SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT, INC., PETITIONER, VS. BRIGHT FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RESPONDENT.

Sony Computer Entertainment versus Bright Future Technologies

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Sony Computer Entertainment, a private corporation that complained of copyright and trademark infringement, against Bright Future Technologies, a local business whose premises were searched and seized under warrants issued by the Manila Regional Trial Court. The action concerns the validity of the execution of those search warrants and the consequences that follow when the mandatory safeguards on search are breached. The case matters because it settles two things a practitioner must know cold: a private complainant has standing to participate in search warrant proceedings, and a violation of the two-witness rule renders the seized objects inadmissible and compels their return.

Procedural History

On application of a police inspector, after a complaint from Sony Computer Entertainment, the Manila Regional Trial Court, through its Executive Judge, issued eight search warrants for copyright and trademark infringement. A raid followed on the premises of Bright Future Technologies. Bright Future then moved to quash the warrants and to suppress or return the seized articles. Sony opposed the motion, and Bright Future replied, questioning Sony's personality to appear. The Executive Judge voluntarily inhibited himself, and the case was raffled to another branch, then re-raffled to yet another branch after further motions. The trial court initially denied the motion to quash, but on reconsideration it reversed itself, holding that the two-witness rule had been violated and that the use of a bolt cutter was unnecessary. It then granted Bright Future's motion to return the seized articles, subject to the filing of a bond, which Bright Future posted. Sony elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, assailing the orders granting the motion to quash and ordering the return of the seized items.

Facts

Sony Computer Entertainment lodged a complaint for copyright and trademark infringement, and on that basis the Manila Regional Trial Court issued eight search warrants. On the first of April, 2005, a raiding team went to the premises of Bright Future Technologies to serve the warrants. When the team introduced itself to the security guards and showed the warrants, the guards refused to receive them and refused to open the premises, claiming they were not in control of the case. The team then used a bolt cutter to gain entry and conducted the search.

Seized during the raid were numerous items, among them replicating, bonding, and printing machines, dryers, shredders, boxes of paint, blank compact discs, and six hundred pieces of what Sony described as counterfeit Playstation discs. Bright Future promptly moved to quash the warrants and to exclude or suppress the evidence, raising several grounds, including the absence of witnesses during the search, the alleged planting of evidence, the lack of particularity in the description of the place, and the absence of probable cause.

The trial court ultimately found that the barangay officials summoned to witness the search arrived only after the police were already searching the premises, and that the searching team had used a bolt cutter to force entry. On these findings it quashed the warrants, declared the seized objects inadmissible, and ordered their return upon the filing of a bond. Sony brought the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not a private complainant such as Sony Computer Entertainment has the right to appear and participate in search warrant proceedings.
• Whether or not the use of a bolt cutter to gain entry into the premises violated the provision on breaking open doors and windows when admittance is refused.
• Whether or not the enforcement of the search warrant violated the two-witness rule, and if so, whether the objects seized are inadmissible and must be returned.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in requiring Bright Future to file a bond as a condition for the return of the seized articles.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provides:

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.

This provision governs whether the forced entry by bolt cutter was lawful, and the Court held that it was, because admittance had been refused after notice.

Section 8 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 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.

This is the mandatory two-witness rule whose violation the Court found, and which renders the seized objects inadmissible in evidence.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that a private complainant has the right to participate in search warrant proceedings. A private individual or corporation complaining to a government agency charged with enforcing special penal laws may appear, participate, and file pleadings to maintain the validity of the search warrant and the admissibility of the properties seized, in anticipation of a criminal case. Such a party may oppose a motion to quash or move for reconsideration of an order granting it. The trial court therefore correctly recognized Sony's participation.

On the second issue, the Court held that the use of the bolt cutter was reasonable. The searching team had introduced itself and shown the warrants, but the guards refused to receive them and to open the premises. The conditions of Section 7 of Rule 126 were thus satisfied, and the trial court erred in finding the forced entry unnecessary.

On the third issue, the Court held that the two-witness rule was indeed violated. The barangay officials testified that when they arrived, the police were already searching the premises, and this was corroborated by the inspector's own testimony that the officials arrived late in the evening. A security guard, the Court added, is neither a lawful occupant nor a member of the occupant's family under Section 8. Because the rule is mandatory, the objects seized are inadmissible in evidence, and their return was in order. Sony's contrary claim raised a question of fact, which is not proper in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the order requiring a bond had no basis in law. Moreover, since the seized items are inadmissible, it would serve no purpose to ensure their return.

Doctrine

• A private complainant in a search warrant proceeding has legal standing to appear, participate, and file pleadings to sustain the warrant and the admissibility of the seized properties.
• Under Section 7 of Rule 126, an officer who is refused admittance after giving notice of purpose and authority may break open doors or windows to execute the warrant; such forced entry is lawful.
• The two-witness rule under Section 8 of Rule 126 is mandatory; a search conducted before the required witnesses arrive is irregular, and a security guard does not qualify as a lawful occupant or family member.
• Objects seized in violation of the two-witness rule are inadmissible in evidence and must be returned; no bond may be required for their return.

Disposition

The petition was denied; the orders quashing the search warrants and directing the return of the seized articles were affirmed, with the modification that the bond requirement was set aside and the bond already filed cancelled.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a violation of the mandatory two-witness rule makes the seized objects inadmissible and compels their return, while a private complainant has standing to defend the warrant. Examiners use this case to test standing of private complainants in search warrant proceedings and the consequences of a defective search.