20

th
Century Fox Film Corporation v CA, Eduardo Barreto (owner of Junction Video, etc), Raul Sagullo (owner
of South Video Bug Center, etc.), and Fortune Ledesma (owner of Sonix Video Services in Forbes Park)
Aug. 19, 1988
Gutierrrez, Jr. J,
Topic: Copyright and Related Rights; Law on Copyright; Infringement

SV: Fox asked for NBIs help in the conduct of searches and seizures. It alleged that certain videotape outlets were engaged in
the unauthorized sale and renting out of copyrighted films in videotape form which violated PD 49. They filed for applications
for search warrants against the respondents. RTC issued the search warrants, which allowed NBI to raid the outlets and seize
several of respondents items. Subsequently, the RTC issued an order lifting the search warrants and ordered the release of the
properties.
Court held that the RTC order was correct. In this case, the master tapes of the copyrighted films werent presented during the
application for the search warrants. The presentation of such master tapes was necessary for the validity of search warrants
against those who have in their possession the pirated films. The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least
substantial similarity of the purported pirated works to the copyrighted work. The applicant must present to the court the
copyrighted films to compare them with the purchased evidence of the video tapes allegedly pirated to determine whether the
latter is an unauthorized reproduction of the former. This linkage of the copyrighted films to the pirated films must be
established to satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Mere allegations as to the existence of the copyrighted films cannot
serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant.

FACTS:
- The 20
th
Century Fox Film Corp (Fox) sought the NBIs assistance in the conduct of searches and seizures in
connection with the latters anti-film piracy campaign.
The letter alleged that certain videotape outlets all over Metro Manila engaged in the unauthorized
sale and renting out of copyrighted films in videotape form which constitute a flagrant violation of PD
49
NBI conducted surveillance and investigation of the outlets pinpointed by Fox and filed 3
applications for search warrants against the video outlets owned by respondents.
- After the RTC judge issued the search warrants, the NBI, accompanied by Foxs agents, raided the outlets
and seized the items described therein.
Respondents filed a motion to lift search warrants and release seized properties.

- [RTC] then issued an order lifting the search warrants and directing the NBI to return seized items to their
owners on the ground that it granted the search warrants based on the misrepresentations that infringement
of a copyright or piracy of a particular film have been committed. Foxs MR was denied.
ISSUE: Did the lower court judge properly lift the warrants he issued earlier? (YES)
- The main issue hinges on the meaning of probable cause within the context of the consti provision
1
against
illegal searches and seizures.
[Burgos v Chief of Staff] Probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead
a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the
objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.

1
Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

o In this case, although the witnesses stated that they testified of their own personal
knowledge in the application for the 3 search warrants, their own statements
2
belie such
assertions.
o The master tapes or at least the film reels of the allegedly pirated tapes werent shown to the
court during the application. This casts doubt on Reyes testimony that the master tapes of
the allegedly pirated tapes were shown to him and he made comparisons of the tapes with
those purchased by Bacani.
**relevant portion**
- The presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the pirated films were allegedly
copied, was necessary for the validity of search warrants against those who have in their possession the
pirated films.
The petitioner's argument to the effect that the presentation of the master tapes at the time of
application may not be necessary as these would be merely evidentiary in nature and not
determinative of whether or not a probable cause exists to justify the issuance of the search warrants
is not meritorious.
The court cannot presume that duplicate or copied tapes were necessarily reproduced from master
tapes that it owns.
- The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at least substantial similarity of the purported
pirated works to the copyrighted work.
The applicant must present to the court the copyrighted films to compare them with the purchased
evidence of the video tapes allegedly pirated to determine whether the latter is an unauthorized
reproduction of the former.
This linkage of the copyrighted films to the pirated films must be established to satisfy the
requirements of probable cause. Mere allegations as to the existence of the copyrighted films cannot
serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant.
**end of relevant portion**
- Further, the search warrants were in the nature of general warrants
3
. Hence, it resulted in the confiscation
of all items found in any video store.
The search party should have confined themselves to articles that are according to them, evidence
constitutive of infringement of copyright laws or the piracy of intellectual property, and no other.
- There is no grave abuse of discretion on the lower court when it issued and lifted the search warrants.
- Although Courts should not impose any unnecessary roadblocks in the way of the anti-film piracy campaign,
the campaign cannot ignore or violate constitutional safeguards. By promoting the use of unconstitutional
shortcuts to achieve anti-piracy is to denigrate the long history and experience behind the searches and
seizures clause of the Bill of Rights.
Petition DISMISSED.

2
Atty Albino Reyes of NBI stated that the counsel or representative of Fox will testify on the video casettes that were pirated; this shows that
he did not have personal knowledge. Bacani also said that the casettes were pirated without stating the manner it was pirated and that it was
the counsel of Fox that has knowledge of the fact. Atty Domingo (counsel of Fox) said that the re-taping of the allegedly pirated tapes was from
master tapes allegedly belonging to Fox, because, according to him, it is of his personal knowledge.
3
Ex. c) Television sets, Video Cassettes Recorders, rewinders, tape head cleaners, accessories, equipments and other machines used or
intended to be used in the unlawful reproduction, sale, rental/lease distribution of the above-mentioned video tapes which she is keeping and
concealing in the premises above-described."