COLUMBIA PICTURES, INC., ORION PICTURES CORP., PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORP., TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORP., UNITED ARTISTS CORP., UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., THE WALT DISNEY CO…

Before us is a petition for certiorari seeking to set
aside the order dated May 29, 1987 of the Regional Trial Court of the National
Capital Region (Branch 167, Pasig) directing the immediate release and return
of television sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders, tape head cleaners,
accessories, equipment, and other paraphernalia or pieces of machinery which
had been seized by operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation by
virtue of a search warrant.

Petitioners herein are all foreign corporations organized and
existing under the laws of the United States of America and represented in the
Philippines by their attorney-in-fact, Rebecca Benitez-Cruz of the Motion
Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA for brevity). Private respondent FGT Video Network, Inc.
is a merger of Fox, Galactic, and Technica Video. It is registered with and licensed by the Videogram Regulatory
Board as a distributor under License No. 1333 VMM. Technica Video, Inc. which is part of the merger, is registered
with and licensed as a reproducer by the said board under License No. 967 VMM
(p. 11, Rollo).

In a letter dated April 20, 1987, the MPAA, through counsel Rico
V. Domingo, lodged a complaint before then Director Antonio Carpio of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) against certain video establishments for
violation of Presidential Decree No. 49 (Protection of Intellectual Property),
as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1988, in connection with its anti-piracy
campaign. Specifically complaining of
the “unauthorized sale, rental, reproduction and/or disposition of
copyrighted film”, the MPAA sought the NBI’s “urgent assistance in
the conduct of search and seizure operations in Metro Manila and
elsewhere”. (p. 29, Rollo.)

On the basis of said letter, NBI and private agents conducted
discreet surveillance operations on certain video establishments, among them
private respondent FGT Video Network, Inc. (FGT). Thus, on April 20, 1987, Danilo Manalang, a.k.a. Ronaldo Lim,
allegedly an NBI agent, went to the office of FGT to have the copyrighted
motion pictures “Cleopatra” owned by Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.
and “The Ten Commandments” owned by Paramount Pictures, Inc.
reproduced or retaped in video format. For the reproduction services, FGT issued Order Slip No. 3482 dated
April 20, 1987 and Delivery Slip No. 118667 dated April 22, 1987, for which
services Danilo Manalang paid P45.00. On May 5, 1987, Manalang also had MGM’s copyrighted film “Walk Like
a Man” reproduced or retaped by FGT for P15.00 (p. 5, Rollo).

Consequently, on May 14, 1987, NBI Agent III Lauro C. Reyes, with
Manalang and Rebecca Benitez-Cruz as witnesses, applied for a search warrant
with the Regional Trial Court in Pasig. Introduced as evidence in support of the application were the following: the letter dated April 20, 1987 of the MPAA
through Rico V. Domingo (Exh. A); FGT’s Order Slip No. 3842 (Exh. B); FGT’s
Delivery Slip No. 118667 (Exh. B-1); video cassettes containing the film
“The Ten Commandments” (Exhs. B-1-A, B-1-B); video cassette
containing the film “Cleopatra” (Exh. B-1-C); video cassette
containing the film “Walk Like a Man” (Exh. B-1-D); FGT’s Order Slip
No. 3923 dated May 5, 1987 (Exh. B-2); FGT’s Delivery Slip No. 123321 dated May
6, 1987 (Exh. B-3); list of copyrighted MPAA member company titles (Exh. C);
sketch of location of FGT’s office or premises (Exh. D); affidavit of Rebecca
Benitez-Cruz (Exh. E); special power of attorney designating Ms. Benitez-Cruz
as petitioners’ attorney-in­-fact (Exh. F to F-8); and affidavit of Danilo
Manalang (Exh. G).

Upon the offer of
these pieces of evidence, Judge Alfredo C. Flores of the aforesaid court,
issued Search Warrant No. 45 which reads:

TO ANY PEACE OFFICER:

GREETINGS:

It appearing to the satisfaction of the Undersigned after examining
under oath NBI Senior Agent Lauro C. Reyes and his witnesses Mr. Danilo
Manalang and Ms. Rebecca Benitez-Cruz, that there is a probable cause to
believe that Violation of Section 56 P.D. No. 49 as amended by P.D. No. 1988
(otherwise known as the Decree on Protection of Intellectual Property) has been
committed and that there are good and sufficient reasons to believe that FGT
Video Network, Inc., Manuel Mendoza, Alfredo C. Ongyanco, Eric Apolonio, Susan
Yang and Eduardo Yotoko are responsible and have in control/possession at No. 4
Epifanio de los Santos corner Connecticut, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila
(per attached sketch and list of MPAA member Company Titles) the following
properties to wit:

(a) Pirated video tapes of
the copyrighted motion pictures/films the titles of which are mentioned in the
attached list;

(b) Posters, advertising leaflets, flyers,
brochures, invoices, lists of titles being reproduced or retaped, journals,
ledgers, jon (sic) order slips, delivery slips and books of accounts bearing
and/or mentioning the pirated films with titles (as per attached list), or
otherwise used in the reproduction/repating business of the defendants;

(c) Television sets,
video cassette recorders, rewinders, tape head cleaners, accessories, equipment
and other machines and paraphernalia or materials used or intended to be used
in the unlawful sale,
lease, distribution, or possession for purpose of sale, lease, distribution,
circulation or public exhibition of the above-mentioned pirated video tapes
which they are keeping and concealing in the premises above-described, which
should be seized and brought to the Undersigned.

