Case Digest: SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT, INC. v. BRIGHT FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT, INC. v. BRIGHT FUTURE
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

516 SCRA 62 (2007), SECOND DIVISION

Petitioner Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. (SCEI) filed a complaint against respondent Bright Future Technologies Inc. (BFTI) for copyright and trademark infringement. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued search warrants and thereafter conducted a raid on the premises of BFTI and seized several items.

BFTI filed an Urgent Motion to Quash and/or to Exclude or Suppress Evidence and Return Seized Articles. BFTI argued that SCEI had no personality to represent the People of the Philippines and to file the opposition to the motion because SCEI’s agents were mere witnesses of the applicant for the issuance of the search warrants. However, the said motion was denied.

BFTI filed a motion for reconsideration. The RTC granted the motion for reconsideration and held that the two-witness rule was violated. BFTI subsequently filed an Ex Parte Motion to Return Seized Articles which the RTC granted. BFTI subsequently filed the required bond and the seized items were turned over to its custody.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a valid search was conducted on the premises of BFTI

HELD:

The issue of whether a private complainant, like SCEI, has the right to participate in search warrant proceedings was addressed in the affirmative in United Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip which stated that a private individual or a private corporation complaining to the NBI or to a government agency charged with the enforcement of special penal laws, such as the BFAD, may appear, participate and file pleadings in the search warrant proceedings to maintain, inter alia, the validity of the search warrant issued by the court and the admissibility of the properties seized in anticipation of a criminal case to be filed; such private party may do so in collaboration with the NBI or such government agency. The party may file an opposition to a motion to quash the search warrant issued by the court, or a motion for the reconsideration of the court order granting such motion to quash.

When SCEI then opposed BFTI‘s Urgent Motion to Quash and/or to Suppress or Exclude Evidence and Return Seized Articles, the RTC correctly recognized the participation of SCEI in the proceedings.

As for the use of a bolt cutter to gain access to the premises of BFTI, it was, under the circumstances, reasonable, contrary to the RTC‘s finding that it was unnecessary. For, as the RTC itself found, after the members of the searching team introduced themselves to the security guards of BFTI and showed them the search warrants, the guards refused to receive the warrants and to open the premises, they claiming that “they are not in control of the case.”

The RTC‘s finding that the two-witness rule governing the execution of search warrant was not complied with, which rule is mandatory to ensure regularity in the execution of the search warrant, is in order, however.

SCEI insists, however, that the searching team waited for the arrival of the barangay officials who were summoned to witness the search, and that “even when the enforcing officers were moving towards the actual BFTI premises . . . they were accompanied at all times by one of the security guards on duty until the barangay officials arrived.” SCEI‘s position raises an issue of fact which is not proper for consideration in a petition for review on certiorari before this Court under Rule 45, which is supposed to cover only issues of law. In any event, a security guard may not be considered a “lawful occupant” or “a member of [the lawful occupant‘s] family” under the earlier quoted Section 8 of Rule 126.

As the two-witness rule was not complied with, the objects seized during the April 1, 2005 search are inadmissible in evidence. Their return, on motion of BFTI, was thus in order.