ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Gozon

CASES REPORTED
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

____________________
G.R. No. 195956. March 11, 2015.*
ABS-CBN CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. FELIPE
GOZON, GILBERTO R. DUAVIT, JR., MARISSA L.
FLORES, JESSICA A. SOHO, GRACE DELA PEAREYES, JOHN OLIVER T. MANALASTAS, JOHN
DOES and JANE DOES, respondents.
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Arraignment; Rule
116, Section 11(c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure allows
the suspension of the accuseds arraignment in certain
circumstances
only.
Rule 116, Section11(c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure al
lows the
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
2

ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Gozon
suspension of the accuseds arraignment in certain circ

umstances only:SEC. 11. Suspension of arraignment.
Upon motion by the proper party, thearraignment shall be s
uspended in the following cases: (a) The accusedappears to
be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effecti
velyrenders him unable to fully understand the charge agai
nst him and to pleadintelligently thereto. In such case, the c
ourt shall order his mentalexamination and, if necessary, hi
s confinement for such purpose; (b) Thereexists a prejudicia
l question; and (c) A petition for review of the resolution of the
prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice, or

the Office of the President; provided, that the period of
suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the
filing of the petition with the reviewing office. (12a)
Same; Same; Petition for Review on Certiorari; The
doctrine in Crespo v. Judge Mogul, 151 SCRA 402 (1987), was
reiterated in Mayor Balindong v. Court of Appeals, 447 SCRA
200 (2004), where the Supreme Court (SC) reminded the
Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary to refrain from
entertaining petitions for review when the case is already
pending with the Court.The doctrine in Crespo v. Judge
Mogul, 151 SCRA 402 (1987), was reiterated in Mayor
Balindong v. Court of Appeals, 447 SCRA 200
(2004), where this court reminded the Department of Justic
e Secretary torefrain from entertaining petitions for review
when the case is alreadypending with this court: [I]n order t
o avoid a situation where the opinion ofthe Secretary of Jus
tice who reviewed the action of the fiscal may bedisregarded
by the trial court, the Secretary of Justice should, as far as
practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for review o
r appeal fromthe action of the fiscal, when the complaint or
information has already beenfiled in the Court. The matter
should be left entirely for the determination ofthe Court.
The trial court should have proceeded with respondents Del
aPea-Reyes and Manalastas arraignment after the 60day period from thefiling of the Petition for Review before t
he Department of Justice on March8, 2005. It was only on S
eptember 13, 2010 that the temporary restrainingorder was
issued by the Court of Appeals. The trial court erred when i
t didnot act on the criminal case during the interim period.
It had full control anddirection of the case. As Judge Mogul
reasoned in denying the motion todismiss in Crespo,
failure to proceed with the arraignment disregards therequ
irements of due process [and] erodes the Courts independen
ce andintegrity.
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

Same; Certiorari; Motion for Reconsideration;
Generally, a motion for reconsideration is a condition sine
qua non before a petition for certiorari may lie, its purpose
being to grant an opportunity for the [tribunal or officer] to
correct any error attributed to it by a reexamination of the
legal and factual circumstances of the case; Exceptions.
Resortingto certiorari requires that there be there be
no appeal, or any plain, speedy,and adequate remedy in th
e
ordinary
course
of
law[,]
such as a motion forreconsideration. Generally, a motion fo
r
reconsideration
is
a
condition
sine
qua
non before a petition for certiorari may lie, its purpose being
to grantan opportunity for the [tribunal or officer] to correc
t any error attributed to itby a reexamination of the legal a
nd
factual
circumstances
of
the
case.
However, exceptions to the rule exist: (a) where the order is
a
patent
nullity,as
where
the
Court
a
quo had no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raisedin the
certiorari proceeding have been duly raised and passed upo
n by thelower court, or are the same as those raised and pas
sed upon in the lowercourt; (c) where there is an urgent nec
essity for the resolution of thequestion and any further dela
y would prejudice the interests of theGovernment or of the
petitioner or the subject matter of the action isperishable; (
d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsidera
tionwould be useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of d
ue process andthere is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where,
in a criminal case, relief froman order of arrest is urgent an
d the granting of such relief by the trial Courtis improbable;
(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity fo
rlack of due process; (h) where the proceedings was ex
parte or in which thepetitioner had no opportunity to object;
and (i) where the issue raised is onepurely of law or where

public interest is involved.
Same; Criminal Procedure; 2000 NPS Rules on Appeal;
Motion for Reconsideration; Department of Justice (DOJ)
Department Circular No. 70 dated July 3, 2000, or the 2000
National Prosecution Service (NPS) Rules on Appeal,
provides that no second motion for reconsideration of the DOJ
Secretarys
resolution
shall
be
entertained.
Department of JusticeDepartment Circular No. 70 dated Ju
ly 3, 2000, or the 2000 NPS Rules onAppeal, provides that n
o second motion for reconsideration of theDepartment of Ju
stice Secretarys resolution shall be entertained: SECTION1
3.
Motion
for
reconsideration.
The aggrieved party may file a motion forreconsideration wi
thin a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from re4

ceipt of the resolution on appeal, furnishing the advers

e party and theProsecution Office concerned with copies the
reof
and
submitting
proof
ofsuch
service.
No second or further motion for reconsideration shall beent
ertained.
Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) has adopted a
deferential attitude towards review of the executives finding
of
probable
cause.
Thiscourt has adopted a deferential attitude towards review
of the executivesfinding of probable cause. This is based n
ot only upon the respect for theinvestigatory and [prosecuto
rial] powers granted by the Constitution to theexecutive dep
artment but upon practicality as well. Review of theDepart
ment of Justice Secretarys decision or resolution will be all
owedonly when grave abuse of discretion is alleged.
Same; Same; Preliminary Investigation; Words and
Phrases; Preliminary investigation is the inquiry or
proceeding to determine whether there is probable cause.

Probable cause pertains to such facts as aresufficient to en
gender
a
wellfounded belief that a crime has been committedand that res
pondent is probably guilty thereof. Preliminary investigati
on isthe inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there i
s probable cause.
Intellectual Property Rights; Copyright Infringement;
Under the Intellectual Property Code (IPC), works are
protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their
mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality
and purpose. These include [a]udiovisual works and
cinematographic works and works produced by a process
analogous to cinematography or any process for making
audiovisual
recordings.
TheIntellectual Property Code is clear about the rights affor
ded to authors ofvarious kinds of work. Under the Code, wo
rks are protected by the solefact of their creation, irrespective
of
their
mode
or
form
of
expression, aswell as of their content, quality and purpose.
These include [a]udiovisualworks and cinematographic wor
ks and works produced by a processanalogous to cinematogr
aphy or any process for making audiovisualrecordings.
Contrary to the old copyright law, the Intellectual Property
Code does not require registration of the work to fully recov
er in aninfringement suit. Nevertheless, both copyright law
s provide that copyrightfor a work is acquired by an intellec
tual
creator
from
the
moment
ofcreation.
It is true that under Section 175 of the Intellectual Property
Code,news of the day and other miscellaneous facts
5
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

having the character of mere items of press informatio
n areconsidered unprotected subject matter.
Same; Same; News as expressed in a video footage is

entitled
to
copyright
protection.
Broadcasting organizations are entitled to severalrights an
d to the protection of these rights under the Intellectual Pro
pertyCode. Respondents argument that the subject news fo
otage is notcopyrightable is erroneous. The Court of Appeal
s, in its assailed Decision,correctly recognized the existence
of
ABS-CBNs
copyright
over
the
newsfootage:
Surely, private respondent has a copyright of its news cover
age.Seemingly, for airing said video feed, petitioner GMA is
liable under theprovisions of the Intellectual Property Code,
which was enacted purposelyto protect copyright owners fr
om
infringement.
News as expressed in avideo footage is entitled to copyright
protection. Broadcasting organizationshave not only copyrig
ht on but also neighboring rights over their broadcasts.Copy
rightability of a work is different from fair use of a work for
purposesof news reporting.
Same; Same; Fair Use; Words and Phrases; The
Supreme Court (SC) defined fair use as a privilege to use the
copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without the
consent of the copyright owner or as copying the theme or
ideas
rather
than
their
expression.
This courtdefined fair use as a privilege to use the copyrigh
ted material in areasonable manner without the consent of
the copyright owner or as copyingthe theme or ideas rather
than their expression. Fair use is an exception tothe copyri
ght owners monopoly of the use of the work to avoid stifling
thevery creativity which that law is designed to foster.
Same; Same; Same; Section 185 of the Intellectual
Property Code (IPC) lists four (4) factors to determine if there
was
fair
use
of
a
copyrighted
work.
Determining fair use requires application of the fourfactor test. Section 185 of the Intellectual Property Code list
s four (4)factors to determine if there was fair use of a copyr
ighted work: a. Thepurpose and character of the use, includi

ng whether such use is of acommercial nature or is for nonp
rofit educational purposes; b. The nature ofthe copyrighted
work; c. The amount and substantiality of the portion usedi
n relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and d. The eff
ect of the useupon the potential market for or value of the c
opyrighted work.
6

Same; Same; Infringement under the Intellectual

Property
Code
(IPC)
is
malum
prohibitum.
Infringement under the Intellectual Property Code ismalum
prohibitum. The Intellectual Property Code is a special law.
Copyright is a statutory creation: Copyright, in the strict se
nse of the term,is purely a statutory right. It is a new or ind
ependent right granted by thestatute, and not simply a pree
xisting right regulated by the statute. Being astatutory gra
nt, the rights are only such as the statute confers, and may
beobtained and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects an
d by the persons,and on terms and conditions specified in th
e
statute.
The general rule is thatacts punished under a special law ar
e malum prohibitum. An act which isdeclared malum
prohibitum, malice or criminal intent is completelyimmater
ial.
Same; Same; Crimes mala in se presuppose that the
person who did the felonious act had criminal intent to do so,
while crimes mala prohibita do not require knowledge or
criminal intent.Implicit in the concept of mala in
se
is
that
of
mens
rea.
Mens
rea is defined as the nonphysical elementwhich, combined
with the act of the accused, makes up the crime charged.Mo
st frequently it is the criminal intent, or the guilty mind[.]
Crimes
mala
in
se presuppose that the person who did the felonious act had
criminalintent
to
do
so,
while
crimes
mala
prohibita do not require knowledge orcriminal intent: In the
case of mala in se it is necessary, to constitute a punishable
offense, for the person doing the act to have knowledge of the
nature of his act and to have a criminal intent; in the case of
mala prohibita, unless such words as knowingly and
willfully are contained in the statute, neither knowledge nor
criminal intent is necessary. In other words, a person morally
quite innocent and with every intention of being a lawabiding citizen becomes a criminal, and liable to criminal
penalties, if he does an act prohibited by these statutes.
Same; Same; Unlike other jurisdictions that require
intent for a criminal prosecution of copyright infringement,
the Philippines does not statutorily support good faith as a
defense.
Unlike other jurisdictions thatrequire intent for a criminal
prosecution of copyright infringement, thePhilippines does
not statutorily support good faith as a defense. Otherjurisdi
ctions provide in their intellectual property codes or relevan
t
laws
thatmens
rea, whether express or implied, is an element of criminal c
opyrightinfringement.
7
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

Same; Same; In the Philippines, the Intellectual
Property Code (IPC), as amended, provides for the
prosecution of criminal actions for violations of intellectual
property
rights.
In the Philippines, the Intellectual PropertyCode, as amend
ed, provides for the prosecution of criminal actions for thefol
lowing violations of intellectual property rights: Repetition
ofInfringement of Patent (Section 84); Utility Model (Sectio
n 108); IndustrialDesign (Section 119); Trademark Infringe
ment (Section 155 in relation toSection 170); Unfair Compet

ition (Section 168 in relation to Section 170);False Designati
ons of Origin, False Description or Representation (Section1
69.1 in relation to Section 170); infringement of copyright,
moral rights,performers rights, producers rights, and broa
dcasting rights (Sections 177,193, 203, 208 and 211 in relati
on to Section 217); and other violations ofintellectual proper
ty
rights
as
may
be
defined
by
law.
The IntellectualProperty Code requires strict liability for co
pyright infringement whetherfor a civil action or a criminal
prosecution; it does not require mens rea orculpa.
Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) in Habana, et al.
v. Robles, 310 SCRA 511 (1999), reiterating the ruling in
Columbia Pictures v. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 144
(1996), ruled that lack of knowledge of infringement is not a
valid
defense.
Contrary to respondents assertion,this court in Habana, et
al.
v.
Robles,
310
SCRA
511
(1999), reiterating theruling in Columbia Pictures v. Court of
Appeals,
261
SCRA
144
(1996),ruled that lack of knowledge of infringement is not a
valid
defense.
Habanaand
Columbia
Pictures may have different factual scenarios from this case,
but their rulings on copyright infringement are analogous. I
n Habana,petitioners were the authors and copyright owner
s of English textbooks andworkbooks. The case was anchore
d on the protection of literary and artisticcreations such as
books.
In
Columbia
Pictures,
video tapes of copyrightedfilms were the subject of the copyr
ight infringement suit.
Same; Same; Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on
a private domain owned and occupied by the owner of the
copyright, and, therefore, protected by law, and infringement
of copyright, or piracy, which is a synonymous term in this
connection, consists in the doing by any person, without the
consent of the owner of the copyright, of anything the sole

right to do which is conferred by statute on the owner of the
copyright.
We lookat the purpose of copyright in relation to criminal pr
osecutions requiringwillfulness: Most importantly, in
8

defining the contours of what it means to willfully infri

nge copyrightfor purposes of criminal liability, the courts sh
ould remember the ultimateaim of copyright. Copyright is n
ot primarily about providing the strongestpossible protectio
n for copyright owners so that they have the highestpossible
incentive to create more works. The control given to copyrig
htowners is only a means to an end: the promotion of knowl
edge and learning.Achieving that underlying goal of copyrig
ht law also requires access tocopyrighted works and it requi
res permitting certain kinds of uses ofcopyrighted works wit
hout the permission of the copyright owner. While aparticul
ar defendant may appear to be deserving of criminal sanctio
ns, thestandard for determining willfulness should be set wi
th reference to thelarger goals of copyright embodied in the
Constitution and the history ofcopyright in this country.
In addition, [t]he essence of intellectual piracyshould be es
sayed in conceptual terms in order to underscore its gravity
byan appropriate understanding thereof. Infringement of a
copyright is atrespass on a private domain owned and occup
ied by the owner of thecopyright, and, therefore, protected b
y law, and infringement of copyright,or piracy, which is a sy
nonymous term in this connection, consists in thedoing by a
ny person, without the consent of the owner of the copyright
, ofanything the sole right to do which is conferred by statut
e on the owner ofthe copyright.
Same; Same; Liability of Corporate Officers; The

Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that corporate officersl and/or
agents may be held individually liable for a crime committed
under
the
Intellectual
Property
Code
(IPC).
Corporations have separate and distinct personalities from
their officers ordirectors. This court has ruled that corporat
e officers and/or agents may beheld individually liable for a
crime committed under the IntellectualProperty Code:
Petitioners, being corporate officers and/or directors,throug
h whose act, default or omission the corporation commits a
crime,may themselves be individually held answerable for t
he crime. . . . Theexistence of the corporate entity does not s
hield from prosecution thecorporate agent who knowingly a
nd intentionally caused the corporation tocommit a crime. T
hus, petitioners cannot hide behind the cloak of theseparate
corporate personality of the corporation to escape criminal l
iability.A corporate officer cannot protect himself behind a c
orporation where he isthe actual, present and efficient actor.
However, the criminal liability of acorporations officers or e
mployees stems from their active participation inthe commi
ssion of the wrongful act.
9
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

Same; Same; Same; An accuseds participation in
criminal acts involving violations of intellectual property
rights is the subject of allegation and proof.
An accuseds participation in criminal acts involvingviolatio
ns of intellectual property rights is the subject of allegation
andproof. The showing that the accused did the acts or cont
ributed in ameaningful way in the commission of the infring
ements is certainlydifferent from the argument of lack of int
ent or good faith. Activeparticipation requires a showing of
overt physical acts or intention tocommit such acts. Intent o
r good faith, on the other hand, are inferencesfrom acts prov

en to have been or not been committed.
Same; Same; Same; Mere membership in the Board or
being President per se does not mean knowledge, approval,
and participation in the act alleged as criminal. There must
be a showing of active participation, not simply a constructive
one.Mere membership in the Board or beingPresident per
se does not mean knowledge, approval, and participation int
he act alleged as criminal. There must be a showing of activ
e participation,not simply a constructive one. Under princip
les of criminal law, theprincipals of a crime are those who t
ake a direct part in the execution ofthe act; [t]hose who dire
ctly force or induce others to commit it; [or] [t]hosewho coop
erate in the commission of the offense by another act witho
utwhich it would not have been accomplished. There is con
spiracy
whentwo or more persons come to an agreement concernin
g the commission of afelony and decide to commit it.
Same; Same; Good faith, lack of knowledge of the
copyright, or lack of intent to infringe is not a defense against
copyright
infringement.
In itscurrent form, the Intellectual Property Code is malum
prohibitum andprescribes a strict liability for copyright infr
ingement. Good faith, lack ofknowledge of the copyright, or l
ack of intent to infringe is not a defenseagainst copyright in
fringement. Copyright, however, is subject to the rulesof fai
r
use
and
will
be
judged
on
a
case-tocase basis. Finding probablecause includes a determination
of the defendants active participation,particularly when the
corporate veil is pierced in cases involving acorporations cr
iminal liability.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision

and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
10
10

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Puno & Puno Law Office for petitioner.
Belo, Gozon, Elma, Parel, Asuncion & Lucila for
respondents.
Pacifico A. Agabin for respondents.
LEONEN, J.:
The main issue in this case is whether there is prob
able cause tocharge respondents with infringement un
der Republic Act No. 8293,otherwise known as the Inte
llectual Property Code. The resolution ofthis issue requ
ires clarification of the concept of copyrightablemateri
al in relation to material that is rebroadcast live as a
newsstory. We are also asked to rule on whether crimi
nal prosecution forinfringement of copyrightable mater
ial, such as live rebroadcast, canbe negated by good fai
th.
ABS-CBN
Corporation
(ABSCBN) filed the Petition for Reviewon Certiorari1 to ass
ail the November 9, 2010 Decision2 and theMarch 3, 20
11 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals. The Court ofAp
peals reinstated the Department of Justice Resolution
datedAugust 1, 2005 that ordered the withdrawal of th
e Informationfinding probable cause for respondents v
iolation of Sections 1774
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 14-50.
2 Id., at pp. 60-73. The Decision, docketed as C.A.-G.R. S.P. No.
15751, was penned by Associate Justice Josefina Guevara-Salonga and
concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor Punzalan and Franchito

