complaint requesting NBI assistance to enforce Presidential Decree No. 49 against alleged piracy of its copyrighted videotapes.
Respondents
– Court of Appeals (as nominal respondent in certiorari)
– Eduardo M. Barreto (Junction Video)
– Raul M. Sagullo (South Video Bug Center, Inc.)
– Fortune A. Ledesma (Sonix Video Services)
Key Dates
– August 26, 1985: Letter-complaint by petitioner filed with NBI
– September 4, 1985: Trial court issues three search warrants
– October 8, 1985: Trial court lifts warrants and orders return of seized items
– January 2, 1986: Trial court denies petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
– Dismissal by Court of Appeals (date unspecified)
– August 19, 1988: Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
– Section 3, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution (governing searches and seizures)
– Presidential Decree No. 49 (Decree on the Protection of Intellectual Property)
– Jurisprudence on probable cause and particularity of search warrants (e.g., People v. Burgos; Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP)
Factual Background
Upon petitioner’s complaint, NBI agents conducted surveillance of the three video outlets and filed consolidated applications for search warrants. The trial court, after examining under oath the NBI agents and petitioner’s counsel, issued warrants authorizing seizure of allegedly pirated videotapes and related equipment. The NBI executed the warrants and inventory was left with respondents. Respondents moved to lift the warrants and recover property, alleging lack of probable cause and overbroad descriptions. The trial court granted the motion, and its orders were upheld by the Court of Appeals.
Issue
Did the trial court err in lifting the search warrants on grounds that (a) there was no probable cause pursuant to the 1973 Constitution, and (b) the warrants constituted general warrants lacking particularity?
Probable Cause Requirement
Under Section 3, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution, a search warrant issues only upon probable cause “to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,” with a “particular description of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” Probable cause means facts and circumstances that would lead a prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the items connected with the offense are at the place to be searched. Affiants or witnesses must have personal knowledge of the facts justifying the warrant.
Trial Court’s Findings on Probable Cause
The trial court found that:
– NBI agents testified without personal knowledge of how the tapes were pirated; they relied on hearsay from petitioner’s counsel.
– The counsel’s claim of viewing “master tapes” was unsupported because those tapes were not presented in court for comparison.
– One of the tapes identified in the warrants (‘Cocoon’) was not even registered in the Philippines, undermining any inference of piracy.
Consequently, the court held that the prosecution of piracy was unsubstantiated and probable cause was only a “grey twilight,” requiring resolution in favor of respondents.
Particularity and the General Warrant Doctrine
Search warrants must describe with precision the items to be seized. Here the warrants authorized seizure of broad classes of equipment—television sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders, cleaners, accessories—commonly used in lawful video-rental businesses. The trial court deemed these descriptions too general, akin to the “general warrants” prohibited by constitutional and U.S. p
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 76649-51)
Facts
- On August 26, 1985, petitioner 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, through counsel, filed a letter-complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) alleging widespread unauthorized sale and rental of copyrighted films in videotape form across Metro Manila, in violation of Presidential Decree No. 49.
- The NBI conducted surveillance of the outlets identified by petitioner and prepared three consolidated applications for search warrants against video outlets owned by private respondents Barreto (Junction Video), Sagullo (South Video Bug Center, Inc.), and Ledesma (Sonix Video Services).
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 132, after hearing depositions under oath, issued Search Warrants Nos. SW-85-024, SW-85-025, and SW-85-026 on September 4, 1985.
- Executing the warrants, NBI agents, accompanied by petitioner’s representatives, raided the premises, seized videotapes and related equipment, and left inventories with respondents.
Procedural History
- Respondents filed a motion to lift the warrants and return seized items; on October 8, 1985, the RTC ordered the warrants lifted and directed the NBI to return all items not constituting criminal evidence to respondents via their counsel.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC on January 2, 1986.
- Petitioner then sought certiorari relief from the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition.
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, challenging the lifting of the warrants and asserting denial of due process.
Issue
- Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in lifting search warrants—previously issued for alleged copyright infringement—on grounds that probable cause was lacking and the warrants were too general.
Constitutional Provision and Probable Cause Standard
- Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution (formerly Section 3, Article IV, 1973 Constitution) guarantees security of persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that warrants issue only upon probable cause determined personally by the judge, with oath or affirmation, describing places and items w