Case Summary (G.R. No. 246332)
Factual Background
On July 30, 2007, Special Investigator Garry Menez of the National Bureau of Investigation filed a sworn application for a search warrant to search the premises of Phil‑Pacific Outsourcing Services Corporation at Mezzanine Floor, Glorietta de Manila Building, University Belt, Manila, and to seize enumerated items alleged to be used in the creation and sale of pornographic internet material. The application named several persons and the corporate occupant as having possession or control of such materials.
Search Warrant and Implementation
The application was heard by Judge Alisuag on August 3, 2007, when the applicant and two witnesses were examined under oath and their affidavits were received. The court issued a search warrant commanding any peace officer to search the described premises and to seize listed items including computer sets, internet servers, pornographic films and other materials, and to return the properties to court. The NBI executed the warrant on August 7, 2007, and on August 8, 2007 filed a return reporting the seizure of ten CPUs, ten monitors, ten keyboards, ten mice, and ten AVRs, and the inventory of seized property.
Motion to Quash and RTC Proceedings
Named persons and the corporate occupants filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant and to Return Seized Properties, asserting among others that the respondents did not maintain servers, did not own the alleged websites, that the NBI presented contradictory witness testimony, that the wrong establishment was raided, and that the element of publicity required under Article 201, Revised Penal Code was absent. On December 26, 2007, the RTC denied the motion, finding that publicity existed through the corporation’s alleged advertisement of pornographic sites to clients, that pornographic materials were found in some seized computers, and that probable cause for the search under Rule 126 had been established. The court held that quashal was unwarranted absent impropriety or irregularity in issuance or enforcement of the warrant.
Prosecutor’s Resolution and Subsequent Motions
While the motion for quash was pending and petitioners sought reconsideration, the Office of the City Prosecutor recommended dismissal of the complaint for violation of Article 201, Revised Penal Code for insufficiency of evidence, which the City Prosecutor approved on February 21, 2008. Petitioners filed a Supplemental Motion to Release Seized Properties on May 6, 2008, invoking the dismissal and urging return of the items.
RTC Second Order of August 6, 2008
On August 6, 2008, Judge Alisuag denied the motion for reconsideration but partially granted the motion to release seized properties by ordering the return of the computer monitors while retaining the CPUs and the softwares in the custody of the NBI through SI Menez. The RTC reasoned that the finding of probable cause at issuance of the warrant and the court’s custodial responsibilities over articles seized justified retention despite dismissal by the prosecutor.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC order with modification. The CA acknowledged that the seized computer units contained pornographic files but observed that such files were stored and removable; therefore the CA ordered release of the CPUs and softwares to petitioners provided that the hard disks be removed from the CPUs and destroyed. The CA further held that if any softwares were unlicensed or pirated they should be destroyed pursuant to law. The CA balanced property rights and evidentiary preservation and relied on technological realities allowing permanent removal of files by removing hard disks.
Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court
Petitioners urged that the CPUs and hard disks were lawful property used in ordinary business and were not contraband per se, so their destruction would violate substantive and procedural due process and the constitutional proscription against confiscation without due process. They claimed absence of proof that they were the source of the pornographic printouts and that the NBI had raided the wrong establishment. The respondents and the CA relied on the undisputed presence of obscene files in the seized units and on statutory authority directing forfeiture and destruction of materials involved in obscenity violations.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
The determinative issue was whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering removal and destruction of the hard disks containing pornographic materials and in conditioning the return of CPUs and softwares on the destruction of their hard disks and forfeiture of softwares used in violation of Article 201, Revised Penal Code.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Legal Reasoning
The Court observed that the factual predicate was the undisputed presence of obscene or pornographic files in the seized computer units. The Court rejected petitioners’ contention that the CPUs and hard disks enjoyed a legitimate expectation of protection against destruction where the devices plainly contained obscene materials. The Court relied on P.D. No. 969, particularly Section 2, which the Court quoted as mandating forfeiture and destruction of literature, films and other materials involved in violations of the statute, even where a criminal case results in acquittal. The Court accepted the CA’s technological reasoning that permanent removal of obscene files could be reliably achieved by removing and destr
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 246332)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioners were Fredrik Felix P. Nogales, Giancarlo P. Nogales, Rogelio P. Nogales, Melinda P. Nogales, Priscila B. Cabrera, Phil-Pacific Outsourcing Services Corporation and 3 X 8 Internet, represented by Michael Christopher A. Nogales.
- Respondents were the People of the Philippines and Presiding Judge Tita Bughao Alisuag of Branch 1, Regional Trial Court, Manila.
- Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court challenging the Court of Appeals Decision dated August 19, 2009 and its January 25, 2010 Resolution affirming with modification the August 6, 2008 RTC order.
- The appeal to the Supreme Court sought relief from the CA modification that directed removal and destruction of hard disks containing pornographic materials and the forfeiture or destruction of certain softwares.
Key Factual Allegations
- Phil-Pacific Outsourcing Services Corporation operated at Mezzanine Floor, Glorietta De Manila Building, 776 San Sebastian Street, University Belt, Manila, which premises were the subject of a search warrant application dated July 30, 2007.
- Special Investigator Garry Menez of the National Bureau of Investigation applied for a search warrant alleging violations of Art. 201, Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to R.A. 8792 (Electronic Commerce Act), and enumerating computer sets, television sets, internet servers, fax machines, pornographic films and other materials, web cameras, telephone sets, photocopying machines, lists of clients and other tools as objects to be seized.
- A hearing before Judge Alisuag occurred on August 3, 2007 during which SI Menez and two witnesses were examined under oath and affidavits were offered as supporting evidence.
- The search warrant issued on August 3, 2007 and was implemented on August 7, 2007, resulting in the seizure of ten computer central processing units, ten monitors, ten keyboards, ten mice, and ten AVRs, among other items.
- SI Menez filed a Return of Search Warrant on August 8, 2007 and the seized items were placed under NBI custody pending court order.
Petitioners' Contentions
- Petitioners asserted that they were not the programmers or operators who maintained the pornographic websites and that they did not own website servers claimed by the NBI.
- Petitioners alleged that the websites imputed to them were hosted outside the Philippines and owned by foreign companies.
- Petitioners claimed contradictions between NBI witness testimony and documentary evidence and alleged that the NBI withheld verifiable information from the RTC to obtain the search warrant.
- Petitioners contended that the NBI raided the wrong establishment and that the element of publicity required under Art. 201, Revised Penal Code was absent.
- Petitioners argued that the CPUs and softwares were lawful business property and that destruction of such property would violate substantive and procedural due process.
Lower Court Proceedings
- The RTC denied the Motion to Quash and Return Seized Properties on December 26, 2007 and explained probable cause and presence of pornographic materials on some seized computers.
- The Office of the City Prosecutor recommended dismissal of the criminal complaint for insufficiency of evidence in a February 21, 200