N. Diamante of the Fourth Division, Court of Appeals Manila.
3 Id., at pp. 76-77.
4 SECTION 177. Copyright or Economic Rights.Subject to the
provisions of Chapter VIII, copyright or economic rights shall consist
of the exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent the following
acts:
177.1. Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work;
11
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

and 2115 of the Intellectual Property Code.6 Respond
ents areofficers and employees of GMA Network, Inc. (
GMA-7). They are:Felipe Gozon (Gozon), GMA7 President; Gilberto R. Duavit, Jr.(Duavit, Jr.), Execu
tive Vice President; Marissa L. Flores (Flores),Vice
President for News and Public Affairs; Jessica A. Soho
(Soho),Director for News; Grace Dela PeaReyes
(Dela
PeaReyes),Head of News and Public Affairs; John Oliver
Manalastas(Manalastas), Program Manager; and other
s.
The
controversy
arose
from
GMA7s news coverage on thehomecoming of Filipino overse
as worker and hostage victim
_______________
177.2. Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgment,
arrangement or other transformation of the work;
177.3. The first public distribution of the original and each copy of
the work by sale or other forms of transfer of ownership;
177.4. Rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual or
cinematographic work, a work embodied in a sound recording, a
computer program, a compilation of data and other materials or a
11
musical work in graphic form, irrespective of the ownership of the

original or the copy which is the subject of the rental; (n)
177.5. Public display of the original or a copy of the work;
177.6. Public performance of the work; and
177.7. Other communication to the public of the work. (Sec. 5, P.D.
No. 49a)
5 SECTION 211. Scope of Right.Subject to the provisions of
Section 212, broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the exclusive right
to carry out, authorize or prevent any of the following acts:
211.1. The rebroadcasting of their broadcasts;
211.2. The recording in any manner, including the making of films
or the use of video tape, of their broadcasts for the purpose of
communication to the public of television broadcasts of the same; and
211.3. The use of such records for fresh transmissions or for fresh
recording. (Sec. 52, P.D. No. 49)
6 Rep. Act No. 8293 (1997).
12
12

Angelo dela Cruz on July 22, 2004. As summarized

by the Courtof Appeals:
Overseas Filipino worker Angelo dela Cruz was kidnapp
ed by Iraqimilitants and as a condition for his release, a de
mand was made for thewithdrawal of Filipino troops in Iraq
. After negotiations, he was released byhis captors and was
scheduled to return to the country in the afternoon of 22Jul
y 2004. Occasioned by said homecoming and the public inter
est
itgenerated,
both. . . GMA Network, Inc. . . . and [petitioner] made theirr
espective broadcasts and coverage of the live event.7
ABS-CBN
conducted
live
audiovideo
coverage
of
and
broadcasted the arrival of Angelo dela Cruz at the Ninoy Aq
uinoInternational Airport (NAIA) and the subsequent
press
conference.8ABS-
CBN allowed Reuters Television Service (Reuters) to ai

r thefootages it had taken earlier under a special emba
rgo agreement.9
ABSCBN alleged that under the special embargo agreemen
t,any of the footages it took would be for the use of Re
utersinternational subscribers only, and shall be consi
dered and treated byReuters under embargo against u
se by other subscribers in thePhilippines. . . . [N]o othe
r Philippine subscriber of Reuters wouldbe allowed to
use ABS-CBN footage without the latters consent.10
GMA7, to which Gozon, Duavit, Jr., Flores, Soho, Dela PeaReyes,
and
Manalastas
are
connected,
assigned and stationed newsreporters and technical
men at the NAIA for its live broadcast andnonlive news coverage of the arrival of dela Cruz.11 GMA7subscribes to both Reuters and Cable
_______________
7 Rollo, p. 61.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id., at p. 1392.
11 Id., at p. 61.
13
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

News Network (CNN). It received a live video feed o
f thecoverage of Angelo dela Cruzs arrival from Reuter
s.12
13
GMA7 immediately carried the live newsfeed in its program

Flash Report, together with its live broadcast.13 Alleg
edly,
GMA7 did not receive any notice or was not aware that Reut
ers was airingfootages of ABS-CBN.14 GMA7s news control room staff sawneither the No Access
Philippines
notice nor a notice that thevideo feed was under embar
go in favor of ABS-CBN.15
On
August
13,
2004,
ABSCBN
filed
the
Complaint
for
copy16
17
right infringement under Sections 177 and 211 of th
e Intel_______________
12 Id.
13 Id., at pp. 61-62.
14 Id., at p. 62.
15 Id., at p. 1349.
16 SECTION 177. Copyright or Economic Rights.Subject to
the provisions of Chapter VIII, copyright or economic rights shall
consist of the exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent the
following acts:
177.1. Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work;
177.2. Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgment,
arrangement or other transformation of the work;
177.3. The first public distribution of the original and each copy of
the work by sale or other forms of transfer of ownership;
177.4. Rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual or
cinematographic work, a work embodied in a sound recording, a
computer program, a compilation of data and other materials or a
musical work in graphic form, irrespective of the ownership of the
177.7. Other communication to the public of the work. (Sec. 5, P.D.

No. 49a)
17 SECTION 211. Scope of Right.Subject to the provisions
14
14

lectual Property Code.18

On December 3, 2004, Assistant City Prosecutor Di
ndoVenturanza issued the Resolution19 finding probabl
e
cause
to
indictDela
PeaReyes and Manalastas.20 Consequently, the Informatio
n21for violation of the Intellectual Property Code was fil
ed onDecember 17, 2004. It reads:
That on or about the 22nd of July 2004, in Quezon City, P
hilippines,
theabove
named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and
mutuallyhelping each other, being the Head of News Opera
tions and the ProgramManager, respectively, for the News
and Public Affairs Department of GMANetwork, Inc., did th
en and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously useand b
roadcast the footage of the arrival of Angelo [d]ela Cruz at t
he NinoyAquino International Airport of which ABSCBN holds the exclusiveownership and copyright by then a
nd there using, airing, and broadcastingthe said footage in i
ts news program FLASH REPORT without
_______________
of Section 212, broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the exclusive
right to carry out, authorize or prevent any of the following acts:
211.2. The recording in any manner, including the making of films
or the use of video tape, of their broadcasts for the purpose of
communication to the public of television broadcasts of the same; and
211.3. The use of such records for fresh transmissions or for fresh
recording. (Sec. 52, P.D. No. 49)
18 Rollo, p. 62. The Complaint was consolidated with GMA-7s

Complaint for libel against several of ABS-CBNs employees docketed
as I.S. No. 04-9681 in Rollo, p. 226.
19 Id., at pp. 226-231.
20 Id., at p. 231. The Complaint for libel (I.S. No. 04-9681) filed
by respondents was consolidated with ABS-CBNs Complaint for
copyright infringement (I.S. No. 04-10458). The Resolution dated
December 3, 2004 dismissed respondents Complaint for libel against
Erwin Tulfo, et al.
21 Id., at pp. 233-234.
15
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

first obtaining the consent or authority of said copyright
owner, to theirdamage and prejudice.
Contrary to law.22
On January 4, 2005, respondents filed the Petition f

or Reviewbefore the Department of Justice.23 In the Re
solution (GonzalezResolution) dated August 1, 2005, D
epartment of Justice SecretaryRaul M. Gonzalez (Secr
etary Gonzalez) ruled in favor ofrespondents and held
that good faith may be raised as a defense inthe case.24
The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, THE PETITION FOR REVIEW FILED
BY
GMA-7
inI.S.
No.
0410458 is considered meritorious and is hereby GRANTED.
Thiscase is hereby Dismissed, the resolution of the City Pr
osecutor of QuezonCity is hereby reversed and the same is o
rdered to withdraw the informationif any and report action
taken to this office within ten (10) days.25(Emphasis in the o
riginal)
Both parties moved for reconsideration of the Gonza

lezResolution.26
Meanwhile, on January 19, 2005, the trial court gra

nted theMotion to Suspend Proceedings filed earlier by
Dela
PeaReyesand Manalastas.27 The trial court Order reads:
Perusing the motion, the court finds that a petition for re
view was filedwith the Department of Justice on
_______________
15
22 Id., at p. 233.
23 Id., at p. 62.
24 Id., at pp. 63 and 492-495.
25 Id., at p. 495.
26 Id., at p. 64.
27 Id., at p. 63. The Motion prayed that Dela Pea and
Manalastas Motion to Quash filed January 10, 2005 be withdrawn and
that the arraignment scheduled on February 1, 2005 be deferred.
16
16

January 5, 2005 as confirmed by the public prosecutor.

Under Section11(c), Rule 116 of the Rules of Criminal Proce
dure, once a petition forreview is filed with the Department
of Justice, a suspension of the criminalproceedings may be a
llowed by the court.
Accordingly, to allow the Department of Justice the oppo
rtunity to act onsaid petition for review, let the proceedings
on this case be suspended for aperiod of sixty (60) days coun
ted from January 5, 2005, the date the petitionwas filed wit
h the Department of Justice. The arraignment of the accuse
d onFebruary 1, 2005 is accordingly cancelled. Let the arrai
gnment berescheduled to March 8, 2005 at 8:30 a.m. The ac
cused through counsel arenotified in open court.
SO ORDERED.28
On June 29, 2010, Department of Justice Acting Sec

retaryAlberto C. Agra (Secretary Agra) issued the Reso
lution (AgraResolution) that reversed the Gonzalez Re
solution and foundprobable cause to charge Dela PeaReyes and Manalastas forviolation of the Intellectual P
roperty Code.29 Secretary Agra alsofound probable caus
e to indict Gozon, Duavit, Jr., Flores, and Sohofor the s
ame violation.30 He ruled that:
[w]hile good faith may be a defense in copyright infringe
ment, the sameis a disputable presumption that must be pr
oven
in
a
fullblown trial.Disputable presumptions may be contradicted a
nd
overcome
by
otherevidence.
Thus,
a
fullblown trial is the proper venue where facts, issues andlaws
are evaluated and considered. The very purpose of trial is to
allow aparty to present evidence to overcome the disputabl
e presumptionsinvolved.31
_______________
28
29
30
31
17
Id., at p. 328.
Id., at pp. 569-576.
Id.
Id., at p. 571.
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

The dispositive portion of the Agra Resolution provi
des:
WHEREFORE, premises considered:
(a)
The Motion for Reconsideration filed by appellees ABSCBNBroadcasting
Corporation
(ABSCBN) of our Resolution promulgated onAugust 1, 2005 (Res
olution No. 364, Series of 2005) and the Petition forRevie
w filed by complainant-appellant ABS-CBN in I.S. No. 0410458

onApril
10, 2006, are GRANTED and the City Prosecutor of Quezon
City ishereby ordered to file the necessary Information for
violation of Sections177 and 211 of Republic Act No. 8293 a
gainst
GMA7, Felipe L. Gozon,Gilberto R. Duavit, Jr., Marissa L. Flores
,
Jessica
A.
Soho,
Grace
DelaPeaReyes, John Oliver T. Manalastas[.]
....
SO ORDERED.32 (Emphasis in the original)
Respondents assailed the Agra Resolution through t

he Petitionfor Certiorari with prayer for issuance of a t
emporary restrainingorder and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction on September 2, 2010before the Court of Ap
peals. In the Resolution dated September 13,2010, the
Court of Appeals granted the temporary restraining or
derpreventing the Department of Justice from enforcin
g the AgraResolution.33
On November 9, 2010, the Court of Appeals rendere
d theDecision granting the Petition and reversing and
setting aside theAgra Resolution.34 The Court of Appea
ls held that Secretary Agracommitted errors of jurisdic
17 tion in issuing the assailed Resolution.Resolving the is
sue of copyright infringement, the Court of Appealssaid:
_______________
32 Id., at p. 575.
33 Id., at pp. 1171-1172 and 1353.
34 Id., at pp. 60-73.
18
18

Surely, private respondent has a copyright of its news co
verage.Seemingly, for airing said video feed, petitioner GM
A is liable under theprovisions of the Intellectual Property
Code, which was enacted purposelyto protect copyright own
ers from infringement. However, it is an admitted fact that
petitioner GMA had only aired a five (5)-second footage of the
disputed live video feed that it had received from Reuters and
CNN as a subscriber. Indeed, petitioners had no notice of the
right of ownership of private respondent over the same.
Without notice of the No Access Philippines restriction of the
live video feed, petitioner cannot be faulted for airing a live
video feed from Reuters and CNN.
Verily, as aptly opined by Secretary Gonzalez in his earli
er Resolution,the act of petitioners in airing the five (5)second footage was undeniablyattended by good faith and it
thus serves to exculpate them from criminalliability under t
he Code. While the Intellectual Property Code is a special law,
and thus generally categorized as malum prohibitum, it
bears to stress that the provisions of the Code itself do not ipso
facto penalize a person or entity for copyright infringement by
the mere fact that one had used a copyrighted work or
material.
Certainly so, in the exercise of ones moral and economic
or copyrights,the very provisions of Part IV of the Intellectu
al Property Code provide forthe scope and limitations on co
pyright protection under Section 184 and infact permit fair
use of copyrighted work under Section 185. With theaforesa
id statutory limitations on ones economic and copyrights an
d theallowable instances where the other persons can legall
y use a copyrightedwork, criminal culpability clearly attach
es only when the infringement hadbeen knowingly and inte
ntionally committed.35 (Emphasis supplied)
The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
_______________
35 Id., at pp. 68-69.
19
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the instant pe
tition is herebyGRANTED and the assailed Resolution dat
ed 29 June 2010 REVERSEDand SET ASIDE. Accordingl
y, the earlier Resolution dated 1 August 2005,which ordered
the withdrawal of the Information filed, if any, against the
petitioners for violation of Sections 177 and 211 of the Intell
ectual PropertyCode, is hereby REINSTATED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.36 (Emphasis in the original)
ABSCBNs Motion for Reconsideration was denied.37 It then

filed its Petition for Review before this court assailing
the Decisionand Resolution of the Court of Appeals.38
The issues for this courts consideration are:
First, whether Secretary Agra committed errors of j
urisdiction inthe Resolution dated June 29, 2010 and, t
herefore, whether a petitionfor certiorari was the prope
r remedy in assailing that Resolution;
Second, whether news footage is copyrightable unde
r the law;
Third, whether there was fair use of the broadcast
material;
Fourth, whether lack of knowledge that a material i
s copyrightedis a defense against copyright infringeme
nt;
19
Fifth, whether good faith is a defense in a criminal

prosecutionfor violation of the Intellectual Property Co
de; and
Lastly, whether the Court of Appeals was correct in
overturningSecretary Agras finding of probable cause.
(c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor

is pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of
the President; provided, that the period of suspension shall
not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the
petition with the reviewing office. (12a) (Emphasis supplied)
_______________
In
Samson
v.
Daway,39 this court acknowledged the applicabilityof R
ule 116, Section (c) in a criminal prosecution for infrin
gementunder the Intellectual Property Code. However,
this courtemphasized the limits of the order of deferm
ent under the Rule:
36 Id., at p. 72.
37 Id., at pp. 76-77.
38 Id., at p. 14.
20
20

