Crim Pro Uniliver

35. UNILEVER Phils. V Tan respondent’s actual and direct participation in the offense charged.
While
GR No. 179367 Jan. 29, 2014 the Certificate of Registration of Probest International Trading shows that a
certain "Paul D. Tan" is the registered owner and proprietor of the office,
FACTS: there is no showing that he is also the registered owner of the warehouse
On January 17, 2002, agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) where the alleged counterfeit Unilever shampoo products were found.
applied for the issuance of search warrants for the search of a warehouse There is also no evidence to support the claim that the respondent was
located on Camia Street, Marikina City, and of an office located on the 3rd engaged in the sale of counterfeit products other than the self-serving claim
floor of Probest International Trading Building, Katipunan Street, of the petitioner’s representatives. Lastly, the State Prosecutor found that
Concepcion, Marikina City, allegedly owned by Michael Tan a.k.a. Paul D. the pieces of evidence adduced against the respondent, e.g. alleged
Tan (respondent). The application alleged that the respondent had in his counterfeit Unilever shampoo products, by themselves, are not sufficient to
possession counterfeit shampoo products which were being sold, retailed, support a finding of probable cause that he is engaged in unfair
distributed, dealt with or intended to be disposed of, in violation of Section competition.
168, in relation with Section 170, of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8293, otherwise The CA, in a decision dated June 18, 2007, dismissed the petition on the
known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. ground that the petitioner failed to establish facts and circumstances that
On the same date, Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court would constitute acts of unfair competition under R.A. No. 8293. The CA
of Manila, Branch 1, granted the application and issued search warrants. took into account the insufficiency of evidence that would link the
Armed with the search warrants, the NBI searched the premises and, in the respondent to the offense charged. It also ruled that the Acting Secretary of
course of the search, seized counterfeit items. Justice did not gravely abuse her discretion when she affirmed the State
The NBI thereafter filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) a complaint Prosecutor’s resolution dismissing the petitioner’s complaint for
against the respondent for violation of R.A. No. 8293, specifically Section insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause. Hence this petition.
168 (unfair competition), in relation with Section 170, docketed as I.S. No.
2002-667. ISSUE: WoN the CA committed an error in upholding the DOJ decision
In his counter-affidavit, the respondent claimed that he is "Paul D. Tan," and dismissing the information against the respondent
not "Michael Tan" as alluded in the complaint; he is engaged in the business
of selling leather goods and raw materials for making leather products, and HELD: YES.
he conducts his business under the name "Probest International Trading," The determination of probable cause for purposes of filing of information in
registered with the Department of Trade and Industry; he is not engaged in court is essentially an executive function that is lodged, at the first instance,
the sale of counterfeit Unilever shampoo products; the sachets of Unilever with the public prosecutor and, ultimately, to the Secretary of Justice. The
shampoos seized from his office in Probest International Trading Building prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice have wide latitude of discretion in
are genuine shampoo products which they use for personal consumption; the conduct of preliminary investigation; and their findings with respect to
he does not own and does not operate the warehouse located on Camia the existence or non-existence of probable cause are generally not subject
Street, Marikina City, where a substantial number of alleged counterfeit to review by the Court.
Unilever shampoo products were found; and he did not violate R.A. No. Consistent with this rule, the settled policy of non-interference in the
8293 because there is no prima facie evidence that he committed the prosecutor’s exercise of discretion requires the courts to leave to the
offense charged. prosecutor and to the DOJ the determination of what constitutes sufficient
The DOJ, through the state prosecutor, dismissed the complaint on the evidence to establish probable cause. Courts can neither override their
ground of insufficiency of evidence for the petitioner failed to show the determination nor substitute their own judgment for that of the latter. They
cannot likewise order the prosecution of the accused when the prosecutor
has not found a prima facie case.
Nevertheless, this policy of non-interference is not without exception. The
Constitution itself allows (and even directs) court action where executive
discretion has been gravely abused. In other words, the court may intervene
in the executive determination of probable cause, review the findings and
conclusions, and ultimately resolve the existence or non-existence of
probable cause by examining the records of the preliminary investigation
when necessary for the orderly administration of justice.
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and
circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the
facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was
guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. xxx The term does not
mean "actual or positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is
merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable
cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence
to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or
omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a
trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the
charge.
Guided by this ruling, the Court finds that the CA gravely erred in sustaining
the Acting Secretary of Justice’s finding that there was no probable cause to
indict the respondent for unfair competition. The dismissal of the complaint,
despite ample evidence to support a finding of probable cause, clearly
constitutes grave error that warrants judicial intervention and correction.

Crim Pro Uniliver

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim Pro Uniliver

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Crim Pro Uniliver

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

35. UNILEVER Phils. V Tan respondent’s actual and direct participation in the offense charged.

You might also like