SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 111267. September 20, 1996]

COLUMBIA PICUR!S !N!RAINM!N, INC., MGM
!N!RAINM!N CO., ORION PICUR!S CORPORAION,
PARAMOUN PICUR!S CORP., UNI"!RSAL CI# SU$IOS,
INC., %! &AL $ISN!# COMPAN# '() &ARN!R BRO%!RS,
INC., petitioners, vs. %ONORABL! COUR O* APP!ALS, 1+%
$I"ISION '() ,OS! B. ,INGCO o- S%O&IM! !N!RPRIS!S.,
INC., respondents.
$ ! C I S I O N
ROM!RO, J..
Petitioners Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., MGM Entertainment Co.,
Orion Pictures Corporation, Paramount Pictures Corp., Universal Cit Studios,
Inc., t!e "alt Disne Compan and "arner #rot!ers, Inc. $uestion t!e
decision
%&'
o( t!e Court o( )ppeals *!ic! a((irmed t!e Order o( t!e +e,ional
-rial Court o( Pasi,, #ranc! &./, t!e dispositive portion o( *!ic! states0
"WHEREFORE, finding that the issuance of the questioned warrants was not
supported by probable cause, the 'Urgent otion !"o #ift $earch Warrant %&o' ()*
and for the Return of $ei+ed ,rticles-' is hereby .R,&"E/'
,ccordingly, the 0ideogra1 Regulatory 2oard !0R2- and3or any 4olice ,gency or
other representati5es of the 0R2 are hereby directed to return to the
defendant31o5ant or his representati5e all articles3ite1s in their possession sei+ed
under and by 5irtue of $earch Warrant &o' ()'
$O OR/ERE/'"
-!e antecedent (acts leadin, to t!e disputed Order are0
)l(redo G. +amos, intelli,ence o((icer o( t!e Video,ram +e,ulator #oard
1V+#2, received in(ormation t!at private respondent 3ose #. 3inco !ad in !is
possession pirated videotapes, posters, advertisin, materials and ot!er items
used or intended to be used (or t!e purpose o( sale, lease, distribution,
circulation or public e4!ibition o( t!e said pirated videotapes. +amos
ascertained t!e in(ormation to be true and (iled a veri(ied )pplication (or
Searc! "arrant dated 3ul 5/, &6/. *it! praer (or t!e sei7ure o( t!e
properties described in t!e searc! *arrant.
On t!e same date, a !earin, *as conducted b 3ud,e 8lorentino ). 8lor o(
t!e +e,ional -rial Court o( Pasi,, #ranc! &./, *!erein +amos and !is t*o
*itnesses, )nalie 3imene7 and +ebecca #enite79Cru7 testi(ied on t!e need
(or t!e issuance o( searc! *arrant.
On 3ul 5/, &6/., t!e praer (or t!e issuance o( t!e searc! *arrant *as
,ranted and, on t!e same date, Searc! "arrant No. 5: *as issued.
On 3une 5, &6/;, private respondent (iled a Motion to <uas! Searc!
"arrant No. 5: on t!e ,rounds t!at t!e Searc! "arrant did not state a
speci(ic o((ense and t!at, even assumin, it stated a speci(ic o((ense, it
covered more t!an one speci(ic o((ense. -!e V+# opposed t!e Motion to
<uas! statin, t!at Searc! "arrant No. 5: *as issued (or a sin,le speci(ic
o((ense namel, violation o( Section =. and ot!er related sections o(
Presidential Decree No. >6 as amended b Presidential Decree No. &6//.
On September :?, &6/;, t!e trial court denied t!e Motion to <uas! (indin,
t!at t!e Searc! "arrant *as issued (or one speci(ic o((ense. ) Motion (or
+econsideration *as (iled but t!e same *as li@e*ise denied.
Private respondent t!en (iled an Ur,ent Motion to Ai(t t!e Searc! "arrant
and 8or t!e +eturn o( t!e Sei7ed )rticles alle,in, t!at Searc! "arrant No. 5:
is a ,eneral *arrant, and t!at it *as issued *it!out probable cause.
On Ma 55, &6/6, t!e assailed order *as issued b 3ud,e #enBamin V.
