647 Sony Music Entertainment (Phils.) Inc. v.

Español
Date March 14, 2005||| GR Number 156804||| Ponente
GARCIA J.

Article 3, Section 7 BRIAN PINEDA

Petitioners: Sony Music Entertainment (Phils.) Respondents: . Español
Inc.
Doctrine:
What the Supreme Court is saying is that any evidence presented in lieu of the master tapes,
if not readily available, in similar application proceedings must be reliable, and, if testimonial,
it must, at the very least, be based on the witness’ personal knowledge.
.

FACTS:

In 2000, Sony Music Entertainment (Phils.), Inc. sought the assistance of the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI) agent Lavin as they complained that Solid Laguna Corporation, together
with its officers were engaged in the replication, reproduction and distribution of Sony
videograms without license and authority from the Video Regulatory Board (violation of P.D.
1987);
That Solid Laguna was manufacturing, selling, and distributing various titles of CDs in violation
of Sony Music’s copyrights (and a violation of RA 8293).
Agent Lavin, in applying for a search warrant, stated before Judge Dolores Español that an
unnamed person provided them information as to the presence of pirated CDs in the premises
of Solid Laguna; that Lavin and other witnesses were accompanied by unnamed persons to
enter the premise and conduct further investigation. The judge then issued two corresponding
search warrants; one for probable violation of PD 1987 and the other for probable violation of
RA 8293.
The search warrants were subsequently enforced and items were seized from Solid Laguna on
the strength of the two warrants.
Solid Laguna thereafter presented a certification that they are actually authorized to
manufacture and sell CDs by the VRB at the same time it asked the court to quash the search
warrants and return the items seized. Judge Español then quashed the search warrant issued
for probable violation of PD 1987.
Judge Español later quashed the other warrant because of the fact that the items seized as a
result of the two warrants were commingled hence they cannot be examined properly. Judge
Español also ruled that the issuance of the warrant stemmed from the intimation made by
petitioners that Solid Laguna was not authorized to manufacture and sell CDs but in fact they
were authorized by the VRB. This being, the warrants are of no force and effect because of the
lack of probable cause.

Issue/s: Ruling:
1) Whether or not the search warrants were valid? 1. No

The issuance of the search warrant in question did not meet the requirements of probable
cause.
Judge Español did not accordingly err in quashing the same, let alone gravely abuse her
discretion. It is also within her authority to quash the said warrants based on her findings which
were found to be valid by the Supreme Court. Further, it cannot be overemphasized that not
one of the applicants of the warrants testified seeing the pirated discs being manufactured at
Solid Laguna’s premises, they merely relied on unnamed persons which is at best are hearsays.
The Supreme Court also noted that the lack of supporting evidence and documents in applying
for the search warrants on this infringement case does not mean that the master tapes of the
alleged copies being pirated should have been produced. It is true that the Supreme Court,
in 20th Century Fox Case, underscored the necessity, in determining the existence of probable
cause in copyright infringement cases, of presenting the master tapes of the copyrighted work.
But, as emphatically clarified in Columbia Pictures vs CA “such auxiliary procedure, however,
does not rule out the use of testimonial or documentary evidence, depositions, admissions or
other classes of evidence xxx especially where the production in court of object evidence would
result in delay, inconvenience or expenses out of proportion to its evidentiary value. What the
Supreme Court is saying is that any evidence presented in lieu of the master tapes, if not readily
available, in similar application proceedings must be reliable, and, if testimonial, it must, at the
very least, be based on the witness’ personal knowledge.