Columbia Pictures v. Flores, G.R. No.

78631, June 29, 1993

I. THE FACTS

As a consequence of a complaint filed by the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc., NBI agents
conducted surveillance operations on certain video establishments, among them respondent FGT Video
Network, Inc. (FGT), for “unauthorized sale, rental, reproduction and/or disposition of copyrighted film,"
a violation of PD 49 (the old Intellectual Property Law). After an NBI agent was able to have copyrighted
motion pictures “Cleopatra” (owned by 20th Century Fox) and “The Ten Commandments” (owned by
Paramount) reproduced in video format in FGT, the NBI applied for and was able to obtain from the
respondent judge the subject Search Warrant No. 45 which reads:

TO ANY PEACE OFFICER:

GREETINGS:

It appearing to the satisfaction of the Undersigned after examining under oath NBI Senior Agent Lauro C.
Reyes and his witnesses Mr. Danilo Manalang and Ms. Rebecca Benitez-Cruz, that there is a probable
cause to believe that Violation of Section 56 P.D. No. 49 as amended by P.D. No. 1988 (otherwise known
as the Decree on Protection of Intellectual Property) has been committed and that there are good and
sufficient reasons to believe that FGT Video Network, Inc., Manuel Mendoza, Alfredo C. Ongyanco, Eric
Apolonio, Susan Yang and Eduardo Yotoko are responsible and have in control/possession at No. 4
Epifanio de los Santos corner Connecticut, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila (per attached sketch and
list of MPAA member Company Titles) the following properties to wit:

(a) Pirated video tapes of the copyrighted motion pictures/films the titles of which are mentioned in the
attached list;

(b) Posters, advertising leaflets, flyers, brochures, invoices, lists of titles being reproduced or retaped,
journals, ledgers, jon (sic) order slips, delivery slips and books of accounts bearing and/or mentioning the
pirated films with titles (as per attached list), or otherwise used in the reproduction/retaping business of
the defendants;

(c) Television sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders, tape head cleaners, accessories, equipment and
other machines and paraphernalia or materials used or intended to be used in the unlawful sale, lease,
distribution, or possession for purpose of sale, lease, distribution, circulation or public exhibition of the
above-mentioned pirated video tapes which they are keeping and concealing in the premises above-
described, which should be seized and brought to the Undersigned.
You are hereby commanded to make an immediate search at any time in the day between 8:00 A.M. to
5:00 P.M. of the premises above-described and forthwith seize and take possession of the above-
enumerated personal properties, and bring said properties to the undersigned immediately upon
implementation to be dealt with as the law directs.

In the course of the implementation of the search warrant in the premises of FGT, the NBI agents found
and seized various video tapes of copyrighted films owned and exclusively distributed by petitioners. Also
seized were machines and equipment, television sets, paraphernalia, materials, accessories, rewinders,
tape head cleaners, statements of order, return slips, video prints, flyers, production orders, and posters.

FGT moved for the release of the seized television sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders, tape head
cleaners, accessories, equipment and other machines or paraphernalia seized by virtue of the subject
warrant. It argued that as a licensed video reproducer, it had the right possess the seized reproduction
equipment, which are not illegal per se, but are rather exclusively used and intended to be used for
reproduction and not in the “sale, lease, distribution or possession for purposes of sale, lease distribution,
circulation or public exhibition of pirated video tapes.”

Finding that FGT was a registered and duly licensed distributor and in certain instances and under special
instructions and conditions reproducer of videograms and that, therefore, its right to possess and use the
seized equipment had been placed in serious doubt, the lower court ordered the return of the “television
sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders, tape head cleaners, accessories, equipment and other machines
or paraphernalia” to FGT.

II. THE ISSUE

Did the respondent judge act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ordering
the immediate return of some of the items seized by virtue of the search warrant?

III. THE RULING

[The High Tribunal DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the order of the respondent Judge Flores.]
NO, the respondent judge DID NOT act with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
in ordering the immediate return of some of the items seized by virtue of the search warrant.

Search Warrant No. 45 fails to satisfy the test of legality. This is more so because the Court has previously
decided a case dealing with virtually the same kind of search warrant. In 20th Century Fox vs. CA, the
Court upheld the legality of the order of the lower court lifting the search warrant issued under
circumstances similar to those obtaining in the case at bar. A striking similarity between this case
and 20th Century Fox is the fact that Search Warrant No. 45, specifically paragraph (c) thereof describing
the articles to be seized, contains an almost identical description as the warrant issued in the 20th Century
Fox case, to wit:

(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.

On the propriety of the seizure of the articles above-described, the Court held in 20th Century Fox:

Television sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders and tape cleaners are articles which can be found in
a video tape store engaged in the legitimate business of lending or renting out betamax tapes. In short,
these articles and appliances are generally connected with, or related to a legitimate business not
necessarily involving piracy of intellectual property or infringement of copyright laws. Hence, including
these articles without specification and/or particularity that they were really instruments in violating an
Anti-Piracy law makes the search warrant too general which could result in the confiscation of all items
found in any video store.

The language used in paragraph (c) of Search Warrant No. 45 is thus too all-embracing as to include all
the paraphernalia of FGT in the operation of its business. As the search warrant is in the nature of a general
one, it is constitutionally objectionable.

The Court concluded that the respondent judge did not gravely abuse his discretion in ordering the
immediate release of the enumerated items, but that he was merely correcting his own erroneous
conclusions in issuing Search Warrant No. 45. This can be gleaned from his statement that “. . . the
machines and equipment could have been used or intended to be used in the illegal reproduction of tapes
of the copyrighted motion pictures/films, yet, it cannot be said with moral certainty that the machines or
equipment(s) were used in violating the law by the mere fact that pirated video tapes of the copyrighted
motion pictures/films were reproduced. As already stated, FGT Video Network, Inc. is a registered and
duly licensed distributor and in certain instances and under special instructions . . . reproducer of
videograms, and as such, it has the right to keep in its possession, maintain and operate reproduction
equipment(s) and paraphernalia(s).”