Pelao, no* presidin, over #ranc! &./ o( t!e Pasi, +-C, ,rantin, t!e Motion
to <uas! and orderin, t!e return o( all sei7ed articles to private respondent.
Petitioners appealed to t!e Court o( )ppeals, *!ic! a((irmed t!e said
Order in toto.
Cence, t!is petition.
In ,rantin, t!e Motion to <uas!, t!e trial court relied on t!e CourtDs rulin,
in 5?t! Centur 8o4 8ilm Corporation v. Court o( )ppeals, et al .
%5'
*!ic!
involved violation o( Presidential Decree No. >6, 1ot!er*ise @no*n as t!e
Decree on t!e Protection o( Intellectual Propert2. In said case, video outlets
*ere raided pursuant to searc! *arrants issued b t!e +e,ional -rial Court o(
Ma@ati. Co*ever, t!e searc! *arrants *ere later li(ted b t!e same court on
t!e ,round o( lac@ o( probable cause because t!e master tapes o( t!e alle,ed
pirated tapes *ere never s!o*n to t!e lo*er court. -!e Court a((irmed t!e
li(tin, o( t!e searc! *arrants !oldin, t!at t!e presentation o( t!e master tapes
*as necessar (or t!e validit o( t!e searc! *arrants a,ainst t!ose *!o !ave
t!e pirated (ilms in t!eir possession.
"!en t!e trial court ,ranted t!e Motion to <uas! Searc! "arrant No. 5:
on Ma 55, &6/6, it used as its Busti(ication t!e (act t!at, as t!e master copies
*ere not presented to t!e court in its !earin, o( 3ul 5/, &6/., t!ere *as no
probable cause to issue t!e said *arrant, based on t!e pronouncements
in 5?t! Centur 8o4.
Petitioners no* $uestion t!e retroactive application o( t!e 5?t! Centur
8o4 decision *!ic! !ad not et been promul,ated in &6/. *!en t!e searc!
*arrant *as issued. Petitioners (urt!er ar,ue t!at, contrar to t!e trial courtDs
(indin,, t!e searc! *arrant *as not a ,eneral *arrant since t!e description o(
t!e items to be sei7ed *as speci(ic enou,!. It removed (rom t!e servin,
o((icer an discretion as to *!ic! items to sei7e inasmuc! as it described onl
t!ose items *!ic! !ad a direct relation to t!e o((ense (or *!ic! t!e searc!
*arrant *as issued.
-!e t!res!old issue t!at must (irst be determined is *!et!er or not
petitioners !ave t!e le,al personalit and standin, to (ile t!e appeal.
Private respondent asserts t!at t!e proceedin,s (or t!e issuance andEor
$uas!al o( a searc! *arrant are criminal in nature. -!us, t!e parties in suc! a
case are t!e FPeopleF as o((ended part and t!e accused. ) private
complainant is rele,ated to t!e role o( a *itness *!o does not !ave t!e ri,!t
to appeal e4cept *!ere t!e civil aspect is deemed instituted *it! t!e criminal
case.
Petitioners, on t!e ot!er !and, ar,ue t!at as t!e o((ended parties in t!e
criminal case, t!e !ave t!e ri,!t to institute an appeal (rom t!e $uestioned
order.
8rom t!e records it is clear t!at, as complainants, petitioners *ere
involved in t!e proceedin,s *!ic! led to t!e issuance o( Searc! "arrant No.
5:. In People v. Nano,
%:'
t!e Court declared t!at *!ile t!e ,eneral rule is t!at it
is onl t!e Solicitor General *!o is aut!ori7ed to brin, or de(end actions on
be!al( o( t!e People or t!e +epublic o( t!e P!ilippines once t!e case is
brou,!t be(ore t!is Court or t!e Court o( )ppeals, i( t!ere appears to be ,rave
error committed b t!e Bud,e or a lac@ o( due process, t!e petition *ill be
deemed (iled b t!e private complainants t!erein as i( it *ere (iled b t!e
Solicitor General. In line *it! t!is rulin,, t!e Court ,ives t!is petition due
course and *ill allo* petitioners to ar,ue t!eir case a,ainst t!e $uestioned
order in lieu o( t!e Solicitor General.
