20th Century Fox Film Corporation v CA, Eduardo Barreto (owner of Junction Video, etc), Raul Sagullo (owner of South Video Bug Center, etc.), and Fortune Ledesma (owner of Sonix Video Services in Forbes Park)

Aug. 19, 1988Gutierrrez, Jr. J,

Topic: Copyright and Related Rights; Law on Copyright; Infringement

SV: Fox asked for NBI’s help in the conduct of searches and seizures. It alleged that certain videotape outlets were engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted films in videotape form which violated PD 49. They filed for applications for search warrants against the respondents. RTC issued the search warrants, which allowed NBI to raid the outlets and seize several of respondents’ items. Subsequently, the RTC issued an order lifting the search warrants and ordered the release of the properties.

Court held that the RTC order was correct. In this case, the master tapes of the copyrighted films weren’t presented during the application for the search warrants. The presentation of such master tapes was necessary for the validity of search warrants against those who have in their possession the pirated films. The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least substantial similarity of the purported pirated works to the copyrighted work. The applicant must present to the court the copyrighted films to compare them with the purchased evidence of the video tapes allegedly pirated to determine whether the latter is an unauthorized reproduction of the former. This linkage of the copyrighted films to the pirated films must be established to satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Mere allegations as to the existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant.

FACTS:

- The 20th Century Fox Film Corp (Fox) sought the NBI’s assistance in the conduct of searches and seizures in connection with the latter’s anti-film piracy campaign.

The letter alleged that certain videotape outlets all over Metro Manila engaged in the unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted films in videotape form which constitute a flagrant violation of PD 49

NBI conducted surveillance and investigation of the outlets pinpointed by Fox and filed 3 applications for search warrants against the video outlets owned by respondents.

- After the RTC judge issued the search warrants, the NBI, accompanied by Fox’s agents, raided the outlets and seized the items described therein.

Respondents filed a motion to lift search warrants and release seized properties.

- [RTC] then issued an order lifting the search warrants and directing the NBI to return seized items to their owners on the ground that it granted the search warrants based on the misrepresentations that infringement of a copyright or piracy of a particular film have been committed. Fox’s MR was denied.

ISSUE: Did the lower court judge properly lift the warrants he issued earlier? (YES)

- The main issue hinges on the meaning of probable cause within the context of the consti provision1 against illegal searches and seizures.

[Burgos v Chief of Staff] Probable cause is defined as “such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.”

1 Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution: 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 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 persons or things to be seized.

o In this case, although the witnesses stated that they testified of their own personal knowledge in the application for the 3 search warrants, their own statements2 belie such assertions.

o The master tapes or at least the film reels of the allegedly pirated tapes weren’t shown to the court during the application. This casts doubt on Reyes’ testimony that the master tapes of the allegedly pirated tapes were shown to him and he made comparisons of the tapes with those purchased by Bacani.

**relevant portion**

- The presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the pirated films were allegedly copied, was necessary for the validity of search warrants against those who have in their possession the pirated films.

The petitioner's argument to the effect that the presentation of the master tapes at the time of application may not be necessary as these would be merely evidentiary in nature and not determinative of whether or not a probable cause exists to justify the issuance of the search warrants is not meritorious.

The court cannot presume that duplicate or copied tapes were necessarily reproduced from master tapes that it owns.

- The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least substantial similarity of the purported pirated works to the copyrighted work.

The applicant must present to the court the copyrighted films to compare them with the purchased evidence of the video tapes allegedly pirated to determine whether the latter is an unauthorized reproduction of the former.

This linkage of the copyrighted films to the pirated films must be established to satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Mere allegations as to the existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant.

**end of relevant portion**

- Further, the search warrants were in the nature of general warrants3. Hence, it resulted in the confiscation of all items found in any video store.

The search party should have confined themselves to articles that are according to them, evidence constitutive of infringement of copyright laws or the piracy of intellectual property, and no other.

- There is no grave abuse of discretion on the lower court when it issued and lifted the search warrants.

- Although Courts should not impose any unnecessary roadblocks in the way of the anti-film piracy campaign, the campaign cannot ignore or violate constitutional safeguards. By promoting the use of unconstitutional shortcuts to achieve anti-piracy is to denigrate the long history and experience behind the searches and seizures clause of the Bill of Rights.

Petition DISMISSED.

2 Atty Albino Reyes of NBI stated that the counsel or representative of Fox will testify on the video casettes that were pirated; this shows that he did not have personal knowledge. Bacani also said that the casettes were pirated without stating the manner it was pirated and that it was the counsel of Fox that has knowledge of the fact. Atty Domingo (counsel of Fox) said that the re-taping of the allegedly pirated tapes was from master tapes allegedly belonging to Fox, because, according to him, it is of his personal knowledge.

3 Ex. “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."