I
The trial court granted respondents Motion to Susp

endProceedings and deferred respondents Dela PeaReyes andManalastas arraignment for 60 days in view
of the Petition forReview filed before the Department
of Justice.
Rule 116, Section 11(c) of the Rules of Criminal Proc
edureallows the suspension of the accuseds arraignme
nt in certaincircumstances only:
SEC. 11. Suspension
of
arraignment.
Upon motion by the properparty, the arraignment shall be s
uspended in the following cases:
(a)
The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound ment
alcondition which effectively renders him unable to fully un
derstand thecharge against him and to plead intelligently t
hereto. In such case, the courtshall order his mental examin
ation and, if necessary, his confinement forsuch purpose;
(b) There exists a prejudicial question; and
While the pendency of a petition for review is a ground for

suspension of the arraignment, the . . . provi_______________
39 478 Phil. 784; 434 SCRA 612 (2004) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago,
First Division].
21
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

sion limits the deferment of the arraignment to a period of
60 days reckoned from the filing of the petition with the
reviewing office. It follows, therefore, that after the
expiration of said period, the trial court is bound to arraign
the accused or to deny the motion to defer arraignment.40
We clarify that the suspension of the arraignment s

hould alwaysbe within the limits allowed by law. In Cr
espo
v.
Judge
Mogul,41 thiscourt outlined the effects of filing an infor
mation before the trialcourt, which includes initiating
21
a criminal action and giving thiscourt authority to he

ar and determine the case:42
The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for
the
purpose
ofdetermining
whether
a
prima
facie case exists warranting the prosecution ofthe accused is
terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper
court. In turn, as above stated, the filing of said information
sets in motionthe criminal action against the accused in Co
urt. Should the fiscal find it proper to conduct a
reinvestigation of the case, at such stage, the permission of the
Court
must
be
secured. After such reinvestigation thefinding and recomme
ndations of the fiscal should be submitted to the Courtfor ap
propriate action. While it is true that the fiscal has the quasijudicialdiscretion to determine whether or not a criminal ca
se should be filed incourt or not, once the case had already b
een brought to Court whateverdisposition the fiscal may fee
l should be proper in the case thereafter shouldbe addressed
for the consideration of the Court, the only qualification is t
hatthe action of the Court must not im_______________
40 Id., at p. 793; p. 621. See also Trinidad v. Ang, 656 Phil. 216;
641 SCRA 214 (2011) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].
41 235 Phil. 465; 151 SCRA 462 (1987) [Per J. Gancayco, En
Banc]. See also J.Leonens Separate Concurring Opinion in Estrada v.
Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015, 748
SCRA 1 [Per J. Carpio, En Banc].
42 Crespo V. Mogul, id., at p. 474; p. 469.
22
22

pair the substantial rights of the accused or the right of t

he People to dueprocess of law.
Whether the accused had been arraigned or not and

whether it was due to a reinvestigation by the fiscal or a
review by the Secretary of Justice whereby a motion to dismiss
was submitted to the Court, the Court in the exercise of its
discretion may grant the motion or deny it and require that
the trial on the merits proceed for the proper determination of
the case.
However, one may ask, if the trial court refuses to grant
the motion todismiss filed by the fiscal upon the directive of
the Secretary of Justice willthere not be a vacuum in the pr
osecution? A state prosecutor to handle thecase cannot possi
bly be designated by the Secretary of Justice who does notb
elieve that there is a basis for prosecution nor can the fiscal
be expected tohandle the prosecution of the case thereby def
ying the superior order of theSecretary of Justice.
The answer is simple. The role of the fiscal or prosecutor
as We all knowis to see that justice is done and not necessar
ily to secure the conviction ofthe person accused before the
Courts. Thus, in spite of his opinion to thecontrary, it is the
duty of the fiscal to proceed with the presentation ofevidenc
e of the prosecution to the Court to enable the Court to arri
ve at itsown independent judgment as to whether the accus
ed should be convictedor acquitted. The fiscal should not shi
rk from the responsibility of appearingfor the People of the
Philippines even under such circumstances much lessshoul
d he abandon the prosecution of the case leaving it to the ha
nds of aprivate prosecutor for then the entire proceedings w
ill be null and void. Theleast that the fiscal should do is to c
ontinue to appear for the prosecutionalthough he may turn
over the presentation of the evidence to the privateprosecut
or but still under his direction and control.
The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a
complaint or information is filed in Court any disposition of
the case as to its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the
accused rests in the sound discretion of the
23
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and
control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the
case is already in Court he cannot impose his opinion on the
trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do
with the case before it. The determination of the case is within
its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. A motion to dismiss
the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court
who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not
matter if this is done before or after the arraignment of the
accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation
or upon instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed
the records of the investigation.43 (Emphasis supplied,
citations omitted)
The doctrine in Crespo was reiterated in Mayor

Balindong
v.
Court
of
Appeals,44 where this court reminded the Department o
fJustice Secretary to refrain from entertaining petition
s for reviewwhen the case is already pending with this
court:
[I]n order to avoid a situation where the opinion of the S
ecretary ofJustice who reviewed the action of the fiscal may
be disregarded by the trialcourt, the Secretary of Justice sh
ould, as far as practicable, refrain fromentertaining a petiti
on for review or appeal from the action of the fiscal,when th
e complaint or information has already been filed in the Co
urt. Thematter should be left entirely for the determination
of the Court.45
The trial court should have proceeded with respond

ents
DelaPea-
Reyes and Manalastas arraignment after the 60-
23 day periodfrom the filing of the Petition for Review bef

ore the Department ofJustice on March 8, 2005. It was
only on Sep_______________
43 Id., at pp. 474-476; p. 471.
44 488 Phil. 203; 447 SCRA 200 (2004) [Per J. Chico-Nazario,
Second Division].
45 Id., at p. 216; pp. 212-213.
24
24

tember 13, 2010 that the temporary restraining ord

er was issuedby the Court of Appeals. The trial court e
rred when it did not act onthe criminal case during the
interim period. It had full control anddirection of the c
ase. As Judge Mogul reasoned in denying themotion to
dismiss in Crespo, failure to proceed with the arraignm
entdisregards the requirements of due process [and] e
rodes the Courtsindependence and integrity.46
II
According
to
ABSCBN, the Court of Appeals erred in findingthat: a moti
on for reconsideration was not necessary before apetiti
on for certiorari could be filed; the Department of Justi
ceSecretary committed errors of jurisdiction since the
Agra Resolutionwas issued within its authority and in
accordance with settled lawsand jurisprudence; and re
spondents were not liable for copyrightinfringement.
In its assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals found

thatrespondents committed a procedural error when th
ey failed to file amotion for reconsideration before filin
g the Petition for Certiorari.However, the Court of App
eals held that a motion forreconsideration was unneces
sary since the Agra Resolution was apatent nullity and
it would have been useless under thecircumstances:
In
Sanrio
Company
Limited
v.
Lim,51 this court stressed theprosecutors role in deter
mining probable cause. Judicial review willonly lie wh
en it is shown that the prosecutor acted with grave abu
seof discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdicti
on:
A prosecutor alone determines the sufficiency of evidence
that willestablish probable cause justifying the filing of a cri
minal informationagainst the respondent. By way of excepti
on, however, judicial review isallowed where respondent ha
s clearly established that the prosecutorcommitted grave ab
use of discretion. Otherwise stated, such review isappropria
te only when the prosecutor has exercised his discretion in a
narbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic manner by rea
son of passion orpersonal hostility, patent and gross enough
to amount to
Given that a reading of the assailed Resolution and the i

nstant recordsreadily reveals errors of jurisdiction on the pa
rt of respondent Secretary,direct judicial recourse is warran
ted under the circumstances. Aside fromthe fact that said R
esolution is a patent nullity having been issued in graveabu
se of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, t
he filing ofa motion for reconsideration is evidently useless
on account of the fact thatthe issues and arguments before t
his Court have already been duly raisedand accordingly del
ved into by re-
_______________
_______________
46 Crespo v. Mogul, supra note 41 at p. 470; p. 466.
25
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

spondent Secretary in his disposition of the petition a
quo.47 (Emphasisin the original)
In
Elma
v.
Jacobi,48 this court ruled that a petition for certiorariu
nder Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is proper when assa
iling adverseresolutions of the Department of Justice s
temming from thedetermination of probable cause.49 H
owever, grave abuse ofdiscretion must be alleged.50
25
47 Rollo, p. 67.
48 G.R. No. 155996, June 27, 2012, 675 SCRA 20 [Per J. Brion,
Second Division].
49 Id., at p. 48, citing Alcaraz v. Gonzalez, 533 Phil. 797; 503 SCRA
355 (2006) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division]. This court, however,
differentiated cases involving an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death from those that do not. Cases that involve an offense
not punishable by reclusion perpetua to death cannot be appealed to
the Office of the President and, thus, leaves a certiorari petition as
the only remedial avenue left.
50 Id.
51 569 Phil. 630; 546 SCRA 303 (2008) [Per J. Corona, First
Division].
26
26

an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform

a duty enjoinedby law.52 (Citations omitted)
Grave abuse of discretion refers to:

such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent tolack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion mu
st be grave as where thepower is exercised in an arbitrary o
r despotic manner by reason of passionor personal hostility
and must be so patent and gross as to amount to anevasion
of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty e
njoinedby or to act at all in contemplation of law.53
Resorting to certiorari requires that there be no ap

peal, or anyplain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course oflaw[,]54 such as a motion for reconsid
eration. Gen_______________
52 Id., at p. 640; p. 313. See Glaxosmithkline Philippines, Inc. v.
Khalid Mehmood Malik, 530 Phil. 662; 499 SCRA 268 (2006)
[Per J. Garcia, Second Division], citing Punzalan v. De La Pena, 478
Phil. 771; 434 SCRA 601 (2004) [PerJ. Ynares-Santiago, First
Division]; Cabahug v. People, 426 Phil. 490; 376 SCRA 113 (2002)
[Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division]; and Baylon v. Office of the
Ombudsman, 423 Phil. 705; 372 SCRA 437 (2001) [Per J. Pardo, First
Division].
53 Asetre v. Asetre, 602 Phil. 840, 853; 584 SCRA 471, 483 (2009)
[Per J.Quisumbing, Second Division], citing D.M. Consunji, Inc. v.
Esguerra, 328 Phil. 1168; 260 SCRA 74 (1996) [Per J. Panganiban,
Third Division].
54 Rules of Court, Rule 65, Sec. 1. Petition for certiorari.When
any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may
file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and
granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require[.]
27
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

erally, a motion for reconsideration is a condition si
ne
qua
nonbefore a petition for certiorari may lie, its purpose
being to grant anopportunity for the [tribunal or officer
] to correct any error attributedto it by a reexaminatio
n of the legal and factual circumstances of thecase.55
However, exceptions to the rule exist:
(a)
where the order is a patent nullity, as where the Court a
quo had nojurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in the
certiorari proceeding havebeen duly raised and passed upo
n by the lower court, or are the same asthose raised and pas
sed upon in the lower court; (c) where there is an urgentnec
essity for the resolution of the question and any further del
ay wouldprejudice the interests of the Government or of the
petitioner or the subjectmatter of the action is perishable; (
d) where, under the circumstances, amotion for reconsiderat
ion would be useless; (e) where petitioner wasdeprived of du
e process and there is extreme urgency for relief; (f) where, i
na criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and
the granting ofsuch relief by the trial Court is improbable; (
g) where the proceedings in thelower court are a nullity for l
ack of due process; (h) where the proceedingswas ex
parte or in which the petitioner had
_______________
27
55 HPS Software and Communication v. Philippine Long Distance

Telephone Company (PLDT), G.R. No. 170217, December 10, 2012, 687
SCRA 426, 452 [Per J.Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
See Medado v. Heirs of the Late Antonio Consing, G.R. No. 186720,
February 8, 2012, 665 SCRA 534 [Per J. Reyes, Second
Division]; Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman, supra note 41 at
p. 54, citing Delos Reyes v. Flores, 628 Phil. 170; 614 SCRA 270 (2010)
[Per J.Carpio, Second Division]; Cervantes v. Court of Appeals, 512
Phil. 210; 475 SCRA 562 (2005) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First
Division]; Flores v. Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga, 492
Phil. 377; 452 SCRA 278 (2005) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third
Division]. See also Bokingo v. Court of Appeals, 523 Phil. 186; 489
SCRA 521 (2006) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division] and Yao v. Perello,
460 Phil. 658; 414 SCRA 474 (2003) [Per J. Corona, Third Division].
28
28

no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is

one purely oflaw or where public interest is involved.56 (Emp
hasis in the original,citations omitted)
As argued by respondents, [a] second motion forrec

onsideration would have been useless and futile since t
heD[epartment] [of] J[ustice] had already passed upon
the same issuestwice.57 Equally pressing under the cir
cumstances was the need toresolve the matter, as the I
nformations filing would lead torespondents imminen
t arrest.58
Moreover, Department of Justice Department Circu
lar No. 70dated July 3, 2000, or the 2000 NPS Rules o
n Appeal, provides thatno second motion for reconsider
ation of the Department of JusticeSecretarys resolutio
n shall be entertained:
SECTION 13. Motion

for
reconsideration.
The aggrieved party mayfile a motion for reconsideration wi
thin
a
nonextendible period of ten (10)days from receipt of the resoluti
on on appeal, furnishing the adverse partyand the Prosecuti
on Office concerned with copies thereof and submittingproof
of such service. No second or further motion for reconsidera
tion shallbe entertained.
_______________
56 Tan v. Court of Appeals, 341 Phil. 570, 576-578; 275 SCRA 568,
574-575 (1997) [Per J. Francisco, Third Division] as cited in Estrada
v. Office of the Ombudsman, id., at p. 55. See Republic Gas Corporation
v. Petron Corporation, G.R. No. 194062, June 17, 2013, 698 SCRA 666,
676-677 [Per J. Peralta, Second Division]. See also Republic v.
Pantranco North Express, Inc. (PNEI), G.R. No. 178593, February 15,
2012, 666 SCRA 199, 205-206 [Per J. Villarama, Jr., First Division],
citing Sim v. National Labor Relations Commission, 560 Phil. 762; 534
SCRA 515 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division]; HPS
Software and Communication v. Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company (PLDT), id.
57 Rollo, p. 1383.
58 Id., at p. 1384.
29
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

The Agra Resolution was the result of respondents
Motion forReconsideration assailing the Gonzalez Reso
lution. To file a motionfor reconsideration of the Agra
Resolution would be superfluous.Respondents were, th
erefore, correct in filing the Petition forCertiorari of th
e Agra Resolution before the Court of Appeals.
III
29
The Court of Appeals ruled that Secretary Agra com

mitted errorsof jurisdiction, which then required the gr
ant of the writ ofcertiorari:
So viewed, by ordering the filing of information without
proof thatprobable cause exists to charge petitioners with a
crime, respondentSecretary clearly committed an error of ju
risdiction thus warranting theissuance of the writ of certior
ari. Surely, probable cause cannot be hadwhen the very pro
visions of the statute exculpates criminal liability in casescl
assified as fair use of copyrighted materials. The fact that t
hey admittedlyused the Reuters live video feed is not, as a
matter of course, tantamount tocopyright infringement that
would justify the filing of an informationagainst the petitio
ners.59
Error of jurisdiction must be distinguished from err

or ofjudgment:
A line must be drawn between errors of judgment and er
rors ofjurisdiction. An error of judgment is one which the co
urt may commit in theexercise of its jurisdiction. An error of
jurisdiction renders an order or judg_______________
59 Id., at pp. 71-72.
30
30

ment void or voidable. Errors of jurisdiction are reviewab

le oncertiorari; errors of judgment, only by appeal.60
In People v. Hon. Sandiganbayan:61
An
error
of
judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise
of
its
jurisdiction.
An
error
of
jurisdiction is one where the act complainedof was issued b
y the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grav
eabuse of discretion, which is tantamount to lack or in exces
s of jurisdictionand which error is correctible only by the ext
raordinary writ of certiorari.Certiorari will not be issued to
cure errors of the trial court in itsappreciation of the eviden
ce of the parties, or its conclusions anchored onthe said find
ings and its conclusions of law.62 (Emphasis supplied)
This court has adopted a deferential attitude towar

ds review ofthe executives finding of probable cause.63
This is
_______________
60 Fernando v. Vasquez, No. L-26417, January 30, 1970, 31 SCRA
288, 292 [PerJ. Sanchez, En Banc]. See Philippine National
Construction Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 541 Phil. 658, 672; 512
SCRA 684, 698 (2007): An error of judgment is one which the court
may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error is
reviewable only by an appeal. On the other hand, an error of
jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court,
officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess
of jurisdiction. This error is correctable only by the extraordinary writ
of certiorari.
61 645 Phil. 379; 631 SCRA 128 (2010) [Per J. Peralta, Second
Division].
62 Id., at pp. 384-385; p. 133, citing First Corporation v. Former
Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals, 553 Phil. 527, 541; 526 SCRA
564, 578 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
63 Punzalan v. Plata, G.R. No. 160316, September 2, 2013, 704
SCRA 426, 439-442 [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division], citing Paredes v.
Calilung, 546 Phil. 198, 224; 517 SCRA 369, 394 (2007) [Per J. ChicoNazario, Third Division].
31
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

based not only upon the respect for the investigator
y and[prosecutorial] powers granted by the Constitutio
n to the executivedepartment but upon practicality as
well.64 Review of theDepartment of Justice Secretarys
decision or resolution will beallowed only when grave
abuse of discretion is alleged:
The full discretionary authority to determine probable
cause in a preliminary investigation to ascertain sufficient
ground for the filing of information rests with the executive
branch. Hence, judicial review of the resolution of the
Secretary of Justice is limited to a determination whether
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction. Courts cannot substitute the
executive branchs judgment.
....
It is only where the decision of the Justice Secretary is
tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction that the Court of Appeals may take
cognizance of the case in a petition for certiorari under Rule
65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court of
Appeals decision may then be appealed to this Court by way
of a petition for review on certiorari.65 (Emphasis supplied,
citations omitted)
In this case, it must be shown that Secretary Agra e

xceeded hisauthority when he reversed the findings of
Secretary Gonzalez. Thiscourt must determine whethe
r there is probable cause to file aninformation for copyr
ight infringement under the IntellectualProperty Code.
IV
31
Probable cause pertains to such facts as are sufficie

nt
toengender
a
wellfounded belief that a crime has been commit_______________
64 Id., at pp. 439-440, citing Buan v. Matugas, 556 Phil. 110, 119;
529 SCRA 263, 270 (2007) [Per J. Garcia, First Division].
65 Asetre v. Asetre, supra note 53 at pp. 852-854; p. 483.
32
32

ted and that respondent is probably guilty thereof.6

6 Preliminaryinvestigation is the inquiry or proceeding
to determine whether thereis probable cause.67
In
Webb
v.
De
Leon,68 this court ruled that determination ofprobable c
ause during preliminary investigation does not require
triallike evaluation of evidence since existence of probable c
ausedoes not equate to guilt:
It ought to be emphasized that in determining probable c
ause, theaverage man weighs facts and circumstances witho
ut resorting to thecalibrations of our technical rules of evide
nce of which his knowledge is nil.Rather, he relies on the ca
lculus of common sense of which all reasonablemen have an
abundance.
....
. . . A finding of probable cause merely binds over the sus
pect to standtrial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt.69
In the recent case of Estrada v. Office of the