)s re,ards t!e issue o( t!e validit o( Searc! "arrant No. 5:, t!ere are
t*o $uestions to be resolved0 (irst, *!et!er t!e 5?t! Centur 8o4 decision
promul,ated on )u,ust &6, &6// is applicable to t!e Motion to <uas! Searc!
"arrant No. 5: 1issued on 3ul 5/, &6/.2.
"e !old in t!e ne,ative.
In t!e recent Columbia Pictures, et al . v. Court o( )ppeals, et al .
%>'
case
*!ic! resolved t!e same issue involvin, t!e same petitioners but *it!
di((erent respondents, t!e Court en banc !eld0
"indful as we are of the ra1ifications of the doctrine of stare decisis and the
rudi1ents of fair play, it is our considered 5iew that the (6th 7entury Fo8 ruling
cannot be retroacti5ely applied to the instant case to 9ustify the quashal of $earch
Warrant &o' :;<6=)' Herein petitioners' consistent position that the order of the lower
court of $epte1ber =, >?:: denying therein defendant's 1otion to lift the order of
search warrant was properly issued, there ha5ing been satisfactory co1pliance with
the then pre5ailing standards under the law for deter1ination of probable cause, is
indeed well ta@en' "he lower court could not possibly ha5e e8pected 1ore e5idence
fro1 petitioners in their application for a search warrant other than what the law and
9urisprudence, then e8isting and 9udicially accepted, required with respect to the
finding of probable cause'
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
At is consequently clear that a 9udicial interpretation beco1es a part of the law as of
the date that law was originally passed, sub9ect only to the qualification that when a
doctrine of this 7ourt is o5erruled and a different 5iew is adopted, and 1ore so when
there is a re5ersal thereof, the new doctrine should be applied prospecti5ely and
should not apply to parties who relied on the old doctrine and acted in good
faith' !4eople 5' Babinal, #<)66C>, February (;, >?;D, == $7R, C6;E Unciano
4ara1edical 7ollege, Anc', et al' 5' 7ourt of ,ppeals, et al', .'R' &o' >66))=, ,pril ;,
>??), ((> $7R, (:=E "anada, et al' 5' .uingona, Br', etc, et al', .'R' &o' >>):::,
,ugust >?, >??D, ()= $7R, =6;-' "o hold otherwise would be to depri5e the law of
its quality of fairness and 9ustice then, if there is no recognition of what had transpired
prior to such ad9udication' !/e ,gbayani 5' 4hilippine &ational 2an@, et al', #<
()>(;, ,pril (?, >?;>, ): $7R, D(?-'"
Ai@e*ise, t!e Court ruled t!erein t!at presentation o( t!e master tapes in
suc! cases is not an absolute re$uirement (or a searc! *arrant to issue0
"ore to the point, it is felt that the reasonableness of the added require1ent in (6th
7entury Fo8 calling for the production of the 1aster tapes of the copyrighted fil1s for
deter1ination of probable cause in copyright infringe1ent cases needs re5isiting and
clarification'
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
An fine, the supposed pronuncia1ento in said case regarding the necessity for the
presentation of the 1aster tapes of the copyrighted fil1s for the 5alidity of search
warrants should at 1ost be understood to 1erely ser5e as a guidepost in deter1ining
the e8istence of probable cause in copyright infringe1ent cases where there is doubt
as to the true ne8us between the 1aster tape and the pirated copies' ,n ob9ecti5e and
careful reading of the decision in said case could lead to no other conclusion than that
said directi5e was hardly intended to be a sweeping and infle8ible require1ent in all
or si1ilar copyright infringe1ent cases' Budicial dicta should always be construed
within the factual 1atri8 of their parturition, otherwise a careless interpretation
thereof could unfairly fault the writer with the 5ice of o5erstate1ent and the reader
with the fallacy of undue generali+ation
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
At is e5idently incorrect to suggest, as the ruling in (6th 7entury Fo8 1ay appear to
do, that in copyright infringe1ent cases, the presentation of 1aster tapes of the
copyrighted fil1s is always necessary to 1eet the require1ent of probable cause and
that, in the absence thereof, there can be no finding of probable cause for the issuance
of a search warrant' At is true that such 1aster tapes are ob9ect e5idence, with the
1erit that in this class of e5idence the ascertain1ent of the contro5erted fact is 1ade
through de1onstrations in5ol5ing the direct use of the senses of the presiding
1agistrate' !7ity of anila 5' 7abangis, >6 4hil' >=> %>?6:*E Fabase 5' $tate, )> ,la'
,pp' ;;, >( $o' (&/, ;=:, ;CD-' $uch au8iliary procedure, howe5er, does not rule
out the use of testi1onial or docu1entary e5idence, depositions, ad1issions, or other
classes of e5idence tending to pro5e the factu1 probandu1 !$ee 4hil' o5ie Wor@ers
,ssociation 5' 4re1iere 4roductions, Anc', ?( 4hil' :D) %>?=)*- especially where the
production in court of ob9ect e5idence would result in delay, incon5enience or
e8penses out of proportion to its e5identiary 5alue' !$ee ) Bones on E5idence, $ec'
>D66-'"
-!e instant case also di((ers (rom 5?t! Centur 8o4 in t!at *!at !erein
private respondent put in issue *as t!e application o( t!e rulin, in t!at
case, not t!e conduct o( 3ud,e 8lor in t!e issuance o( Searc! "arrant No.
