ABS-CBN v.
GOZON HELD:
G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015] Ponente: LEONEN, J.
Petitioner: ABS-CBN CORPORATION
Respondents: FELIPE GOZON, GILBERTO R. DUAVIT, JR., MARISSA L. FLORES,
JESSICA A. SOHO, GRACE DELA PENA-REYES, JOHN OLIVER T. MANALASTAS, JOHN
DOES AND JANE DOES
FACTS:
On August 13, 2004, petitioner ABS-CBN filed a criminal complaint against respondent
GMA for (alleged) act of copyright infringement under Sections 177 and 211 of the
Intellectual Property Code (RA 8293, as amended), because the respondent aired
footage of the arrival and homecoming of OFW Angelo dela Cruz at NAIA from Iraq
without the petitioner's consent. ABS-CBN stated that it has an agreement with Reuter's
that the petitioner will contribute news and content that it owns and makes to Reuters
in exchange of the latter's news and video material, and Reuters will ensure that ABS-
CBN's materials cannot be aired in the country by other subscibers. [“No other Philippine
subscriber of Reuters would be allowed to use ABS-CBN footage without the latter's
(ABS-CBN) consent”]
The respondent was a subscriber of Reuter's and CNN live feeds. After it received the live
feed of Angelo Dela Cruz's arrival and homecoming from Reuter's, it immediately aired
the video from that news feed. The respondent alleged that its news staff was not aware
that there was (a news embargo) an agreement between ABSCBN and Reuters.
Respondent alleged that it was not also aware that it aired petitioner's footage.
Assistant City Prosecutor Dindo Venturanza issued a resolution on 3 December 2004
which found probable cause to indict Dela Peña-Reyes and Manalastas.
The respondents appealed the Prosecutor’s resolution before DOJ. DOJ Secretary Raul
M. Gonzalez ruled in favor of respondents in his resolution dated 1 August 2005 and
held that good faith may be raised as a defense in the case and dismissed the case.
Meanwhile, DOJ Acting Secretary Alberto C. Agra issued a resolution on 29 June 2010
which reversed Sec. Gonzalez's resolution and found probable cause to charge Dela Peña-
Reyes, Manalastas, as well as to indict Gozon, Duavit, Jr., Flores, and Soho for violation
of the Intellectual Property Code (due to copyright infringement).
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision on 9 November 2010, which granted the
Petition for Certiorari to reverse and set aside DOJ Sec. Alberto Agra's resolution and a
prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction.
The appellate court stated that the petitioner has copyright of its news coverage, but
respondents’ act of airing five (5) seconds of the homecoming footage without notice of
the “No Access Philippines” restriction of the live Reuter's video feed, was undeniably
attended by good faith and thus, serves to exculpate from criminal liability under the
Intellectual Property Code.
ISSUE:
W/N there is probable cause to find respondents to be held liable criminally for the
case of copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Law (RA 8293, as
amended)?
The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED ABS-CBN’s petition and ordered RTC Q.C.
Branch 93 to continue with the criminal proceedings against Grace Dela PeñaReyes and
John Oliver Manalastas due to copyright infringement.
The other respondents, Atty. Felipe Gozon, Gilberto Duavit Jr., Marissa L. Flores, and
Jessica A. Soho were held not liable for the (criminal) act of copyright infringement. The
Court held that their mere membership in GMA7's Board of Directors does not mean that
they have knowledge, approval, or participation in the criminal act of copyright
infringement as there is a need for their direct/active participation in such act. Also,
there was lack of proof that they actively participated or exercised moral ascendancy over
Manalastas and Dela Cruz-Pena.
Contrary to GMA’s contention, the Supreme Court deemed GMA's mere act of
rebroadcasting ABS-CBN’s news footage (arrival and homecoming of OFW Angelo dela
Cruz at NAIA from Iraq last 22 July 2004) for 2 mins and 40 seconds without the latter's
authority creates probable cause to find GMA's news personnel Manalastas and Dela
Peña-Reyes criminally liable for violating provisions of Intellectual Property Code (Section
216¬217 of RA 8293, as amended) that imposes strict liability for copyright
infringement, since they have not been diligent in their functions to prevent that footage
from being aired on television. They knew that there would be consequences in carrying
ABS-CBN’s footage in their broadcast – which is why they allegedly cut the feed from
Reuters upon seeing ABS-CBN’s logo and reporter.
The difference of an act mala in se and mala prohibita was stated in the present case.
Acts mala in se requires presence of criminal intent and the person's knowledge of the
nature of his/her act, while in acts mala prohibita, presence of criminal intent and the
person's knowledge is not necessary. The Court also stated that Philippine laws on
copyright infringement does not require criminal intent (mens rea) and does not support
good faith as a defense. Thus, the act of infringement and not the intent is the one that
causes the damage.
It held that ABS-CBN's video footage is copyrightable because it is under “audiovisual
works and cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to
cinematography or any process for making audiovisual recordings.” It also stated that
news or the event itself is not copyrightable. The Court differentiated idea and expression
– idea meant as “a form, the look or appearance of a thing” while expression is its reality
or the “external, perceptible world of articulate sounds and visible written symbols that
others can understand.” Thus, the Supreme Court stated that “only the expression of an
idea is protected by copyright, not the idea itself”, citing the US Supreme Court's decision
in Baker vs Selden (101 U.S. 99).
In the present case, expression applies to the event captured and presented in a specific
medium via cinematography or processes analogous to it. The Court also gave the four-
fold test under the Fair Use Doctrine (stated in section 185 of RA 8293 or the Intellectual
Property Code, as amended) to determine fair use:
a. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
b. The nature of the copyrighted work;
c. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole; and d.
d. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work.
Fair use, which is an exception to copyright owner’s monopoly of the work's usage, was
defined by the Supreme Court as privilege to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable
manner without the copyright owner's consent or by copying the material's theme or idea
rather than its expression.

It also said that determination of whether the Angelo dela Cruz footage is subject to fair
use is better left to the trial court where the proceedings are currently pending.

In sum, the trial court erred in failing to resume the proceedings after the designated
period. The Court of Appeals erred when it held that Secretary Agra committed errors of
jurisdiction despite its own pronouncement that ABS-CBN is the owner of the copyright
on the news footage. News should be differentiated from expression of the news,
particularly when the issue involves rebroadcast of news footage. The Court of Appeals
also erroneously held that good faith, as. well as lack of knowledge of infringement, is a
defense against criminal prosecution for copyright and neighboring rights infringement.
In its current form, the Intellectual Property Code is malum prohibitum and prescribes a
strict liability for copyright infringement. Good faith, lack of knowledge of the copyright,
or lack of intent to infringe is not a defense against copyright infringement. Copyright,
however, is subject to the rules of fair use and will be judged on a case-to-case basis.
Finding probable cause includes a determination of the defendant's active participation,
particularly when the corporate veil is pierced in cases involving a corporation's criminal
liability.c

WHEREFORE, the Petition is partially GRANTED. The Department of Justice Resolution

dated June 29, 2010 ordering the filing of the Information is hereby REINSTATED as to
respondents Grace Dela Pena-Reyes and John Oliver T. Manalastas. Branch 93 of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City is directed to continue with the proceedings in
Criminal Case No. Q-04-131533.