Ombudsman,
et
73
al., we reiterated Webb on the determination of probab
le cause duringpreliminary investigation and traced th
e history of probable cause asborrowed from American
jurisprudence:
In
Reyes
v.
Pearlbank
Securities,
70
Inc., finding probable cause isnot equivalent to findin
g with moral certainty that the accusedcommitted the
crime:
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidenc
e showing thatmore likely than not a crime has been commi
tted by the suspects. It need notbe based on clear and convi
ncing evidence of guilt, not on evidenceestablishing guilt be
yond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidenceestabl
ishing absolute certainty of guilt. In determining probable c
ause, theaverage man weighs
_______________
66 Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities, Inc., 582 Phil. 505, 518; 560
SCRA 518, 533-534 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
67 1985 Rev. Rules of Crim. Proc., Rule 112, Sec. 1, Par. 1.
68 317 Phil. 758; 247 SCRA 652 (1995) [Per J. Puno, Second
Division].
69 Id., at pp. 780-789; p. 676.
70 Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities, Inc., supra.
33
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

facts and circumstances without resorting to the calibrat
ions of the rulesof evidence of which he has no technical kno
wledge. He relies on commonsense.71
During preliminary investigation, a public prosecut

or does notadjudicate on the parties rights, obligations
, or liabilities.72
33
The purpose in determining probable cause is to make su

re that thecourts are not clogged with weak cases that will o
nly be dismissed, as wellas to spare a person from the trava
ils of a needless prosecution.
....
. . . In the United States, from where we borrowed the co
ncept ofprobable cause, the prevailing definition of probable
cause is this:
In dealing with probable cause, however, as the very na
me implies, wedeal with probabilities. These are not technic
al; they are the factual andpractical considerations of every
day life on which reasonable and prudentmen, not legal tec
hnicians, act. The standard of proof is accordinglycorrelativ
e to what must be proved.
The substance of all the definitions of probable cause
is a reasonableground for belief of guilt. McCarthy v. De
Armit,
99
Pa.
St.
63,
69, quotedwith approval in the Carroll opinion. 267 U.S. at
161. And this means lessthan evi
_______________
71 Id., at p. 519; p. 534. See also Webb v. De Leon, supra note 68.
72 See Manila Electric Company v. Atilano, G.R. No. 166758, June
27, 2012, 675 SCRA 112, 125 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
73 Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman, supra note 41.
34
34

dence which would justify condemnation or conviction, a

s Marshall,C.J., said for the Court more than a century ago
in
Locke
v.
United
States, 7Cranch 339, 348. Since Marshalls time, at any rate
, it has come to meanmore than bare suspicion: Probable ca
use
exists
where
the facts andcircumstances within their [the officers] know
ledge and of which they hadreasonably trustworthy informa
tion [are] sufficient in themselves to warranta man of reaso
nable caution in the belief that an offense has been or isbei
ng committed. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 162.
These
longprevailing standards seek to safeguard citizens from rash a
ndunreasonable interferences with privacy and from unfoun
ded charges ofcrime. They also seek to give fair leeway for e
nforcing the law in thecommunitys protection. Because ma
ny situations which confront officers inthe course of executi
ng their duties are more or less ambiguous, room mustbe all
owed for some mistakes on their part. But the mistakes mu
st be thoseof reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibl
y to their conclusions ofprobability. The rule of probable cau
se is a practical, nontechnicalconception affording the best c
ompromise that has been found foraccommodating these oft
en opposing interests. Requiring more wouldunduly hamper
law enforcement. To allow less would be to leave lawabiding citizens at the mercy of the officers whim or caprice.
In the Philippines, there are four instances in the Revise
d Rules ofCriminal Procedure where probable cause is need
ed to be established:
(1) In Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 112: By the investigating
officer, todetermine whether there is sufficient ground to en
gender
a
wellfoundedbelief that a crime has been committed and the resp
ondent is probably guiltythereof, and
35
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

should be held for trial. A preliminary investigation is re
quired beforethe filing of a complaint or information for an
offense where the penaltyprescribed by law is at least four y
ears, two months and one day withoutregard to the fine;
(2)
In Sections 6 and 9 of Rule 112: By the judge, to determine
whether awarrant of arrest or a commitment order, if the ac
cused has already beenarrested, shall be issued and that th
ere is a necessity of placing therespondent under immediate
custody in order not to frustrate the ends ofjustice;
(3)
In Section 5(b) of Rule 113: By a peace officer or a private p
ersonmaking a warrantless arrest when an offense has just
been committed, andhe has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts orcircumstances that the per
son to be arrested has committed it; and
(4)
In Section 4 of Rule 126: By the judge, to determine whethe
r a searchwarrant shall be issued, and only upon probable c
ause in connection withone specific offense to be determined
personally by the judge afterexamination under oath or affi
rmation of the complainant and the witnesseshe may produ
ce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and
thethings to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philip
pines.
In all these instances, the evidence necessary to establis
h probable causeis based only on the likelihood, or probabili
ty, of guilt.74
_______________
74 Id., at pp. 44, 47-49, citing Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S.
160, 175-176 (1949).
35
36
36

Estrada
also
highlighted
that
a
[p]reliminary investigation is notpart of the criminal
action. It is merely preparatory and may even bedispos
ed of in certain situations.75
To determine whether there is probable cause that r
espondentscommitted copyright infringement, a review
of the elements of thecrime, including the existing fact
s, is required.
V
ABSCBN claims that news footage is subject to copyright a
ndprohibited use of copyrighted material is punishable
under theIntellectual Property Code. It argues that th
e new footage is not anewsworthy event but merely
an account of the arrival of Angelodela Cruz in the Phi
lippines the latter being the newsworthyevent:76
To be clear, it is the event itself or the arrival of Angelo d
ela Cruz whichis not copyrightable because that is the news
worthy
event.
However, anyfootage created from the event itself, in this ca
se the arrival of Angelo delaCruz, are intellectual creations
which are copyrightable. Thus, the footagecreated by ABSCBN during the arrival of Angelo dela Cruz,
whichincludes the statements of Dindo Amparo, are copyrig
htable and protectedby the laws on copyright.77
On the other hand, respondents argue that ABSCBNs newsfootage of Angelo dela Cruzs arrival is not
copyrightable or subjectto protection:
Certainly,
the
arrival
of
Angelo [d]ela Cruz, which aroused publicattention and the c
onsciousness of the Filipino people with regard to theircoun
trymen, OFWs
_______________
75 See J. Leonens Separate Concurring Opinion in Estrada
v. Office of the Ombudsman, id.
76 Rollo, p. 1432.
77 Id.
37
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

working in foreign countries and how the Philippine gov
ernmentresponds to the issues concerning them, is news.
There is no ingenuity orinventiveness added in the said ne
ws footage. The video footage of thisnews is not copyrighta
ble by any legal standard as facts of everyday lifedepicted in
the news and items of press information is part of the publi
cdomain.78 (Emphasis in the original)
The news footage is copyrightable.

The Intellectual Property Code is clear about the rig
hts affordedto authors of various kinds of work. Under
the Code, works areprotected by the sole fact of their c
reation, irrespective of their mode or form of
expression, as well as of their content, quality andpurp
ose.79 These include [a]udiovisual works andcinemato
graphic works and works produced by a process analog
37
ousto cinematography or any process for making audiovisualrecordings.80

Contrary to the old copyright law,81 the Intellectual
PropertyCode does not require registration of the work
to fully
_______________
78 Id., at p. 1375.
79 Rep. Act No. 8293 (1997), Sec. 172.2.
80 Rep. Act No. 8293 (1997), Sec. 172.1(1).
81 Pres. Decree No. 49 (1972), Decree on the Protection of
Intellectual Property.
Article V, Section 26. After the first public dissemination or perfor
mance byauthority of the copyright owner of a work falling under sub
sections (A), (B), (C) and(D) of Section 2 of this Decree, there shall,
within three weeks, be registered and deposited with the National
Library, by personal delivery or by registered mail, two complete copies
or reproductions of the work in such form as the Director of said library
may
prescribe. A certificate of registration and deposit for which theprescr
ibed fee shall be collected. If, within three weeks after receipt by the c
opyrightowner of a written demand from the director for such deposit
, the required copies orreproductions are not delivered and the fee is
not paid, the copyright owner shall beliable to pay to the National Lib
rary the amount of the retail price of the best editionof the work.
38
38

recover in an infringement suit. Nevertheless, both

copyrightlaws provide that copyright for a work is acqu
ired by an intellectualcreator from the moment of creat
ion.82
It is true that under Section 175 of the Intellectual
Property Code,news of the day and other miscellaneou
s facts having the characterof mere items of press infor
mation
are considered unprotectedsubject matter.83 However, t
he Code does not state that expression ofthe news of th
e day, particularly when it underwent a creativeproces
s, is not entitled to protection.
An idea or event must be distinguished from the exp
ression ofthat idea or event. An idea has been likened t
o a ghost in that itmust be spoken to a little before it
will explain itself.84 It is aconcept that has eluded exac
t legal definition.85
_______________
With or without a demand from the director, a copyright owner who
has not made such deposit shall not be entitled to recover damages in
an infringement suit and shall be limited to the other remedies specified
in Section 23 of this Decree. (Emphasissupplied)
82 See Pres. Dec. No. 49 (1972), Sec. 2 and Rep. Act No. 8293
(1997), Sec. 172.1. However, this court has already clarified that
registration is not required for copyright to subsist. See Columbia
Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 875; 261 SCRA 144 (1996)
[Per J. Regalado, En Banc]. It was held that noncompliance with the
registration requirement merely limits the remedies available to him
and subjects him to the corresponding sanction.
83 Rep. Act No. 8293 (1997), Sec. 175. Unprotected Subject
Matter.Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 172 and 173, no
protection shall extend, under this law, to any idea, procedure, system,
method or operation, concept, principle, discovery or mere data as
such, even if they are expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied in
a work; news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the
character of mere items of press information; or any official text of a
legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official
translation thereof. (n)
84 Robert Yale Libott, Round the Prickly Pear: The IdeaExpression Fallacy in a Mass Communications World, 16
COPYRIGHT L. SYMP. 30, 32 (1966).
39
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

To get a better grasp of the idea/expression dichoto
my, theetymology of the term idea is traced:
The word idea is derived from a Greek term, meaning
a form, thelook or appearance of a thing as opposed to its re
ality, from idein, to see. Inthe Timaeus, Plato saw ideas as
eternal paradigms, independent objects towhich the divine
demiurge looks as patterns in forming the world. This wasl
ater modified to the religious conception of ideas as the thou
ghts of God.It is not a very long step to extend the term ide
a to cover patterns,blueprints, or plans in anyones mind, n
ot only in Gods. The word enteredthe French and English
vernacular in the 1600s and possessed twomeanings. The fi
rst was the Platonic meaning of a perfect exemplar orparadi
gm. The second, which probably has its origin with Descarte
s, is of amental concept or image or, more broadly, any objec
t of the mind when it isactive. Objects of thought may exist
independently. The sun exists(probably) before and after yo
u think of it. But it is also possible to think ofthings that ha
ve never existed, such as a unicorn or Pegasus. John Locked
efined ideas very comprehensively, to include: all objects of
the mind.Language was a way of translating the invisible, h
idden ideas that make upa persons thoughts into the exter
nal, perceptible world of articulate soundsand visible writte
n symbols that others can understand.86 (Citations omitted)
There is no one legal definition of idea in this juris

diction. Theterm idea is mentioned only once in the I
ntellectual PropertyCode.87 In Joaquin, Jr. v.
Drilon,88 a television for_______________
39
85 Id., at pp. 32-39. See also Leslie A. Kurtz, Speaking to the Ghost:
Idea and Expression in Copyright, 47 u. Miami l. Rev. 1221, 1222
(1992-1993).
86 Leslie A. Kurtz, id., at pp. 1241-1243.
87 See Rep. Act No. 8293 (1997), Sec. 175.
88 G.R. No. 108946, January 28, 1999, 302 SCRA 225 [Per J.
Mendoza, Second Division].
40
40

mat (i.e., a dating show format) is not copyrightable

underSection 2 of Presidential Decree No. 49;89 it is a
mere concept:
P.D. No. 49, 2, in enumerating what are subject to
copyright, refers to finished works and not to concepts. The
copyright does not extend to an idea, procedure, process,
system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery,
regardless of the form in which it is described, explained,
illustrated, or embodied in such work. Thus, the new
INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY
CODE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES provides:
SEC. 175. Unprotected
Subject
Matter.
Notwithstanding theprovisions of Sections 172 and 173, no
protection shall extend, under thislaw, to any idea, procedu
re, system, method or operation, concept, principle,discover
y or mere data as such, even if they are expressed, explaine
d,illustrated or embodied in a work; news of the day and oth
er miscellaneousfacts having the character of mere items of
press information; or any officialtext of a legislative, admini
strative or legal nature, as well as any officialtranslation th
ereof.
What then is the subject matter of petitioners copyright?
This Court is of the opinion that petitioner BJPIs copyright
covers audiovisual recordings of each episode of Rhoda and
Ideas can be either abstract or concrete.91 It is the co

ncrete ideasthat are generally referred to as expression:
Me, as falling within the class of works mentioned in P.D. 49,

2(M), to wit:
Cinematographic works and works produced by a proces
s analogous tocinematogra_______________
89 Section 2. The rights granted by this Decree shall, from the
moment of creation, subsist with respect to any of the following classes
of works:
....
(M) Cinematographic works and works produced by a process
analogous to cinematography or any process for making audiovisual
recordings[.]
41
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

phy or any process for making audiovisual recordings;
The copyright does not extend to the general concept or
format
of
its
dating
game
show. Accordingly, by the very nature of the subject ofpetiti
oner BJPIs copyright, the investigating prosecutor should h
ave theopportunity to compare the videotapes of the two sho
ws.
Mere description by words of the general format of the t
wo dating gameshows is insufficient; the presentation of the
master videotape in evidencewas indispensable to the deter
mination of the existence of probable cause.As aptly observe
d by respondent Secretary of Justice:
A television show includes more than mere words can
describe because it involves a whole spectrum of visuals and
effects, video and audio, such that no similarity or
dissimilarity may be found by merely describing the general
copyright/format
of
both
dating
game
shows.90 (Emphasis supplied,citations omitted)
41
The words abstract and concrete arise in many cases

dealing withthe idea/expression distinction. The Nichols cou
rt, for example, found thatthe defendants film did not infri
nge the plaintiffs play because it was toogeneralized an ab
straction from what plaintiff wrote . . . only a part of heride
as.
In
Eichel
v.
Marcin,
the court said that authors may exploit facts,experiences, fi
eld of thought, and general ideas found in anothers work,p
rovided they do not substantially copy a concrete form, in w
hich thecircumstances and ideas have been developed, arra
nged, and put intoshape. Judge Hand, in National
_______________
90 Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon, supra note 88 at pp. 239-240.
91 Leslie A. Kurtz, supra note 85 at p. 1243.
42
42

Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications,

Inc. said that no oneinfringes, unless he descends so far int
o what is concrete as to invade. . .expression.
These cases seem to be distinguishing abstract
ideas from concretetangible embodiments of these abstrac
tions that may be termed expression.However, if the concret
e form of a work means more than the literalexpression con
tained within it, it is difficult to determine what is meant b
yconcrete. Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary of
the
English
Language provides several meanings for the word concrete.
These include:having a material, perceptible existence; of,
belonging to, or characterizedby things or events that can b

e perceived by the senses; real; actual; andreferring to a p
articular; specific, not general or abstract.92
In Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Incorporated v. Shoemart,

Incorporated,93 this court, citing the American case of B
aker
v.
Selden, distinguished copyright from patents and illust
rated how anidea or concept is different from the expre
ssion of that idea:
In
the
oft-cited
case
of
Baker
v.
Selden, the United States Supreme Courtheld that only the
expression of an idea is protected by copyright, not the idea
itself. In that case, the plaintiff held the copyright of a book
whichexpounded on a new accounting system he had develo
ped.
_______________
92 Id., at p. 1244, citing Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp.,
45 F.2d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1930); Eichel v. Marcin, 241 F. 404, 409
(D.C.N.Y. 1913); and National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett
Publications, Inc., 191 F.2d 594, 600 (1951). However, the author of
the article maintains that there is no clear dividing line between idea
and expression, p. 1245.
93 456 Phil. 474; 409 SCRA 231 (2003) [Per J. Corona, Third
Division], citingBaker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879). The main issue of
the case revolved around patent infringement. However, the court
distinguished the three kinds of intellectual property rights from each
other.
43
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

The publication illustrated blank forms of ledgers utilize
d in such asystem. The defendant reproduced forms similar
to those illustrated in theplaintiffs copyrighted book. The U