5:. 8rom t!e records, it is clear t!at 3ud,e 8lor observed all t!e re$uirements
necessar be(ore t!e searc! *arrant *as issued0 !e !eard t!e testimonies
and studied t!e despositions o( t!e *itnesses (or t!e petitioners, namel Ms.
+ebecca #enite79Cru7, Ms. )nalie I. 3imene7 and t!e V+#Ds Intelli,ence
O((icer, )l(redo G. +amos on t!e e4istence o( probable cause be(ore issuin,
t!e *arrant.
Under Sec. : and >, +ule &5. o( t!e +ules o( Court, t!e re$uirements (or
t!e issuance o( a valid searc! *arrant are0
"$ec' )' Requisites for issuing search warrant'
, search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one
specific offense to be deter1ined by the 9udge or such other responsible officer
authori+ed by law after e8a1ination under oath or affir1ation of the co1plainant and
the witnesses he 1ay produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and
the things to be sei+ed'
$ec' D' E8a1ination of co1plainantE record' <
"he 9udge 1ust, before issuing the warrant, personally e8a1ine in the for1 of
searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath the co1plainant and any
witnesses he 1ay produce on facts personally @nown to the1 and attach to the record
their sworn state1ents together with any affida5its sub1itted'"
Cavin, satis(ied t!ese re$uirements, 3ud,e 8lor committed no ,rave
abuse o( discretion in issuin, t!e *arrant.
Private respondent contends t!at Searc! "arrant No. 5: also violates t!e
constitutional re$uirements o( particularit o( t!e description o( t!e *arrant,
bein, a ,eneral *arrant and t!us, is null and void.
In several cases, t!is Court !as !eld t!at0
""o be 5alid, a search warrant 1ust be supported by probable cause to be deter1ined
by the 9udge or so1e other authori+ed officer after e8a1ining the co1plainant and the
witnesses he 1ay produce' &o less i1portant, there 1ust be a specific description of
the place to be searched and the things to be sei+ed, to pre5ent arbitrary and
indiscri1inate use of the warrant' !$ec' ), ,rt' A0, >?;D 7onstitution, now $ec' (,
,rt' AAA of the >?:C 7onstitutionE $ec' ), Rule >(C of the &ew Rules of 7ourtE
$tonehill 5' /io@no, (6 $7R, ):)E #i1e 5' 4once de #eon, CC $7R, (??E Uy
Fheytin 5' 0illareal, D( 4hil' ::CE 4eople 5' 0eloso, D: 4hil' >C?E 4eople 5' Rubio, =;
4hil' ):DE 2ache and 7o', !4hil'- Anc' 5' Rui+, ); $7R, :()E Roan 5' .on+ales, >D=
$7R, C:;-'"
%='
!Underscoring supplied-
"!en ma a searc! *arrant be deemed to satis( t!e le,al re$uirements
o( speci(icitG
In #ac!e and Co., 1P!il.2 Inc. v. +ui7, *e said0
", search warrant 1ay be said to particularly describe the things to be sei+ed when
the description therein is as specific as the circu1stances will ordinarily allow !4eople
5' Rubio, =; 4hil' ):D-E or when the description e8presses a conclusion of fact < not of
law < by which the warrant officer 1ay be guided in 1a@ing the search and sei+ure
!ide1', dissent of ,bad $antos, B'-E or when the things described are li1ited to those
which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued !$ec' (,
rule >(C, Re5ised Rules of 7ourt-' ' ' ' ' Af the articles desired to be sei+ed ha5e any
direct relation to an offense co11itted, the applicant 1ust necessarily ha5e so1e
e5idence, other than those articles, to pro5e the said offenseE and the articles, sub9ect
