Case Summary (G.R. No. 205800)
Relevant Dates and Procedural History
In September 2009, petitioners received information about New Fields' unauthorized software use. Following an investigation in March 2010, petitioners’ agents, alongside a police inspector, verified the presence of identical product keys on multiple computers at New Fields, indicating illegal copying. On May 20, 2010, search warrants were issued and subsequently served on May 24, 2010. New Fields moved to quash one of the warrants, leading to a hearing and the RTC’s order on June 29, 2010, quashing both warrants and ordering the return of seized items. Petitioners’ motions for reconsideration were denied, and they elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC decisions. The Supreme Court’s decision followed on September 10, 2014.
Applicable Law
The case is governed by the 1987 Philippine Constitution, specifically the constitutional safeguards relating to searches and seizures. Also applicable are the Rules of Court, particularly Rule 45 on petitions for review on certiorari, which limit the Supreme Court's review to questions of law, and Rule 126 on search warrants.
Facts on Software Infringement and Investigation
Petitioners claimed that New Fields was unlawfully reproducing and using unlicensed copies of Microsoft and Adobe software identified by identical product identification (ID) numbers on multiple computers — a practice forbidden unless under a specific licensing agreement. Market researchers from Orion Support, commissioned by petitioners, physically accessed New Fields’ computers under the pretext of legitimate business and documented these identical software product IDs. Police Senior Inspector Ernesto V. Padilla, trained to detect counterfeit software, personally observed the screens confirming these violations. Investigators noted no Certificate of Authenticity for Microsoft software on 90 computers within New Fields’ office.
Issuance and Execution of Search Warrants
Based on the affidavit of Inspector Padilla and corroborating evidence, Judge Amor Reyes of the RTC issued Search Warrant Nos. 10-15912 and 10-15913 on May 20, 2010. The warrants were served on New Fields on May 24, 2010. During the search, 17 CD installers and 83 computers containing unauthorized software copies were seized.
Motion to Quash and RTC’s Order
New Fields filed a motion to quash one warrant, which led the RTC to quash both warrants on June 29, 2010, and order the return of seized items. The RTC reasoned that petitioners failed to identify specific computers with pirated software and noted the absence of any formal criminal charges. It also rejected petitioners’ invocation of the three-day notice rule, emphasizing that petitioners were personally notified.
Petitioners’ Motions for Reconsideration and CA’s Ruling
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied on August 27, 2010. Subsequently, petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the CA, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in quashing the warrants despite probable cause and procedural non-compliance arguments regarding the three-day notice rule. The CA affirmed the RTC's orders, reasoning that though the three-day notice was not strictly observed, petitioners were given a reasonable opportunity to oppose the motion, thus satisfying due process.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on the Three-Day Notice Rule
The Court cited precedent affirming that the three-day notice rule protects due process but is not absolute. Since petitioners were allowed to comment on the motion and present their opposition before a ruling, the Court deemed that the rule’s purpose was fulfilled despite procedural lapses. Thus, strict compliance with the rule could be relaxed.
Examination of Probable Cause and Personal Knowledge Requirement
The Court invoked the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, underscoring that probable cause is a question of fact dependent on the trial court's findings. Nonetheless, the Court emphasized its role is not to re-evaluate factual evidence except under specific exceptions including grave abuse of discretion. It highlighted the need for personal knowledge by the applicant and witnesses as a criterion for issuing a valid warrant.
Grave Abuse of Discretion in Appreciating the Evidence
Contrary to the CA’s ruling, the Supreme Court found that the RTC and CA gravely erred in dismissing the evidence establishing probable cause. The Cou
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 205800)
Nature of the Case and Procedural Posture
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court aimed at reversing and setting aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated 28 June 2012 and Resolution dated 30 January 2013.
- The CA Decision and Resolution affirmed the Regional Trial Court of Manila (RTC), Branch 21, orders quashing Search Warrant Nos. 10-15912 and 10-15913.
- The case involves the challenge to the legality and validity of search warrants issued for the search and seizure to address allegations of software piracy.
Parties and Context
- Petitioners: Microsoft Corporation and Adobe Systems Incorporated, U.S.-based corporations holding copyrights and trademarks over varied versions and editions of Microsoft and Adobe software products.
- Respondents: Directors and officers of New Fields (Asia Pacific), Inc., a Philippine domestic corporation alleged to have used unauthorized copies of Microsoft and Adobe software.
- The petitioners’ claim was triggered by information that New Fields was unlawfully reproducing and using unlicensed software.
- Orion Support, Inc. (OSI) was engaged by petitioners to verify these claims.
- Two OSI market researchers, Serrano and Moradoz, conducted reconnaissance to confirm the use of unauthorized software.
Factual Background and Evidence
- On 17 March 2010, petitioners filed a letter-complaint with the Philippine National Police (PNP) Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, handled by Police Senior Inspector Ernesto V. Padilla.
- On 26 March 2010, Padilla, with OSI researchers Serrano and Moradoz, inspected New Fields' premises under legitimate business pretense.
- They accessed two computers where identical Product ID/Serial Numbers of Microsoft Windows XP Pro, Microsoft Office Word 2007 Enterprise Edition, and Adobe Acrobat 8 Pro software were found—indicating unlicensed duplication.
- The OSI researchers attested that software licenses should not be duplicated across multiple computers without an Open License Agreement, which New Fields did not have.
- Nearly 90 computers in New Fields were found with Microsoft software, none bearing Microsoft’s Certificate of Authenticity.
- Petitioners issued certifications stating New Fields was not authorized to copy or reproduce their software.
Issuance and Service of Search Warrants; Subsequent Actions
- Based on the verified information, Padilla filed for search warrants with RTC Judge Amor Reyes on 20 May 2010.
- Search Warrant Nos. 10-15912 and 10-15913 were issued that day and served on New Fields on 24 May 2010.
- Search and seizure were witnessed by New Fields employees; items seized included 17 CD installers and 83 computers with alleged unauthorized software.
- New Fields