S Supreme Court ruled that:
There is no doubt that a work on the subject of bookkee
ping, thoughonly explanatory of well known systems, may b
e the subject of a copyright;but, then, it is claimed only as a
book. x x x But there is a clear distinction between the books,
as such, and the art, which it is, intended to
illustrate.The mere statement of the proposition is so eviden
t that it requires hardlyany argument to support it. The sa
me distinction may be predicated of everyother art as well a
s
that
of
bookkeeping.
A treatise on the composition anduse of medicines, be they o
ld or new; on the construction and use of ploughsor watches
or churns; or on the mixture and application of colors forpai
nting or dyeing; or on the mode of drawing lines to produce
the effect ofperspective, would be the subject of copyright; b
ut no one would contendthat the copyright of the treatise w
ould give the exclusive right to the art ormanufacture descri
bed therein. The copyright of the book, if not piratedfrom ot
her works, would be valid without regard to the novelty or
want ofnovelty of its subject matter. The novelty of the art o
r thing described orexplained has nothing to do with the val
idity of the copyright. To give to theauthor of the book an ex
clusive property in the art described therein, whenno exami
nation of its novelty has ever been officially made, would be
asurprise and a fraud upon the public. That is the province
of letters patent,not of copyright. The claim to an invention
of discovery of an art ormanufacture must be subjected to th
e examination of the Patent Officebefore an exclusive right
43 44
44

therein can be obtained; and a patent from the governme

nt can onlysecure it.
The difference between the two things, letters patent and

copyright, may be illustrated by reference to the subjects just
enumerated. Take the case of medicines. Certain mixtures are
found to be of great value in the healing art. If the discoverer
writes and publishes a book on the subject (as regular
physicians generally do), he gains no exclusive right to the
manufacture and sale of the medicine; he gives that to the
public. If he desires to acquire such exclusive right, he must
obtain a patent for the mixture as a new art, manufacture or
composition of matter. He may copyright his book, if he
pleases; but that only secures to him the exclusive right of
printing and publishing his book. So of all other inventions
or discoveries.
The copyright of a book on perspective, no matter how m
any drawingsand illustrations it may contain, gives no excl
usive right to the modes ofdrawing described, though they
may never have been known or used before.By publishing t
he book without getting a patent for the art, the latter isgiv
en to the public.
....
Now, whilst no one has a right to print or publish his book,
or any material part thereof, as a book intended to convey
instruction in the art, any person may practice and use the
art itself which he has described and illustrated therein. The
use of the art is a totally different thing from a publication of
the book explaining it. The copyright of a book on
bookkeeping cannot secure the exclusive right to make, sell
and use account books prepared upon the plan set forth in
such book. Whether
the art, the ruled lines and headings of accounts must

necessarily be used as incident to it.
The plausibility of the claim put forward by the complain
ant in this casearises from a confusion of ideas produced by
the peculiar nature of the artdescribed in the books, which
have been made the subject of copyright. Indescribing the a
rt, the illustrations and diagrams employed happened tocor
respond more closely than usual with the actual work perfo
rmed by theoperator who uses the art. x x x The description
of the art in a book, thoughentitled to the benefit of copyrig
ht, lays no foundation for an exclusiveclaim to the art itself.
The object of the one is explanation; the object of theother i
s use. The former may be secured by copyright. The latter c
an only besecured, if it can be secured at all, by letters pate
nt.94 (Emphasis supplied)
News or the event itself is not copyrightable. Howev

er, an eventcan be captured and presented in a specific
medium. As recognizedby this court in Joaquin, televi
sion involves a whole spectrum ofvisuals and effects, v
ideo and audio.95 News coverage in televisioninvolves f
raming shots, using images, graphics, and sound effect
s.96It involves creative
_______________
45
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

the art might or might not have been patented, is a
question, which is not before us. It was not patented, and is
open and free to the use of the public. And, of course, in using
45
94 Id., at pp. 493-495; pp. 245-247.

95 Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon, supra note 88 at p. 240.
96 See Gale R. Adkins and Peter Haggart, Visual Materials on
Local Television News Programs, 7 J. BROAD. 227 (1962-1963); C.A.
Tuggle and Suzanne Huffman,Live Reporting in Television News:
Breaking News or Black Holes? 45 J. Broad. & elec. Media 335 (2001).
46
46

process and originality. Television news footage is a

n expressionof the news.
In the United States, a line of cases dwelt on the po
ssibility oftelevision newscasts to be copyrighted.97 Mos
t of these casesfocused on private individuals sale or r
esale of tapes of newsbroadcasts. Conflicting decisions
were rendered by its courts.Noteworthy, however, is th
e District Courts pronouncement inPacific & Southern
Co.
v.
Duncan,98 which involves a NewsMonitoring Services v
ideotaping and sale of WXIA-TVs newsbroadcasts:
It is axiomatic that copyright protection does not
extend to news events or the facts or ideas which are
the subject of news reports. Miller v. Universal City
Studios, Inc., 650 F.2d 1365, 1368 (5th Cir. 1981);Wainwright
Securities,
Inc.
v.
Wall
Street
Transcript
Corp.,
558
F.2d
91,
95(2d
Cir.
1977),
cert.
denied, 434 U.S. 1014, 98 S.Ct. 730, 54 L.Ed.2d 759(1978) B
ut it is equally well-settled that copyright protection
does extend to the reports themselves, as distinguished
from the substance of the information contained in the
reports. Wainwright, 558 F.2d at 95;International News
Service
v.
Associated
Press, 248 U.S. 215, 39 S.Ct. 68,63 L.Ed. 211 (1918); see Chi
cago
Record-Herald
Co.
v.
Tribune
Assn., 275F. 797 (7th Cir.1921); 1 Nimmer on Copyright 2.1
1[B] (1983)
_______________
97 See Michael W. Baird, Copyrighting Newscasts: An argument
for an Open Market, 3 fordham ent. Media & intell. Prop. L.f. 481, 487503 (1993), citing Pacific & Southern Co. v. Duncan, 572 F. Supp. 1186
(N.D. Ga. 1983), affirmed in part, reversed in part, 744 F.2d 1490
(11th Cir. 1984), Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Services
Co., 111 S. Ct. 1282 (1991), CNN v. Video Monitoring Servs. of Am.,
Inc., 940 F.2d 1471 (11th Cir. 1991); 949 F.2d 378 (11th Cir. 1991), Los
Angeles News Service v. Tullo, 973 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1992).
98 572 F. Supp. 1186 (N.D. Ga. 1983) referred to as Duncan I,
On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit, the decision was partially reversed and remanded.
47
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

Copyright protects the manner of expression of news
reports, the particular form or collocation of words in
which the writer has communicated it. International
News
Service, 248 U.S. at 234, 39 S.Ct. at70 Such protection exte
nds to electronic news reports as well as writtenreports. See
17 U.S.C. 102(a) (5), (6), and (7); see also Iowa State
University Research Foundations, Inc. v. American
Broadcasting
Cos., 621F.2d 57, 61 (2d Cir. 1980)99 (Emphasis supplied)
The idea/expression dichotomy has long been subjec

t to debate inthe field of copyright law. Abolishing the
dichotomy
has
beenproposed,
in
that
nonprotectibility of ideas should be reexamined, ifnot stric
ken, from decisions and the law:
If the underlying purpose of the copyright law is the dual
one expressedby Lord Mansfield, the only excuse for the con
tinuance
of
the
ideaexpression test as a judicial standard for determining prote
ctibility would bethat it was or could be a truly useful meth
od of determining the properbalance between the creators r
ight to profit from his work and the publicsright that the p
rogress of the arts not be retarded.
47
.
.
.
[A]s
used
in
the
present
day context[,] the dichotomy has little or norelationship to t
he policy which it should effectuate. Indeed, all too often the
sweeping language of the courts regarding the nonprotectibility of ideasgives the impression that this is of itse
lf a policy of the law, instead ofmerely a clumsy and outdate
d tool to achieve a much more basic end.100
The idea/expression dichotomy is a complex matter i

f one istrying to determine whether a certain material
is a copy ofanother.101 This dichotomy would be more re
levant in deter_______________
99 Id., at pp. 1191-1192.
100 Robert Yale Libott, supra note 84 at pp. 48-49.
101 See Leslie A. Kurtz, supra note 85 at p. 1236, citing Peter Pan
Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 489 (2d Cir.
48
48

mining, for instance, whether a stage play was an in

fringement ofan authors book involving the same char
acters and setting. In thiscase, however, respondents a
dmitted that the material under review which is the
subject of the controversy is an exact copy of theorig
inal.
Respondents
did
not
subject
ABSCBNs footage to anyediting of their own. The news foo
tage did not undergo anytransformation where there is
a need to track elements of theoriginal.
Having established the protectible nature of news fo
otage, wenow discuss the concomitant rights accorded
to authors. The authorsof a work are granted several ri
ghts in relation to it, includingcopyright or economic ri

ghts:
SECTION 177. Copyright or Economic Rights.Subject to theprovisions of Chapter VIII, copyright or economic
rights shall consist of theexclusive right to carry out, author
ize or prevent the following acts:
177.1. Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of
the work;
177.2. Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgme
nt, arrangementor other transformation of the work;
177.3. The first public distribution of the original and ea
ch copy of thework by sale or other forms of transfer of owne
rship;
177.4. Rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual o
rcinematographic work, a work embodied in a sound recordi
ng, a computerprogram, a compilation of data and other ma
terials or a musical work ingraphic form, irrespective of the
ownership of the
_______________
1960). Kurtz said that [t]he need to distinguish idea from
expression arises in instances of nonliteral copying. The defendant has
added something to the plaintiffs material to reshape or recast it. In
such a case, it is necessary to determine how far an imitator must
depart from an undeviating reproduction to escape infringement.
49
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

177.7. Other communication to the public of the
work. (Sec. 5, P.D. No.49a) (Emphasis supplied)
49
Under Section 211 of the Intellectual Property Code

,broadcasting organizations are granted a more specifi
c set of rightscalled related or neighboring rights:
SECTION 211. Scope of Right.Subject to the
provisions of Section 212, broadcasting organizations shall
enjoy the exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent any
of the following acts:
211.2. The recording in any manner, including the
making of films or the use of video tape, of their broadcasts
for the purpose of communication to the public of television
broadcasts of the same; and
211.3. The use of such records for fresh transmissions or
for fresh recording. (Sec. 52, P.D. No. 49) (Emphasis
supplied)
Section 212 of the Code provides:

CHAPTER XV
LIMITATIONS ON PROTECTION
Section 212. Limitations
on
Rights.
Sections 203, 208 and 209 shallnot apply where the acts ref
erred to in those Sections are related to:
212.1. The use by a natural person exclusively for his ow
n personalpurposes;
50
50

212.2. Using short excerpts for reporting current events;

212.3. Use solely for the purpose of teaching or for scient
ific research;and
212.4. Fair use of the broadcast subject to the conditions
under Section185. (Sec. 44, P.D. No. 49a)
The Code defines what broadcasting is and who bro

adcastingorganizations include:
202.7.
Broadcasting means the transmission by wireless means f
orthe public reception of sounds or of images or of represent
ations thereof;such transmission by satellite is also broadc
asting where the means fordecrypting are provided to the p
ublic by the broadcasting organization orwith its consent;
202.8.
Broadcasting organization shall include a natural person
or ajuridical entity duly authorized to engage in broadcastin
g[.]
Developments in technology, including the process o

f preservingonce ephemeral works and disseminating t
hem, resulted in the needto provide a new kind of prot
ection as distinguished fromcopyright.102 The designati
on neighboring rights was abbreviatedfrom the phras
e rights neighboring to copyright.103 Neighboring orrel
ated rights are of equal
_______________
102
World
Intellectual
Property
Organization
(WIPO), Neighboring Rights: Guide to the Rome Convention and to the
Phonograms Convention, WIPO, 1989, reprinted 1994 and 1999, p. 11
<http://www.
wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/copyright/617/wipo_pub_617.pdf> (last visited on 29 January 2015).
103 See Herman Cohen Jehoram, The Nature of Neighboring
Rights of Performing Artists, Phonogram Producers and Broadcasting
Organizations, 15 colum.-vla j.l. & arts 75, 75-76 (1990-1991).
51
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015
51

importance with copyright as established in the diff
erentconventions covering both kinds of rights.104
Several treaties deal with neighboring or related rig
hts ofcopyright.105 The most prominent of these is the I
nternationalConvention for the Protection of Performe
rs, Producers ofPhonograms and Broadcasting Organiz
ations (RomeConvention).106
The Rome Convention protects the rights of broadca
stingorganizations in relation to their broadcasts. Artic
le XIII of theRome Convention enumerates the minimu
m rights accorded tobroadcasting organizations:
Article 13
Minimum Rights for Broadcasting Organizations
Broadcasting organizations shall enjoy the right to autho
rize or prohibit:
_______________
104 See Herman Cohen Jehoram, id., at p. 84.
105 See Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and
Artistic Works (1886), the Brussels Convention Relating to the
Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite
(1974), Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms
Against Unauthorized Duplication of their Phonograms (1971), World
Intellectual Property Office Copyright Treaty (WCT) (1996), and the
WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) (1996). See
Also Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (Trips Agreement) (1994).
106
See
World
Intellectual
Property
Organization
(WIPO), Understanding Copyright and Related Rights, p. 17
<http://www.wipo.
int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/909/wipo_pub_909.pdf> (last visited
on 11 February 2015). The Rome Convention was the first organized
international response to the need for legal protection of the three
categories of related rights beneficiaries. The Convention was

finalized on October 26, 1961. It came into force on May 18, 1964. The
Philippines acceded to the Convention on June 25, 1984. It came into
force in the Philippines on September 25, 1984.
52
52

(a) the rebroadcasting of their broadcasts;

(b) the fixation of their broadcasts;
(c) the reproduction:
(i) of fixations, made without their consent, of their broa
dcasts;
(ii) of fixations, made in accordance with the provisions o
f Article 15, oftheir broadcasts, if the reproduction is made f
or purposes different fromthose referred to in those provisio
ns;
(d) the communication to the public of their television br
oadcasts if suchcommunication is made in places accessible
to the public against paymentof an entrance fee; it shall be
a matter for the domestic law of the Statewhere protection o
f this right is claimed to determine the conditions underwhi
ch it may be exercised.
With regard to the neighboring rights of a broadcast

ingorganization in this jurisdiction, this court has disc
ussed thedifference between broadcasting and rebroad
casting:
Section 202.7 of the IP Code defines broadcasting as t
he transmissionby wireless means for the public reception o
f sounds or of images or ofrepresentations thereof; such tran
smission by satellite is also broadcastingwhere the means f
or decrypting are provided to the public by thebroadcasting
organization or with its consent.
On the other hand, rebroadcasting as defined in Articl
e 3(g) of theInternational Convention for the Protection of P
erformers, Producers ofPhonograms and Broadcasting Orga

nizations, otherwise known as the 1961Rome Convention, of
which the Republic of the Philippines is a signatory, isthe
simultaneous broadcasting
53
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

by one broadcasting organization of the broadcast of ano
therbroadcasting organization.
....
Under the Rome Convention, rebroadcasting is the simu
ltaneousbroadcasting by one broadcasting organization of t
he broadcast of anotherbroadcasting organization. The Wor
king Paper prepared by the Secretariatof the Standing Com
mittee on Copyright and Related Rights definesbroadcastin
g organizations as entities that take the financial and edito
rialresponsibility for the selection and arrangement of, and
investment in, thetransmitted content.107 (Emphasis in the
original, citations omitted)
Broadcasting organizations are entitled to several ri

ghts and tothe protection of these rights under the Inte
llectual Property Code.Respondents argument that th
e subject news footage is notcopyrightable is erroneous
. The Court of Appeals, in its assailedDecision, correctl
y
recognized
the
existence
of
ABSCBNscopyright over the news footage:
Surely, private respondent has a copyright of its news co
verage.Seemingly, for airing said video feed, petitioner GM
A is liable under theprovisions of the Intellectual Property
Code, which was enacted purposelyto protect copyright own
ers from infringement.108
53
News as expressed in a video footage is entitled to c

opyrightprotection. Broadcasting organizations have n
ot only copyright onbut also neighboring rights over th
eir broadcasts. Copyrightability ofa work is different fr
om fair use of a work for purposes of newsreporting.
_______________
107 ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation v. Philippine MultiMedia System, Inc., 596 Phil. 283, 297; 576 SCRA 262, 277 (2009)
[Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Third Division].
108 Rollo, p. 68.
54
54

VI
ABSCBN assails the Court of Appeals ruling that the foota

geshown
by
GMA7 falls under the scope of Sections 212.2 and 212.4of th
e Intellectual Property Code:
The evidence on record, as well as the discussions above,
show that thefootage used by [respondents] could hardly be
characterized as a shortexcerpt, as it was aired over one an
d a half minutes.
Furthermore, the footage used does not fall under the co
ntemplation ofSection 212.2 of the Intellectual Property Co
de. A plain reading of theprovision would reveal that copyri
ghted material referred to in Section 212are short portions
of an artists performance under Section 203, or aproducers
sound recordings under Sections 208 and 209. Section 212
doesnot refer to actual use of video footage of another as its
own.
heIntellectual Property Code. Respondents, citing the

Court of AppealsDecision, argue that a strong statutor
y defense negates any finding ofprobable cause under t
he same statute.110 The Intellectual PropertyCode provi
des that fair use negates infringement.
Respondents point out that upon seeing ABSCBNs reporterDindo Amparo on the footage, GMA7 immediately shut off thebroadcast. Only five (5) seco
nds passed before the footage was cut.They argue that
this shows that GMA-7 had no prior knowledge ofABSCBNs ownership of the footage or was notified of it. Th
eyclaim that the Angelo dela Cruz footage is considere
d a shortexcerpt of an events news footage and is cov
ered by fair use.111
Copyright protection is not absolute.112 The Intellect
ual PropertyCode provides the limitations on copyright:
The Angelo dela Cruz footage does not fall under the rule
on Section212.4 of the Intellectual Property Code on fair us
e of the broadcast.
....
In determining fair use, several factors are considered, i
ncluding thenature of the copyrighted work, and the amoun
t and substantiality of theperson used in relation to the cop
yrighted work as a whole.
In the business of television news reporting, the nature o
f thecopyrighted work or the video footages, are such that, f
ootage created, mustbe a novelty to be a good report. Thus,
when the . . . Angelo dela Cruzfootage was used by [respond
ents], the novelty of the footage was clearlyaffected.
Moreover, given that a substantial portion of the Angelo
dela
Cruzfootage
was
utilized
by
GMA7 for its own, its use can hardly be classifiedas fair use.
Hence, [respondents] could not be considered as having u
sed the Angelodela Cruz [footage] following the provisions o
n fair use.
CHAPTER VIII
LIMITATIONS ON COPYRIGHT
55
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

It is also worthy to note that the Honorable Court of App
eals seem tocontradict itself when it relied on the provisions
of fair use in its assailedrulings considering that it found th
at the Angelo dela Cruz footage is notcopyrightable, given t
hat the fair use presupposes an existing copyright.Thus, it i
s apparent that the findings of the Honorable Court of Appe
als areerroneous and based on wrong assumptions.109 (Unde
rscoring in theoriginal)
On the other hand, respondents counter that GMA7s

use
ofABSCBNs news footage falls under fair use as defined in t
55

on
Copyright.
184.1. Notwithstanding theprovisions of Chapter V, the foll
owing acts shall not constitute infringementof copyright:
_______________
109
110
111
112
56
Id., at pp. 1429-1431.