of search and sei+ure should co1e in handy 1erely to strengthen such e5idence' ' ' ' '"
)n e4amination o( Searc! "arrant No. 5: s!o*s t!at it *as *orded in
suc! a manner t!at t!e enumerated items to be sei7ed bear a direct relation
to t!e o((ense o( violation o( Sec. =. o( Presidential Decree No. >6, as
amended, *!ic! states0
"!>- "ransfer or cause to be transferred, directly or indirectly any sound recording or
1otion picture, or other audio<5isual wor@ that has been recorded on a phonograph
record, disc, wire, tape, fil1 or other article on which sounds, 1otion pictures, or
other audio 5isual wor@s are recorded, with intent to sell, lease, publicly e8hibit or
cause to be sold, leased or publicly e8hibited, or to use or cause to be used for profit,
such article on which sounds, 1otion pictures, or other audio 5isual wor@s are so
transferred, WA"HOU" "HE WRA""E& 7O&$E&" OF HA$ ,$$A.&EEE or
!(- $ell, lease, distribute, circulate, e8hibit, offer for sale, lease, distribution, or
possess for the purpose of sale, lease, distribution, circulation or public e8hibition, any
such article to which the sounds, 1otion pictures or audio<5isual recordings thereon
ha5e been so transferred, without the written consent of the owner or his assigneeE or
!)- Offer or 1a@e a5ailable for a fee, rental or any other for1 of co1pensation,
directly or indirectly any equip1ent, 1achinery, paraphernalia or any 1aterial with
the @nowledge that such equip1ent, 1achinery, paraphernalia or 1aterial, will be
used by another to reproduce, without the consent of the owners any phonograph
record, disc, wire, tape fil1 or other article on which sound, 1otion pictures, or other
audio<5isual recordings 1ay be transferred'"
In ot!er *ords, it aut!ori7ed onl t!e sei7ure o( articles used or intended to
be used in t!e unla*(ul sale, lease and ot!er acts in violation o( t!e said
decree. -!e searc! *arrant ordered t!e sei7ure o( t!e (ollo*in, properties0
"!a- 4irated 5ideo tapes of the copyrighted 1otion pictures3fil1s the titles of which
are 1entioned in the attached listE
!b- 4osters, ad5ertising leaflets, brochures, in5oices, 9ournal, ledgers, and boo@s of
accounts bearing3or 1entioning the pirated fil1s with titles !as per attached list-E
!c- "ele5ision sets, 5ideo cassettes records, rewinders, tape head cleaners,
accessories, equip1ent and other 1achines and paraphernalia or 1aterial used or
intended to be used in the unlawful sale, lease, distribution, or possession for purpose
of sale, lease, distribution, circulation or public e8hibition of the abo5e<1entioned
pirated 5ideo tapes which he is @eeping and concealing in the pre1ises abo5e<
described'"
Clearl, t!e above items could not be anmore speci(ic as t!e
circumstances *ill allo* since t!e are all used or intended to be used in t!e
unla*(ul sale or lease o( pirated tapes. -!ere(ore, t!e (indin, o( t!e appellate
court t!at Searc! "arrant No. 5: is a F,eneralF *arrant is devoid o( basis.
&%!R!*OR!, t!e assailed decision and resolution o( respondent Court
o( )ppeals, and necessaril inclusive o( t!e order o( t!e trial court dated Ma
55, &6/6, are !ereb +EVE+SED and SE- )SIDE. -!e order o( t!e trial
court dated 3ul 5/, &6/. up!oldin, t!e validit o( Searc! "arrant No. 5: is
!ereb +EINS-)-ED.
Costs a,ainst private respondent.
SO OR$!R!$.