You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search at any time in
the day between 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. of the premises above-described and
forthwith seize and take possession of the above-enumerated personal
properties, and bring said properties to the undersigned immediately upon
implementation to be dealt with as the law directs.

WITNESS MY HAND this 14th day of May, 1987, at Pasig, Metro
Manila. (pp. 30-31, Rollo; Emphasis
supplied.)

At or about high noon of the same day, agents from the NBI, led
by Lauro C. Reyes and Mamerto Espartero, with the assistance of the personnel
of the Videogram Regulatory Board headed by Elmer San Pascual, duly served
Search Warrant No. 45 on the operators or representatives of FGT. In the course of the search of the premises
of FGT, the NBI agents found and seized various video tapes of duly copyrighted
motion pictures or films owned and exclusively distributed by petitioners. Also seized were machines and equipment,
television sets, paraphernalia, materials, accessories, rewinders, tape head
cleaners, statements of order, return slips, video prints, flyers, production
orders, and posters. Inventories of
these seized articles were then prepared and copies thereof were furnished Jess
Ayson, production manager of FGT. On
May 18, 1987, the NBI agents filed a return of the search warrant with a motion
to retain custody of the seized items (p. 32, Rollo).

Meanwhile, FGT filed an urgent motion for the immediate release
of equipment and accessories “not covered” by the search warrant,
without prejudice to the filing of a motion to quash the said search warrant
(p. 101, Rollo). It argued that as a
licensed video reproducer, FGT had the right to maintain possession of the
seized reproduction equipment and paraphernalia which are not contraband or
illegal per se, but
are rather “exclusively used and intended to be used for
reproduction” and not in the “sale, lease, distribution or possession
for purposes of sale, lease distribution, circulation or public exhibition of
pirated video tapes”. (p. 102,
Rollo.)

Petitioners opposed the motion, asserting that the seized
articles were all lawfully taken. They
explained that since FGT was a videogram distributor and not a reproducer,
“it may be logically concluded that such 634 VCRs, accessories, etc.”
were “used or intended to be used in the unlawful sale, lease,
distribution or possession for purposes of sale, lease, distribution,
circulation or public exhibition of, at the very least, the 310 videocassette
tapes containing the copyrighted films/motion pictures.” They asserted
that Search Warrant No. 45 was issued upon the proper determination of probable
cause and that, therefore, it is not for FGT “to second-guess the
wisdom” of the court’s directive to seize the questioned VCRs and
accessories “as an inquiry thereon would involve evidentiary matters which
are better ventilated in the criminal prosecution
proper”. (pp. 107-116, Rollo.)

Finding that FGT was a “registered and duly licensed
distributor and in certain instances and under special instructions and
conditions… reproducer of videograms” and that, therefore, its right to
possess and use the seized equipment had been “placed in serious
doubt”, the lower court resolved the doubt “against the Government
and in favor of a lawful business enterprise.” Applying the constitutional
precept of presumption of innocence and considering that the seized articles
are not contraband, respondent court ruled that to allow the Government
“to keep possession of the equipment(s) and machines where there is no
actual criminal charge” would amount to a “confiscation in violation
of the due process clause of the constitution, notwithstanding the filing by
the Director of the NBI of a letter to the Department of Justice recommending
that the defendants be charged with violation of Section 56 of P.D. No. 49, as
amended by P.D. No. 1988.” (pp. 131-132, Rollo.)

Thus, in its order on May 29, 1987, the lower court granted FGT’s
motion and ordered the immediate release and return of the “television
sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders, tape head cleaners, accessories,
equipment and other machines or paraphernalias, as reflected in the ‘Receipt
for Properties Seized’ attached to the records of the case beginning from page
84 to page 130, to the defendants, excluding video cassette tapes reflected in
the ‘Receipts for Properties Seized’, beginning from page 132 to page 146 of
the records.” Respondent court also ordered the inventory of all articles
returned with individual descriptions “to evidence their existence”
copies of which inventory should be furnished the NBI and the court (p. 132,
Rollo).

Hence, the present recourse.

As prayed for by petitioners, on June 17, 1987, the Court issued
a temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from implementing the lower
court’s order of May 29, 1987 upon a bond in the amount of P750,000.00 which
petitioners accordingly posted on June 19, 1987. (pp. 138­-141, Rollo.)