Id., at p. 1371.
Id., at p. 1368.
Supra note 107.
56

....
184.2.
The provisions of this section shall be interpreted in such a
wayas to allow the work to be used in a manner which does
not conflict with thenormal exploitation of the work and doe
s not unreasonably prejudice theright holders legitimate in
terests.
....
CHAPTER XV
LIMITATIONS ON PROTECTION
on
Rights.
Sections 203, 208 and 209 shallnot apply where the acts ref
erred to in those Sections are related to:
....
212.2. Using short excerpts for reporting current events;
....
212.4. Fair use of the broadcast subject to the conditions
under Section 185. (Sec. 44, P.D. No. 49a) (Emphasis
supplied)
The determination of what constitutes fair use depe

nds on severalfactors. Section 185 of the Intellectual P
roperty Code states:
SECTION 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work.
185.1.
The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, n
ews
reporting,
teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, schola
rship,research, and similar purposes is not an infringement
of copyright. . . . Indetermining whether the use made of a
work in any particular case is fairuse, the factors to be consi
dered shall include:
a. The purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a com-
57
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

mercial nature or is for nonprofit 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. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work.
Respondents allege that the news footage was only f

ive (5)seconds long, thus falling under fair use. ABSCBN belies thiscontention and argues that the footage
aired for two (2) minutes and40 seconds.113 According to
the Court of Appeals, the partiesadmitted that only fiv
e (5) seconds of the news footage wasbroadcasted by G
MA-7.114
This court defined fair use as a privilege to use the
copyrightedmaterial in a reasonable manner without t
he consent of the copyrightowner or as copying the the
me or ideas rather than theirexpression.115 Fair use is
an exception to the copyright ownersmonopoly of the u
se of the work to avoid stifling the verycreativity whic
h that law is designed to foster.116
_______________
113 Rollo, pp. 1422 and 1432.
114 Id., at p. 68.
115 Habana v. Robles, 369 Phil. 764; 310 SCRA 511 (1999)
[Per J. Pardo, First Division], citing 18 Am Jur 2d 109, in turn
citing Toksvig v. Bruce Pub. Co. (CA7 Wis) 181 F2d 664
[1950]; Bradbury v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., (CA9 Cal)
287 F2d 478, cert den 368 US 801, 7 L ed 2d 15, 82 S Ct 19
57
[1961]; Shipman v. R.K.O. Radio Pictures, Inc. (CA2 NY) 100 F2d 533
[1938].
116 See Matthew D. Bunker, Transforming the News: Copyright
and Fair Use in News-Related Contexts, 52 j. copyright socy u.s.a. 309,
311 (2004-2005), citing Iowa St. Univ. Research Found., Inc. v. Am.
Broad. Cos., 621 F.2d 57, 60 (2d Cir. 1980). The four factors are
similarly codified under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, Sec.
107:
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
58
58

Determining fair use requires application of the fourfactor test.Section 185 of the Intellectual Property Cod
e lists four (4) factors todetermine if there was fair use
of a copyrighted work:
a. The purpose and character of the use, including wheth
er such use is ofa commercial nature or is for nonprofit educ
ational purposes;
b. The nature of the copyrighted work;
c. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in r
elation to thecopyrighted work as a whole; and
d. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or
value of thecopyrighted work.
First, the purpose and character of the use of the

copyrighted material must fall under those listed in
Section 185, thus: criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching including multiple copies for classroom use,
scholarship, research, and
_______________
Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 106 and 106A, the fair
use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies
or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching

(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research,
is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use
made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be
considered shall include
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such
use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
factors.
59
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

similar purposes.117 The purpose and character
requirement is important in view of copyrights goal to
promote creativity and encourage creation of works.
Hence, commercial use of the copyrighted work can be
weighed against fair use.
The transformative test is generally used in revie
wing thepurpose and character of the usage of the copy
righted work.118 Thiscourt must look into whether the c
opy of the work adds newexpression, meaning or mess
age to transform it into somethingelse.119 Metause can also occur without necessarily transformingth
e copyrighted work used.120
Second, the nature of the copyrighted work is signifi
cant indeciding whether its use was fair. If the nature
of the work is morefactual than creative, then fair use
will be weighed in favor of theuser.
59
Third, the amount and substantiality of the portion

used isimportant to determine whether usage falls und
er fair use. An exactreproduction of a copyrighted work
, compared to a small portion ofit, can result in the con
clusion that its use is
_______________
117 Rep. Act No. 8293 (1997), Sec. 185.
118 See Matthew D. Bunker, supra note 116.
119 Id., citing Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569,
579 (1994).
120 Id., at p. 317, citing Nunez v. Caribbean International News
Corp., 235 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2000) and Psihoyos v. National Examiner,
49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1766 (S.D. N.Y. 1998). Bunker proposes the term metause for the kind of use that does not necessarily transform the original
work by adding expression, meaning, or message, but only changes the
purpose of the work. [Psihoyos] distinguished between using the
photograph to show what it depict[ed] versus commenting upon the
photograph in some way. Certainly the Nunez use was for purposes of
commentary on the photos the photos had engendered significant
controversy, and the news article reported on that controversy. Thus,
the Nunez use was what we might refer to as a meta-use of the photos
that went beyond simply using a photograph to illustrate a news story
as in Psihoyos and instead consisted of a news story about the
photographs themselves, or at least public reaction to them.
60
60

not fair. There may also be cases where, though the

entirety ofthe copyrighted work is used without consen
t, its purposedetermines that the usage is still fair.121 F
or example, a parody usinga substantial amount of cop
yrighted work may be permissible as fairuse as oppose
d to a copy of a work produced purely for economicgain.
Lastly, the effect of the use on the copyrighted work

s market isalso weighed for or against the user. If this
court finds that the usehad or will have a negative imp
act on the copyrighted worksmarket, then the use is d
eemed unfair.
The structure and nature of broadcasting as a busin
ess requiresassigned values for each second of broadca
st or airtime. In mostcases, broadcasting organizations
generate revenue through sale oftime or timeslots to a
dvertisers, which, in turn, is based on marketshare:122
Once a news broadcast has been transmitted, the broadc
ast becomesrelatively worthless to the station. In the case of
the aerial broadcasters,advertising sales generate most of t
he profits derived from news reports.Advertising rates are, i
n turn, governed by market share. Market share isdetermin
ed by the number of people watching a show at any particul
ar time,relative to total viewers at that time. News is by nat
ure
timelimited, and sorebroadcasts are generally of little worth bec
ause they draw few viewers.Newscasts compete for market
share by presenting their news in anappealing format that
will capture a loyal audience. Hence, the primary reason for
copyrighting newscasts by broadcasters would seem to be to
prevent competing stations from rebroadcasting current news
from the station with the best coverage of a particu_______________
121 See Matthew D. Bunker, supra note 116 at p. 314, citing Nunez
v. Caribbean International News Corp., id.
122
See John J. McGowan, Competition, Regulation, and
Performance In Television Broadcasting, 1967 WASH. U.L.Q. 499
(1967), and William T. Kelley,How Television Stations Price Their
Service, 11 J. BROAD. 313 (1966-1967).
61
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

lar news item, thus misappropriating a portion of the
market share.
Of course, in the real world there are exceptions to this p
erfect economicview. However, there are also many caveats
with these exceptions. Acommon exception is that some stat
ions rebroadcast the news of others. The caveat is that
generally, the two stations are not competing for market
share. CNN, for example, often makes news stories available
to
local
broadcasters. First, the local broadcaster is often not affiliat
ed with anetwork (hence its need for more comprehensive p
rogramming), confiningany possible competition to a small
geographical area. Second, the localbroadcaster is not in co
mpetition with CNN. Individuals who do not havecable TV (
or a satellite dish with decoder) cannot receive CNN; theref
orethere is no competition. . . . Third, CNN sells the right of
rebroadcast to thelocal stations. Ted Turner, owner of CNN
, does not have First Amendmentfreedom of access argumen
t foremost on his mind. (Else he would giveeveryone free ca
ble TV so everyone could get CNN) He is in the businessfor
a profit. Giving away resources does not a profit make.123 (E
mphasissupplied)
The high value afforded to limited time periods is al

so seen inother media. In social media site Instagram,
users are allowed topost up to only 15 seconds of video.
124 In short-video
_______________
123 See Michael W. Baird, Copyrighting Newscasts: An argument
for an Open Market, 3 Fordham Ent. Media & Intell. Prop. L.F. 481,
61
pp. 518-519. The author of the article argues that news broadcasts
[should be taken] out of the realm ofcopyright entirely, creating
instead a separate rebroadcast right for factual works of a timelimited nature. . . [in that] [s]uch a right would allow the taping of
newscasts, but protect the source of broadcasters incomes, i.e., the
advertising revenues from the original broadcast. In essence, the
author recognizes broadcasting organizations right to rebroadcast,
which we defined earlier as a related or neighboring right of copyright.
124 See Instagram, available at <https://help.instagram.com/
442610612501386> (last visited on 8 February 2015).
62
62

sharing website Vine,125 users are allowed a shorter

period of six(6) seconds per post. The mobile applicatio
n
1
Second
Everydaytakes it further by capturing and stitching on
e (1) second of videofootage taken daily over a span of a
certain period.126
Whether
the
alleged
fivesecond footage may be considered fairuse is a matter of
defense. We emphasize that the case involvesdetermin
ation of probable cause at the preliminary investigatio
nstage. Raising the defense of fair use does not automa
tically meanthat no infringement was committed. The
investigating prosecutorhas full discretion to evaluate
the facts, allegations, and evidenceduring preliminary
investigation. Defenses raised during preliminaryinves
tigation are subject to further proof and evaluation bef
ore thetrial court. Given the insufficiency of available e
vidence,determination of whether the Angelo dela Cru
z footage is subject tofair use is better left to the trial c
ourt where the proceedings arecurrently pending.
GMA-7s
rebroadcast
of
ABSCBNs news footage without thelatters consent is not a
n issue. The mere act of rebroadcastingwithout authori
ty from the owner of the broadcast gives rise to thepro
bability that a crime was committed under the Intellec
tualProperty Code.
prohibitum. The Intellectual Property Code is a special

law.Copyright is a statutory creation:
Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a stat
utory right. It isa new or independent right granted by the s
tatute, and not simply apreexisting right regulated by the s
tatute. Being a statutory grant, the rightsare only such as t
he statute confers, and may be obtained and enjoyed onlywi
th respect to the subjects and by the persons, and on terms
and conditionsspecified in the statute.128
VII
Respondents cannot invoke the defense of good faith
to arguethat no probable cause exists.
Respondents argue that copyright infringement is
malum
in
se, inthat [c]opying alone is not what is being prohibit
ed, but itsinjurious effect which consists in the lifting f
rom the
The general rule is that acts punished under a speci

al
law
aremalum
129
prohibitum. An act which is declared malum prohibi
tum,malice or criminal intent is completely immaterial
.130
In
contrast,
crimes
mala
in
se concern inherently immoral acts:
_______________
_______________
125 See Vine, available at <https://vine.co> (last accessed on 8
February 2015).
126 See 1 Second Everyday, available at <http://1secondeveryday.
com> (last accessed on 8 February 2015).
63
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

copyright owners film or materials, that were the re
sult of thelatters creativity, work and productions and
without authority,reproduced, sold and circulated for c
ommercial use to the detrimentof the latter.127
Infringement under the Intellectual Property Code i
s
malum
63
127 Rollo, p. 1363.

128 Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon, supra note 88 at p. 238, citing 18 C.J.S.
161 [Per J.Mendoza, Second Division]. See also Pearl & Dean (Phil.),
Incorporated v. Shoemart, Incorporated, supra note 93; Ching v.
Salinas, Sr., 500 Phil. 628; 462 SCRA 241 (2005) [Per J. Callejo, Sr.,
Second Division].
129 See Ho Wai Pang v. People, G.R. No. 176229, October 19, 2011,
659 SCRA 624, 640 [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division]; People v. Chua,
G.R. No. 187052, September 13, 2012, 680 SCRA 575, 592- 591
[Per J. Villarama, Jr., First Division].
130 See Go v. The Fifth Division of Sandiganbayan, 558 Phil. 736,
744; 532 SCRA 130, 136 (2007) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Third
Division].
64
64

Not every criminal act, however, involves moral turpitud

e. It is for thisreason that as to what crime involves moral
turpitude, is for the SupremeCourt to determine. In resolvi
ng the foregoing question, the Court isguided by one of the g
eneral
rules
that
crimes
mala
in
se
involve
moralturpitude,
while
crimes
mala
prohibita do not, the rationale of which was setforth in Zari
v. Flores, to wit:
It (moral turpitude) implies something immoral in itself,
regardless of the fact that it is punishable by law or not. It
must not be merely mala prohibita, but the act itself must be
inherently immoral. The doing of the act itself, and not its
prohibition by statute fixes the moral turpitude. Moral
turpitude does not, however, include such acts as are not of
themselves immoral but whose illegality lies in their being
positively prohibited. (Emphasis supplied)
[These] guidelines nonetheless proved short of providing
a clear-cutsolution, for in International Rice Research
Institute
v.
NLRC, the Courtadmitted that it cannot always be ascertai
ned whether moral turpitude doesor does not exist by merel
y classifying a crime as malum in se or as malum
prohibitum. There are crimes which are mala in
se and yet but rarely involvemoral turpitude and there are c
rimes which involve moral turpitude and aremala
prohibita only. In the final analysis, whether or not a crime
involvesmoral turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and
frequently depends on allthe circumstances surrounding th
e violation of the statue.131 (Emphasis inthe original)
Implicit in the concept of mala in se is that of mens

rea.132Mens
rea is defined as the nonphysical element which, com_______________
131 Dela Torre v. Commission on Elections, 327 Phil. 1144, 11501151; 258 SCRA 483, 488 (1996) [Per J. Francisco, En Banc].
132 Nancy Travis Wolfe, MALA IN SE: A Disappearing Doctrine,
19 Criminology 131 1981-1982, p. 133.
65
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

bined with the act of the accused, makes up the cri
me charged.Most frequently it is the criminal intent, o
r the guilty mind[.]133
Crimes
mala
in
se presuppose that the person who did thefelonious act
had criminal intent to do so, while crimes mala
prohibita do not require knowledge or criminal intent:
In the case of mala in se it is necessary, to constitute a
punishable offense, for the person doing the act to have
knowledge of the nature of his act and to have a criminal
intent; in the case of mala prohibita, unless such words as
knowingly and willfully are contained in the statute,
neither knowledge nor criminal intent is necessary. In other
words, a person morally quite innocent and with every
intention of being a law-abiding citizen becomes a criminal,
and liable to criminal penalties, if he does an act prohibited
by these statutes.134 (Emphasis supplied)
Hence, [i]ntent to commit the crime and intent to

perpetrate
the
act
must
be
distinguished. A person may not have consciouslyinten
ded to commit a crime; but he did intend to commit an
act, andthat act is, by the very nature of things, the cri
me itself[.]135 Whenan act is prohibited by a special la
w, it is considered injurious topublic welfare, and the p
erformance of the prohibited act is thecrime itself.136
65
_______________
133 1 William L. Clark et al., A Treatise on the Law of Crimes, The
Criminal Intent and Capacity to Commit Crime, 5th ed., 59, 60 (1952).
134 Arthur D. Greenfield, MALUM PROHIBITUM: Moral, Legal
and Practical Distinctions Between Mala Prohibita and Mala in Se and
Danger to Civic Conscience When Former Are Too Numerous, 7 A.B.A.
J. 493 (1921).
135 People v. Lacerna, 344 Phil. 100, 122-123; 278 SCRA 561, 581
(1997) [PerJ. Panganiban, Third Division], citing U.S. v. Go Chico, 14
Phil. 128 (1909) [Per J.Moreland, En Banc].
136 Id.
66
66

