MICROSOFT CORPORATION and LOTUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs.

MAXICORP, INC.
FACTS:
NBI Agent Samiano fled several applications for search warrants in the RTC against
Maxicorp for alleged violation of Section ! of "# $! and Article %&! of the R"C.
After cond'cting a preliminar( examination of the applicant and his witnesses)
*'dge Ba(hon iss'ed Search +arrants all dated , *'l( %!!-) against Maxicorp.
NBI agents cond'cted on , *'l( %!!- a search of Maxicorps premises and sei.ed
propert( ftting the description stated in the search warrants.
Maxicorp fled a motion to /'ash the search warrants alleging that there was no
pro0a0le ca'se for their iss'ance and that the warrants are in the form of general
warrants.
RTC denied Maxicorps motion on *an'ar( %!!1. The RTC also denied Maxicorps MR.
RTC fo'nd pro0a0le ca'se to iss'e the search warrants after examining NBI Agent
and his witnesses. The( testifed on what the( discovered d'ring their respective
visits to Maxicorp. NBI Agent Samiano also presented certifcations from petitioners
that the( have not a'thori.ed Maxicorp to perform the witnessed activities 'sing
petitioners2 prod'cts.
Maxicorp fled a petition for certiorari with CA see3ing to set aside the RTCs order.
CA reversed the RTCs order den(ing Maxicorps motion to /'ash the search
warrants. "etitioners moved for reconsideration. CA denied MR holding that NBI
Agent Samiano failed to present d'ring the preliminar( examination concl'sive
evidence that Maxicorp prod'ced or sold the co'nterfeit prod'cts. CA pointed o't
that the sales receipt NBI Agent Samiano presented evidencing he 0o'ght the
prod'cts from Maxicorp was in the name of a certain *oel #ia..
ISSUE/S:
+hether or not there was pro0a0le ca'se to iss'e the search warrants4
HELD:
56S7
RATIO:
"ro0a0le ca'se for a search warrant re/'ires s'ch facts and circ'mstances that
wo'ld lead a reasona0l( pr'dent man to 0elieve that an o8ense has 0een
committed and the o09ects so'ght in connection with that o8ense are in the place
to 0e searched.
The 9'dge determining pro0a0le ca'se m'st do so onl( after personall( examining
'nder oath the complainant and his witnesses. The oath re/'ired m'st refer to the
tr'th of the facts within the persona !no"ed#e of the petitioner or his witnesses)
0eca'se the p'rpose is to convince the committing magistrate) not the individ'al
ma3ing the a:davit and see3ing the iss'ance of the warrant) of the existence of
pro0a0le ca'se. The applicant m'st have personal 3nowledge of the circ'mstances.
Relia0le information is ins':cient. Mere a:davits are not eno'gh) and the 9'dge
m'st depose in writing the complainant and his witnesses.
CA on reversing RTC2s order was 0ased on the fact that d'ring the preliminar(
examination) the two witnesses failed to prove concl'sivel( that the( 0o'ght
co'nterfeit software from Maxicorp. CA r'led that this amo'nted to a fail're to
prove the existence of a connection 0etween the o8ense charged and the place
searched.
The o8ense charged against Maxicorp is cop(right infringement 'nder Section ! of
"# $! and 'nfair competition 'nder Article %&! of the R"C. To s'pport these
charges) petitioners presented the testimonies of NBI Agent Samiano) comp'ter
technician "ante) and Sacri.) a civilian. The o8enses that petitioners charged
Maxicorp contemplate several overt acts) one is the sale of co'nterfeit prod'cts.
Both NBI Agent Samiano and Sacri. related to the RTC how the( personall( saw
Maxicorp commit acts of infringement and 'nfair competition.
The testimonies of the two witnesses) co'pled with the o09ect and doc'mentar(
evidence the( presented) are s':cient to esta0lish the existence of pro0a0le ca'se.
;rom what the( have witnessed) there is reason to 0elieve that Maxicorp engaged in
cop(right infringement and 'nfair competition to the pre9'dice of petitioners. Both
NBI Agent Samiano and Sacri. were clear and insistent that the co'nterfeit software
were not onl( displa(ed and sold within Maxicorps premises) the( were also
prod'ced) pac3aged and in some cases) installed there.
"ro0a0le ca'se is determined in the light of conditions o0taining in a given
sit'ation.It was improper for the CA to reverse the RTCs fndings simpl( 0eca'se the
sales receipt evidencing NBI Agent Samiano2s p'rchase of co'nterfeit goods is not
in his name.
There was a comparison 0etween petitioners gen'ine software and Maxicorps
software pre<installed in the comp'ter 'nit that NBI Agent Sam0iano p'rchased.

6ven if we disregard the sales receipt iss'ed in the name of *oel #ia.) which
petitioners explained was the alias NBI Agent Samiano 'sed in the operation) there
still remains more than s':cient evidence to esta0lish pro0a0le ca'se for the
iss'ance of the search warrants.
"ro0a0le ca'se is dependent largel( on the opinion and fndings of the 9'dge who
cond'cted the examination and who had the opport'nit( to /'estion the applicant
and his witnesses. ;or this reason) the fndings of the 9'dge deserve great weight.
The reviewing co'rt sho'ld overt'rn s'ch fndings onl( 'pon proof that the 9'dge
disregarded the facts 0efore him or ignored the clear dictates of reason. Nothing in
the records of the preliminar( examination proceedings reveal an( impropriet( on
the part of the 9'dge in this case. The 9'dge examined thoro'ghl( the applicant and
his witnesses. To demand a higher degree of proof is 'nnecessar( and 'ntimel(.