The sole issue to be resolved is whether or not the lower court
acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
ordering the immediate release and return of some of the items seized by virtue
of the
search warrant.

Petitioners insist that the search warrant was issued upon due
determination of probable cause. They
argue that FGT’s act of illegally reproducing copyrighted films had been
clearly established by evidence on record and that FGT’s principal ground in
praying for the immediate release of the seized articles is a matter of defense
which should be ventilated at the trial of the case on the merits.

Private respondents, on the other hand, claim that the issuance
of Search Warrant No. 45 is tainted with illegality as no particular or
specific acts or omissions constituting the offense charged had been alleged in
the application for its issuance.

The right to security against unreasonable searches and seizures
is guaranteed under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution which
provides:

Sec. 2. The right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall
be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined by the judge after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to
be seized.

Thus, Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provide
for the requisites in the issuance of search warrants:

SEC. 3. Requisites for issuing search warrant.
— A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in
connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation
of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

SEC. 4. Examination of complainant; record. — The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the
form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them
and attach to the record their sworn statements together with any affidavits
submitted.

In issuing a search warrant, the judge must strictly comply with
the constitutional and statutory requirements. He must determine the existence of probable cause by personally
examining the applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions (Silva
vs. Presiding Judge, RTC of Negros Oriental, Br. XXXIII (203 SCRA
140 [1991]). The search warrant must
contain a specific description of the place to be searched and the articles
sought to be seized must be described with particularity (Pendon vs. Court
of Appeals, 191 SCRA 429 [1990]).

Withal, measured by the a foregoing constitutional and legal
provisions as well as the existing jurisprudence on the matter, we find that
Search Warrant No. 45 fails to satisfy the test of legality. More so because the Court has previously
decided a case dealing with virtually the same search warrant.

In 20th Century Fox Film Corp. vs. Court of Appeals (164
SCRA 655 [1988]), wherein therein petitioner is also one of the petitioners
herein, we upheld the legality of the order of the lower court lifting the
search warrant issued under circumstances similar to those obtaining in the
case at bar.

A striking similarity between the case at bar and 20th Century
Fox is the fact that Search Warrant No. 45, specifically paragraph (c)
thereof describing the articles to be seized, contains an almost identical
description as the warrant issued in the 20th Century Fox case, to wit:

(c) Television sets,
Video Cassettes Recorders, rewinders, tape head cleaners, accessories,
equipments and other machines used or intended to be used in the unlawful
reproduction, sale, rental/lease, distribution of the above-mentioned video
tapes which she is keeping and concealing in the premises above-described. (at p. 664.)

On the propriety of the seizure of the articles above-described,
we held in said case:

Television sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders and tape
cleaners are articles which can be found in a video tape store engaged in the legitimate business of lending or
renting out betamax tapes. In short, these
articles and appliances are generally connected with, or related to a legitimate
business not necessarily involving piracy of intellectual property or
infringement of copyright laws. Hence, including these articles without
specification and/or particularity that they were really instruments in
violating an Anti-Piracy law makes the search warrant too general which could
result in the confiscation of all items found in any video store. (at p. 665.)

The language used in paragraph (c) of Search Warrant No. 45 is
thus too all-embracing as to include all the paraphernalia of FGT in the
operation of its business. As the
search warrant is in the nature of a general one, it is constitutionally
objectionable (Corro vs. Lising, 137 SCRA 541 [1985]).

In consequence, respondent court was merely correcting its own
erroneous conclusions in issuing Search Warrant No. 45 when it ordered the
return of the seized television
sets and other paraphernalia specified in the motion filed by FGT. This can be gleaned from its statement that
“… the machines and equipment could have been used or intended to be
used in the illegal reproduction of tapes of the copyrighted motion
pictures/films, yet, it cannot be said with moral certainty that the machines
or equipment(s) were used in violating the law by the mere fact that pirated
video tapes of the copyrighted motion pictures/films were reproduced. As already stated, FGT Video Network, Inc.
is a registered and duly licensed distributor and in certain instances and
under special instructions … reproducer of videograms, and as such, it has
the right to keep in its possession, maintain and operate reproduction
equipment(s) and paraphernalia(s).” (pp. 131-132, Rollo.)

Far from being despotic or arbitrary, respondent judge must be
commended for rectifying his error when he found that his initial conclusions
were inaccurate and erroneous, colliding as they did with the constitutional
rights of private respondent.

Much has been said in the media about piracy of films and
videotapes and that violators of the law must be brought to the courts but, as
the Court said in Bagalihog vs. Fernandez (198 SCRA 614 [1991]), “[z]eal
in the pursuit of criminals cannot ennoble the use of arbitrary methods
that the Constitution itself abhors.” (at p. 622.)

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, the assailed order
of May 29, 1987 AFFIRMED, and the temporary restraining order issued on June
18, 1987, vacated and lifted.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Davide, Jr., and Romero, JJ.,
concur.