Volition, or intent to commit the act, is different fro

m criminalintent. Volition or voluntariness refers to kn
owledge of the act beingdone. On the other hand, crimi
nal intent which is different frommotive, or the mov
ing power for the commission of the crime137
refers to the state of mind beyond voluntariness. It is t
his intent thatis being punished by crimes mala in se.
Unlike other jurisdictions that require intent for a c
riminalprosecution of copyright infringement, the Phili
ppines does notstatutorily support good faith as a defe
nse. Other jurisdictionsprovide in their intellectual pro
perty
codes
or
relevant
laws
thatmens
rea, whether express or implied, is an element of crimi
nalcopyright infringement.138
_______________
137 In People v. Ballesteros, 349 Phil. 366, 374-375; 285 SCRA 438,
445 (1998) [Per J. Romero, Third Division], this court distinguished
motive from intent: Motive is the moving power which impels one to
action for a definite result. Intent, on the other hand, is the purpose to
use a particular means to effect such result. Motive alone is not proof
of a crime. In order to tip the scales in its favor, intent and not motive
must be established by the prosecution. Motive is hardly ever an
essential element of a crime. A man driven by extreme moral
perversion may be led to commit a crime, without a real motive but a
just for the sake of committing it. Along the same line, a man who
commits a crime with an apparent motive may produce different
results, for which he is punished. As held in a line of cases, the rule is
well-settled that the prosecution need not prove motive on the part of
the accused when the latter has been positively identified as the
author of the crime. Lack or absence of motive for committing the
crime does not preclude conviction thereof where there were reliable
witnesses who fully and satisfactorily identified the accused as the
perpetrator of the felony.
138 See Regina v. Laurier Office Mart, Inc., 1994 Carswellont
4309, 58 C.P.R. (3d) 403, Canada; United States Code, Title 17,
Chapter 5, Sec. 506, Copyright, Patents, and Design Act of 1988,
United Kingdom; EMI Records (Ireland) Ltd and others v. The
Data Protection Commissioner (notice party, Eircom Plc). [2013] 1
C.M.L.R. 7.
67
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

In Canada, criminal offenses are categorized under
three
(3)kinds:
the
full
mens
rea
offence, meaning the accuseds actual orsubjective stat
e of mind has to be proved; strict liability
offenceswhere
no
mens
rea has to be proved but the accused can avoidliability
if he can prove he took all reasonable steps to avoid the
particular
event;
[and]
absolute
liability
offences where Parliamenthas made it clear that guilt f
ollows proof of the prescribed actonly.139 Because of the
use of the word knowingly in CanadasCopyright Act
, it has been held that copyright infringement is a full
mens rea offense.140
67
In the United States, willful intent is required for cr

iminalcopyright infringement.141 Before the passage of t
he No ElectronicTheft Act, civil copyright infringemen
ts were violations of criminalcopyright laws only if a de
fendant willfully infringed a copyrightfor purposes of c
ommercial advantage or private financial gain.142How
ever, the No Electronic Theft Act now allows criminalc
opyright infringement without the requirement of com
mercial gain.The infringing act may or may not be for
profit.143
_______________
139 Regina v. Laurier Office Mart, Inc., id., at p. 7.
140 Id., at p. 8.
141 See United States Code, Title 17, Chapter 5, Sec. 506.
142 Ting Ting Wu, The New Criminal Copyright Sanctions: A
Toothless Tiger?,IDEA: The Journal Of Law And Technology, 39 J.L.
& TECH. 527 (1999).
143 See Lydia Pallas Loren, Digitization, Commodification,
Criminalization: The Evolution Of Criminal Copyright Infringement
And The Importance Of The Willfulness Requirement, 77 WASH. U. L.
Q. 835 (1999). While The NET Act retained the element of willfulness,
it created a new type of criminal infringement that does not require a
profit motive. Now, to be criminal, infringement must be willful and
be either (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial
gain, or (2) infringement through the reproduction or distribution,
including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of one or
more copies or phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works, which
have a total retail value of more than $1,000.
68
68

There is a difference, however, between the require

d liability incivil copyright infringement and that in cri
minal copyrightinfringement in the United States. Civi

l copyright infringement doesnot require culpability an
d employs a strict liability regime144 wherelack of inte
ntion to infringe is not a defense to an action forinfring
ement.145
In the Philippines, the Intellectual Property Code, a
s amended,provides for the prosecution of criminal acti
ons for the followingviolations of intellectual property r
ights: Repetition of Infringementof Patent (Section 84);
Utility Model (Section 108); IndustrialDesign (Section
119); Trademark Infringement (Section 155 inrelation
to Section 170); Unfair Competition (Section 168 in rel
ationto Section 170); False Designations of Origin, Fals
e Description orRepresentation (Section 169.1 in relati
on to Section 170);infringement of copyright, moral rig
hts, performers rights,producers rights, and broadcast
ing rights (Sections 177, 193, 203,208 and 211 in relati
on to Section 217); and other violations ofintellectual p
roperty rights as may be defined by law.
_______________
This latter category of infringement can be referred to as noncommercially motivated infringement.
144 See Dane S. Ciolino and Erin A. Donelon, Questioning Strict
Liability In Copyright, 54 Rutgers L. Rev. 351 2001-2002, p. 409. The
authors argue against the application of strict liability to copyright
law. [S]trict liability is neither justified nor necessary in copyright
law, but rather is rooted in deeply flawed historical, conceptual, and
economic misconceptions about intellectual property in general and
copyright in particular. Worse, strict liability is affirmatively harmful
to copyrights utilitarian goals of providing incentives to authors to
create, and providing greater public access to works of authorship. p.
351.
145 Kent Sinclair, Jr., 58 Cal. L. Rev. 940 1970, p. 944, citing M.
NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT 3 (1970). U.S. Copyright law
seems to interchange absolute liability with strict liability.
69
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

The Intellectual Property Code requires strict liabili
ty forcopyright infringement whether for a civil action
or a criminalprosecution; it does not require mens
rea or culpa:146
SECTION 216. Remedies for Infringement.
216.1.
Any person infringing a right protected under this law shall
beliable:
a. To an injunction restraining such infringement. The c
ourt may alsoorder the defendant to desist from an infringe
ment, among others, to preventthe entry into the channels o
f commerce of imported goods that involve aninfringement, i
mmediately after customs clearance of such goods.
b. Pay to the copyright proprietor or his assigns or heirs
such actualdamages, including legal costs and other expens
es, as he may have incurreddue to the infringement as well
as the profits the infringer may have madedue to such infri
ngement, and in proving profits the plaintiff shall berequire
d to prove sales only and the defendant shall be required to
proveevery ele
_______________
146 The earliest copyright law in the Philippines was the Spanish
Law on Intellectual Property of January 10, 1879 as extended by the
Royal Decree of May 5, 1897. After the Philippines was ceded to the
United States, the United States Copyright Law replaced the Spanish
law. On March 6, 1924, Act No. 3134 or An Act to Protect Intellectual
Property was enacted by the Philippine legislature. On November 14,
69
1972, Presidential Decree No. 49 was enacted and superseded Act No.
3134. Subsequently, Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property
Code took effect on January 1, 1998. See Vicente B.
Amador, Intellectual Property Fundamentals, C&E Publishing, 2007,
p. 225. The Copyright clause in the United States Constitution, as well
as subsequent federal laws were based on Englands Statute of Anne.
U.S. Copyright laws and courts, however, have generally upheld a
strict liability regime.
See Dane S. Ciolino and Erin A.
Donelon, supra note 144 at pp. 355-356.
70
70

ment of cost which he claims, or, in lieu of actual damage

s and profits,such damages which to the court shall appear
to be just and shall not beregarded as penalty.
c. Deliver under oath, for impounding during the penden
cy of the action,upon such terms and conditions as the court
may prescribe, sales invoicesand other documents evidenci
ng sales, all articles and their packagingalleged to infringe
a copyright and implements for making them.
d. Deliver under oath for destruction without any compe
nsation allinfringing copies or devices, as well as all plates,
molds, or other means formaking such infringing copies as t
he court may order.
e. Such other terms and conditions, including the payme
nt of moral andexemplary damages, which the court may de
em proper, wise and equitableand the destruction of infringi
ng copies of the work even in the event ofacquittal in a crim
inal case.
216.2.
In an infringement action, the court shall also have the pow
er toorder the seizure and impounding of any article which
may serve asevidence in the court proceedings. (Sec. 28, P.D
. No. 49a)
SECTION 217. Criminal Penalties.
217.1. Any person infringing any right secured by

provisions of Part IV of this Act or aiding or abetting such
infringement shall be guilty of a crime punishable by:
a. Imprisonment of one (1) year to three (3) years plus a f
ine rangingfrom Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) to One hun
dred fifty thousand pesos(P150,000) for the first offense.
b. Imprisonment of three (3) years and one (1) day to six
(6) years plus afine rang-
b. Distributing the article for purpose of trade, or for any

other purposeto an extent that will prejudice the rights of t
he copyright owner in the work;or
c. Trade exhibit of the article in public, shall be guilty of
an offense andshall be liable on conviction to imprisonment
and fine as above mentioned.(Sec. 29, P.D. No. 49a) (Empha
sis supplied)
72
71
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

ing from One hundred fifty thousand pesos (P150,000) to
Five hundredthousand pesos (P500,000) for the second offen
se.
c.
Imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to nine (9) yea
rs plus afine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P5
00,000) to One millionfive hundred thousand pesos (P1,500,
000) for the third and subsequentoffenses.
d. In all cases, subsidiary imprisonment in cases of insol
vency.
217.2.
In determining the number of years of imprisonment and th
eamount of fine, the court shall consider the value of the inf
ringing materialsthat the defendant has produced or manuf
actured and the damage that thecopyright owner has suffer
ed by reason of the infringement.
217.3.
Any person who at the time when copyright subsists in a wo
rkhas in his possession an article which he knows, or ought
to know, to be aninfringing copy of the work for the purpose
of:
a. Selling, letting for hire, or by way of trade offering or e
xposing forsale, or hire, the article;
71
72

The law is clear. Inasmuch as there is wisdom in pri

oritizing theflow and exchange of ideas as opposed to r
ewarding the creator, it isthe plain reading of the law i
n conjunction with the actions of thelegislature to whic
h we defer. We have continuously recognized thepowe
r of the legislature . . . to forbid certain acts in a limite
d class ofcases and to make their commission criminal
without regard to theintent of the doer. Such legislativ
e enactments are based on theexperience that repressi
ve measures which depend for theirefficiency upon pro
of of the dealers knowledge or of his intent areof little
use and rarely accomplish their purposes.147
Respondents argue that live broadcast of news requi
res adifferent treatment in terms of good faith, intent,
and knowledge tocommit infringement. To argue this p
oint, they rely on thedifferences of the media used in H
abana, et al. v. Robles, Columbia Pictures v. Court of
Appeals, and this case:
Petitioner
ABSCBN argues that lack of notice that the Angelo dela Cruzwa
s under embargo is not a defense in copyright infringement
and cites thecase of Columbia Pictures v. Court of
Appeals
and
Habana,
et
al.
v.
Robles(310 SCRA 511). However, these cases refer to film a

nd literary workwhere obviously there is copying from a
n existing material so that thecopier knew that he is copyin
g from an existing material not owned by him.But, how coul
d respondents know that what they are copying was not[th
eirs] when they were not copying but merely receiving li
ve video feedfrom Reuters and CNN which they aired? Wha
t they knew and what theyaired was the Reuters live vide
o
feed
and
the
CNN
feed
which
GMA7 isauthorized to carry in its news broadcast, it being a subs
criber of thesecompanies[.]
It is apt to stress that the subject of the alleged copyrigh
t infringement isnot a film or literary work but live broad
cast of news footage. In a film orliterary work, the infringer
is confronted face to face with the ma_______________
147 People v. Lacerna, supra note 135 at p. 122; p. 580.
73
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

terial he is allegedly copying and therefore knows, or is p
resumed toknow, that what he is copying is owned by anoth
er. Upon the other hand, inlive broadcast, the alleged infr
inger is not confronted with the fact that thematerial he air
s or rebroadcasts is owned by another, and therefore, hecan
not be charged of knowledge of ownership of the material by
another.This specially obtains in the Angelo dela Cruz new
s
footage
which
GMA7received from Reuters and CNN. Reuters and CNN were b
eaming livevideos from the coverage which GMA7 received as a subscriber and, in theexercise of its rights as
a
subscriber,
GMA7 picked up the live video andsimultaneously rebroadcast it.
In simultaneously broadcasting the live videofootage of Reu

ters, GMA-7 did not copy the video footage of petitionerABSCBN[.]148 (Emphasis in the original)
Respondents arguments must fail.

Respondents are involved and experienced in the br
oadcastingbusiness. They knew that there would be co
nsequences
in
carryingABSCBNs footage in their broadcast. That is why GMA7allegedly cut the feed from Reuters upon seeing ABSCBNs logoand reporter. To admit a different treatmen
t for broadcasts wouldmean abandonment of a broadca
sting organizations minimumrights, including copyrig
ht on the broadcast material and the rightagainst una
uthorized rebroadcast of copyrighted material. The nat
ureof broadcast technology is precisely why related or
neighboringrights were created and developed. Carvin
g out an exception for livebroadcasts would go against
73 our commitments under relevantinternational treaties
and agreements, which provide for the sameminimum
rights.149
_______________
148 Rollo, p. 1369.
149 Under Const. (1987), Art. VII, Sec. 21, a treaty or international
agreement is transformed into domestic law when concurred in by at
least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
74
74

Contrary to respondents assertion, this court in Ha

bana,150reiterating
the
ruling
in
Columbia
151
Pictures, ruled that lack ofknowledge of infringement
is not a valid defense. Habana andColumbia

Pictures may have different factual scenarios from this
case, but their rulings on copyright infringement are a
nalogous. InHabana, petitioners were the authors and
copyright owners ofEnglish textbooks and workbooks.
The case was anchored on theprotection of literary and
artistic creations such as books. InColumbia Pictures,
video tapes of copyrighted films were the subjectof the
copyright infringement suit.
In Habana, knowledge of the infringement is presu
med when theinfringer commits the prohibited act:
The essence of intellectual piracy should be essayed in co
nceptual termsin order to underscore its gravity by an appr
opriate understanding thereof.Infringement of a copyright i
s a trespass on a private domain owned andoccupied by the
owner of the copyright, and, therefore, protected by law,and
infringement of copyright, or piracy, which is a synonymou
s term inthis connection, consists in the doing by any perso
n, without the consent ofthe owner of the copyright, of anyt
hing the sole right to do which isconferred by statute on the
owner of the copyright.
....
A copy of a piracy is an infringement of the original, and it
is no defense that the pirate, in such cases, did not know
whether or not he was infringing any copyright; he at least
knew that what he was copying was not his, and he copied at
his peril.
....
_______________
150 Habana v. Robles, supra note 115.
151 329 Phil. 875; 261 SCRA 144 (1996) [Per J. Regalado, En
Banc].
75
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

In cases of infringement, copying alone is not what is pro
hibited. Thecopying must produce an injurious effect. Her
e, the injury consists in thatrespondent Robles lifted from p
etitioners book materials that were theresult of the latters
research work and compilation and misrepresented themas
her own. She circulated the book DEP for commercial use a
nd did notacknowledge petitioners as her source.152 (Emphas
is supplied)
Habana
and
Columbia
Pictures did not require knowledge of theinfringement
to constitute a violation of the copyright. One does not
need to know that he or she is copying a work without
consent toviolate copyright law. Notice of fact of the e
mbargo from Reuters orCNN is not material to find pr
obable cause that respondentscommitted infringement.
Knowledge of infringement is onlymaterial when the p
erson is charged of aiding and abetting acopyright infri
ngement under Section 217 of the IntellectualProperty
Code.153
We look at the purpose of copyright in relation to cri
minalprosecutions requiring willfulness:
Most importantly, in defining the contours of what it me
ans to willfullyinfringe copyright for purposes of criminal li
ability, the courts shouldremember the ultimate aim of copy
right. Copyright is not primarily aboutproviding the stronge
st possible protection for copyright
_______________
152 Habana v. Robles, supra note 115.
75
153 217.3. Any person who at the time when copyright subsists
in a work has in his possession an article which he knows, or ought to
know, to be an infringing copy of the work for the purpose of:
(a) Selling, letting for hire, or by way of trade offering or exposing
for sale, or hire, the article;
(b) Distributing the article for purpose of trade, or for any other
purpose to an extent that will prejudice the rights of the copyright
owner in the work; or
(c) Trade exhibit of the article in public, shall be guilty of an offense
and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment and fine as above
mentioned. (Sec. 29, P.D. No. 49a)
76
76

owners so that they have the highest possible incentive t

o create moreworks. The control given to copyright owners i
s only a means to an end: thepromotion of knowledge and le
arning. Achieving that underlying goal ofcopyright law also
requires access to copyrighted works and it requirespermitti
ng certain kinds of uses of copyrighted works without thepe
rmission of the copyright owner. While a particular defenda
nt may appearto be deserving of criminal sanctions, the sta
ndard for determiningwillfulness should be set with referen
ce to the larger goals of copyrightembodied in the Constituti
on and the history of copyright in this country.154
In addition, [t]he essence of intellectual piracy sho

uld beessayed in conceptual terms in order to undersco
re its gravity by anappropriate understanding thereof.
Infringement of a copyright is atrespass on a private d
omain owned and occupied by the owner ofthe copyrigh
t, and, therefore, protected by law, and infringement of
copyright, or piracy, which is a synonymous term in thi
s connection,consists in the doing by any person, witho

ut the consent of theowner of the copyright, of anythin
g the sole right to do which isconferred by statute on th
e owner of the copyright.155
Intellectual property rights, such as copyright and t
heneighboring right against rebroadcasting, establish
an artificial andlimited monopoly to reward creativity.
Without these legallyenforceable rights, creators will h
ave extreme difficulty recoveringtheir costs and captur
ing the surplus or profit of their works asreflected in t
heir markets. This, in turn, is based on the theory that
the possibility of gain due to creative work creates an i
ncentivewhich may improve efficiency or simply enhan
ce consumer welfareor utility. More creativity redound
s to the public good.
_______________
154 Lydia Pallas Loren, supra note 143 at pp. 872-873.
155 Columbia Pictures v. Court of Appeals, supra note 151 at p.
926; pp. 183-184. See also Habana v. Robles, supra note 115.
77
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

These, however, depend on the certainty of enforce
ment.Creativity, by its very nature, is vulnerable to th
e free rider problem.It is easily replicated despite the c
osts to and efforts of the originalcreator. The more usef
ul the creation is in the market, the greater thepropen
sity that it will be copied. The most creative and invent
iveindividuals are usually those who are unable to reco
ver on theircreations.
77
Arguments against strict liability presuppose that t

he Philippineshas a social, historical, and economic cli
mate similar to those ofWestern jurisdictions. As it sta
nds, there is a current need tostrengthen intellectual p
roperty protection.
Thus, unless clearly provided in the law, offenses in
volvinginfringement of copyright protections should be
considered
malum
prohibitum. It is the act of infringement, not the intent
, which causesthe damage. To require or assume the n
eed to prove intent defeatsthe purpose of intellectual p
roperty protection.
Nevertheless, proof beyond reasonable doubt is still
the standardfor criminal prosecutions under the Intell
ectual Property Code.
VIII
Respondents
argue
that
GMA7s officers and employees cannotbe held liable for infri
ngement under the Intellectual Property Codesince it
does not expressly provide direct liability of the corpor
ateofficers. They explain that (i) a corporation may
be charged andprosecuted for a crime where the penalt
y is fine or bothimprisonment and fine, and if found gu
ilty, may be fined; or (ii) acorporation may commit a c
rime but if the statute prescribes thepenalty therefore
to be suffered by the corporate officers, directors oremp
loyees or other persons, the latter shall be responsible f
or theoffense.156
_______________
156 Rollo, p. 1378.
78
78

Section 217 of the Intellectual Property Code states

that anyperson may be found guilty of infringement.
It also imposes thepenalty of both imprisonment and fi
ne:
Section 217. Criminal Penalties.217.1. Any person
infringing any right secured by provisions of Part IV of this
Act or aiding or abetting such infringement shall be guilty of
a crime punishable by:
(a) Imprisonment of one (1) year to three (3) years plus a
fine rangingfrom Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) to One hun
dred fifty thousand pesos(P150,000) for the first offense.
(b)
Imprisonment of three (3) years and one (1) day to six (6) ye
ars plusa fine ranging from One hundred fifty thousand pes
os (P150,000) to Fivehundred thousand pesos (P500,000) for
the second offense.
(c)
Imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to nine (9) yea
rs plus afine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos (P5
00,000) to One millionfive hundred thousand pesos (P1,500,
000) for the third and subsequentoffenses.
(d)
In all cases, subsidiary imprisonment in cases of insolvency.
(Emphasis supplied)
Corporations have separate and distinct personaliti

es from theirofficers or directors.157 This court has ruled
that corporate officersand/or agents may be held indiv
idually liable for a crime committedunder the Intellect
ual Property Code:158
_______________
157 See Pacific Rehouse Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

199687, March 24, 2014, 719 SCRA 665 [Per J. Reyes, First Division].
158 Republic Gas Corporation v. Petron Corporation, G.R. No.
194062, June 17, 2013, 698 SCRA 666 [Per J. Peralta, Second
Division].
79
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

Petitioners, being corporate officers and/or directors, thr
ough whose act,default or omission the corporation commits
a crime, may themselves beindividually held answerable fo
r the crime. . . . The existence of thecorporate entity does no
t shield from prosecution the corporate agent whoknowingly
and intentionally caused the corporation to commit a crime
.Thus, petitioners cannot hide behind the cloak of the separ
ate corporatepersonality of the corporation to escape crimin
al liability. A corporateofficer cannot protect himself behind
a corporation where he is the actual,present and efficient a
ctor.159
ability. Benefit is not an operative fact.160 (Emphasis supplie

d)
An accuseds participation in criminal acts involving

violationsof intellectual property rights is the subject o
79 f allegation and proof.The showing that the accused di
d the acts or contributed in ameaningful way in the co
mmission of the infringements is certainlydifferent fro
m the argument of lack of intent or good faith. Activep
articipation requires a showing of
_______________
159 Id., at pp. 681-682.
160 Ching v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 164317, February 6,
2006, 481 SCRA 609, 636-637 [Per J. Callejo, Sr., First Division].
80
80
However, the criminal liability of a corporations offi
cers oremployees stems from their active participation
in the commissionof the wrongful act:
The principle applies whether or not the crime requires t
he consciousnessof wrongdoing. It applies to those corporate
agents who themselves committhe crime and to those, who,
by virtue of their managerial positions or othersimilar relat
ion to the corporation, could be deemed responsible for itsco
mmission, if by virtue of their relationship to the corporation,
they had the power to prevent the act. Moreover, all parties
active in promoting a crime, whether agents or not, are
principals. Whether such officers oremployees are benefited
by their delictual acts is not a touchstone of theircriminal li

overt physical acts or intention to commit such acts.

Intent orgood faith, on the other hand, are inferences f
rom acts proven tohave been or not been committed.
We find that the Department of Justice committed g
rave abuse ofdiscretion when it resolved to file the Info
rmation againstrespondents despite lack of proof of the
ir actual participation in thealleged crime.
Ordering the inclusion of respondents Gozon, GMA7
President;Duavit,
Jr.,
Executive
Vice
President;
Flores,
Vice
President forNews and Public Affairs; and Soho, Direct
or for News, asrespondents, Secretary Agra overturned
the City Prosecutorsfinding that only respondents Del
a
PeaReyes and Manalastas areresponsible for the crime ch
arged due to their duties.161 The AgraResolution reads:
ctive participation in the commissionof the crime charg

ed:
This Office, however, does not subscribe to the view that
respondentsAtty. Felipe Gozon, Gilberto Duavit, Marissa Fl
ores and Jessica Sohoshould be held liable for the said offen
se. Complainant failed to present clear and convincing
evidence that the said respondents conspired with Reyes and
Manalastas. No evidence was adduced to prove that these
respondents had an active participation in the actual
commission of the copyright infringement or they exercised
their moral ascendancy over Reyes and Manalastas in airing
the
said
footage. It must be stressed that,conspiracy must be establis
hed by positive and conclusive evidence. It mustbe shown to
exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of theof
fense itself.163 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Thus, from the very nature of the offense and the penalt
y
involved,
it
isnecessary
that
GMA7s directors, officers, employees or other officersthereof res
ponsible for the offense shall be charged and penalized forvi
olation of the Sections 177 and 211 of Republic Act No. 8293
. In theircomplaint for libel, respondents Felipe L.
Gozon, Gilberto R. Duavit, Jr.,Marissa L. Flores, Jessica A.
Soho,
Grace
Dela
PeaReyes, John Oliver T.Manalastas felt they were aggrieved b
ecause they were in charge of themanagement, operations
and production of news and public affairsprograms of the ne
twork
(GMA7). This is clearly an admission onrespondents part. Of cour
se, respondents may argue they have no intentionto infring
e
the
copyright
of
ABSCBN; that they acted in good faith; andthat they did not dir
ectly cause the airing of the subject footage, but againthis is
preliminary investigation and what is required is simply pr
obablecause. Besides, these contentions can best be address
ed in the course oftrial.162 (Citation omitted)
The City Prosecutor found respondents Dela PeaReyes andManalastas liable due to the nature of their
work andresponsibilities. He found that:
_______________
161 Rollo, pp. 573-575.
162 Id., at pp. 574-575.
81
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

In contrast, the Office of the City Prosecutor, in the
Resolutiondated December 3, 2004, found that respond
ents Gozon, Duavit, Jr.,Flores, and Soho did not have a
81
[t]his Office however finds respondents Grace Dela PeaReyes and JohnOliver T. Manalastas liable for copyright inf
ringement penalized underRepublic Act No. 8293. It is undi
sputed
that
complainant
ABSCBN holdsthe exclusive ownership and copyright over the
Angelo [d]ela Cruz newsfootage. Hence, any airing and
rebroadcast of the said footage without anyconsent and aut
hority
from
ABSCBN will be held as an infringement andviolation of the int
ellectual property rights of the latter. Respondents Grace
Dela Pea-Reyes as the Head of the News Operation and John
Oliver T. Manalastas as the Program Manager cannot escape
liability since the news control room was under their direct
control and supervision. Clearly, they must have been aware

that the said
_______________
163 Id., at p. 231.
82
82

footage coming from Reuters or CNN has a No Access

Philippines advisory or embargo thus cannot be rebroadcast.
We find no merit to the defense of ignorance interposed by the
respondents. It is simply contrary to human experience and
logic that experienced employees of an established
broadcasting network would be remiss in their duty in
ascertaining
if
the
said
footage
has
an
164
embargo. (Emphasis supplied)
We agree with the findings as to respondents Dela P

eaReyesand Manalastas. Both respondents committed ac
ts
that
promotedinfringement
of
ABSCBNs footage. We note that embargoes arecommon oc
currences in and between news agencies and/orbroadca
st organizations.165 Under its Operations Guide, Reuter
s hastwo (2) types of embargoes: transmission embargo
and publicationembargo.166 Under ABS_______________
164 Id.
165 A news embargo is defined as an agreement between the
source and the media organization: The latter is provided with news
that ought not to be published until a certain date. See Sonja Gruber,
News Embargoes Under threat, but not extinct, Reuters Institute
for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford, p. 6 and 46-47
(2014),
available
at
<https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/
sites/default/files/News%20Embargoes%20%20Under%20threat,%20
but%20not%20extinct%20%20How%20an%20ancient%20press%20
tool%20survives%20in%20the%20modern%20media%20world.pdf>
(last accessed on 20 February 2015).
166 See Reuters, Handbook of Journalism, A Guide to Reuters
Operations,
available
at:
<http://handbook.reuters.com/?title=Corrections,
_Refiles,_Kills,_Repeats_and_Embargoes> (last accessed on 20
February 2015).
According to Reuters: A TRANSMISSION
EMBARGO restricts publication to all clients until a time specified. A
PUBLICATION EMBARGO transmits the story immediately to
MEDIA CLIENTS ONLY with restrictions to prevent them publishing
or broadcasting the story until a time specified. The story is then
issued to desktop clients (Eikon, etc.) at the embargo time using the
Lynx Editor embargo function. However, in the age of real time news
websites and social media, Reuters no longer uses PUBLICATION
embargoes. ALL embargoes are now TRANSMISSION embargoes.
83
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

CBNs service contract with Reuters, Reuters will e
mbargo
anycontent
contributed
by
ABSCBN from other broadcast subscriberswithin the same
geographical location:
4a. Contributed Content
You agree to supply us at our request with news and spo
rts
news
storiesbroadcast
on
the
Client
Service of up to three (3) minutes each for use in ourService
s on a nonexclusive basis and at a cost of US$300.00 (Three
Hundred United States Dollars) per story. In respect of such
items we agree to embargo them against use by other
broadcast subscribers in the Territory and confirm we will
83
observe all other conditions of usage regarding Contributed

Content, as specified in Section 2.5 of the Reuters Business
Principles
for
Television
Services. For the purposes of clarification, anygeographical
restriction imposed by you on your use of Contributed Conte
ntwill not prevent us or our clients from including such Con
tributed Contentin online transmission services including t
he internet. We acknowledgeContributed Content is your co
pyright and we will not acquire anyintellectual property rig
hts in the Contributed Content.167 (Emphasissupplied)
Respondents
Dela
PeaReyes and Manalastas merely deniedreceiving the advi
sory sent by Reuters to its clients, including GMA7. As in the records, the advisory reads:
ADVISORY - - +++LIVE COVER PLANS+++
PHILIPPINES: HOSTAGE RETURN
**ATTENTION ALL CLIENTS**
PLEASE BE ADVISED OF THE FOLLOWING LIVE C
OVERPLANNED FOR THURSDAY, JULY 22:
....
SOURCE: ABS-CBN
_______________
167 Rollo, p. 117.
84
84

TV AND WEB RESTRICTIONS: NO ACCESS PHILIPP

INES.168
There is probable cause that respondents Dela PeaReyes andManalastas directly committed copyright inf
ringement
of
ABSCBNs news footage to warrant piercing of the corporat
e veil. Theyare responsible in airing the embargoed An
gelo dela Cruz footage.They could have prevented the a
ct of infringement had they beendiligent in their functi
ons as Head of News Operations and ProgramManager.
Secretary Agra, however, committed grave abuse of
discretionwhen he ordered the filing of the Information
against all respondentsdespite the erroneous piercing
of the corporate veil. RespondentsGozon, Duavit, Jr., F
lores, and Soho cannot be held liable for thecriminal li
ability of the corporation.
Mere membership in the Board or being President p
er
se does notmean knowledge, approval, and participatio
n in the act alleged ascriminal. There must be a showi
ng of active participation, notsimply a constructive one.
Under principles of criminal law, the principals of a
crime arethose who take a direct part in the execution
of the act; [t]hose whodirectly force or induce others to
commit it; [or] [t]hose whocooperate in the commission
of the offense by another act withoutwhich it would no
t have been accomplished.169 There is conspiracywhen
two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
thecommission of a felony and decide to commit it:170
Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the physical acts const
ituting the crimeitself, the elements of conspiracy must be p
roven beyond reasonable doubt.While conspiracy need not b
e established by direct evidence, for it may
_______________
168 Id., at p. 134.
169 Rev. Pen. Code, Art. 17.
170 People v. Ballesta, 588 Phil. 87; 566 SCRA 400 (2008). See Rev.
Pen. Code, Art. 8.
85
VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, durin
g and after thecommission of the crime, all taken together,
however, the evidence must bestrong enough to show the co
mmunity of criminal design. For conspiracy toexist, it is ess
ential that there must be a conscious design to commit anoff
ense. Conspiracy is the product of intentionality on the part
of thecohorts.
It is necessary that a conspirator should have performed
some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution to the
execution of the crime committed. The overt act may consist
of active participation in the actual commission of the crime
itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his coconspirators by being present at the commission of the crime
or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other coconspirators[.]171 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
In sum, the trial court erred in failing to resume the

proceedingsafter the designated period. The Court of A
ppeals erred when it heldthat Secretary Agra committ
ed errors of jurisdiction despite its ownpronouncement
that
ABSCBN is the owner of the copyright on thenews footage.
News should be differentiated from expression of thene
ws, particularly when the issue involves rebroadcast of
newsfootage. The Court of Appeals also erroneously he
ld
that
good
faith,as
well as lack of knowledge of infringement, is a defense
againstcriminal prosecution for copyright and
neighboring rightsinfringement. In its current form, th
e
Intellectual
Property
Code
ismalum
prohibitum and prescribes a strict liability for copyrigh
85 tinfringement. Good faith, lack of knowledge of the cop
yright, orlack of intent to infringe is not a defense agai
nst copyrightinfringement. Copyright, however, is subj
ect to the rules of fair useand will be judged on a casetocase basis. Finding probable causeincludes a determin
ation of the defendants active participation,particularl
y when the corporate
_______________
171 Bahilidad v. People, 629 Phil. 567, 575; 615 SCRA 597, 606
(2010) [Per J.Nachura, Third Division].
86
86

veil is pierced in cases involving a corporations cri

minalliability.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is partially GRANTE
D. TheDepartment of Justice Resolution dated June 29
, 2010 ordering thefiling of the Information is hereby R
EINSTATED as to respondentsGrace Dela PeaReyes and John Oliver T. Manalastas. Branch 93of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City is directed to cont
inuewith the proceedings in Criminal Case No. Q-04131533.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio
(Chairperson),
Brion,
Del
Castillo and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Petition partially granted.
Notes.Petitioners complaint, which seeks the
cancellation of the disputed mark in the name of
respondent Sehwani, Incorporated, and damages for
violation of petitioners intellectual property rights,
falls within the jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property
Office (IPO) Director of Legal Affairs. (In-N-Out Burger,
Inc. vs. Sehwani, Incorporated, 575 SCRA 535 [2008])
Sections 160 and 170 also found under Part III of the
Intellectual Property Code, recognize the concurrent
jurisdiction of civil courts and the Intellectual Property
Office (IPO) over unfair competition cases. (Id.)
o0o

ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Gozon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Gozon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Gozon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASES REPORTED

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

suspension of the accuseds arraignment in certain circ

prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice, or

VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

and (i) where the issue raised is onepurely of law or where

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ceipt of the resolution on appeal, furnishing the advers

proceeding to determine whether there is probable cause.

VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

Same; Same; News as expressed in a video footage is

ighted work: a. Thepurpose and character of the use, includi

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Same; Same; Infringement under the Intellectual

VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

ment (Section 155 in relation toSection 170); Unfair Compet

consent of the owner of the copyright, of anything the sole

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

defining the contours of what it means to willfully infri

Same; Same; Liability of Corporate Officers; The

VOL. 753, MARCH 11, 2015

r good faith, on the other hand, are inferencesfrom acts prov

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED