You are on page 1of 11

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 108946 January 28, 1999 FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN, JR., and BJ PRO UC!IONS, INC., petitioners, vs. "ONORAB#$ FRAN%#IN RI#ON, GABRI$# &OSA, 'I##IA( $SPOSO, F$#IP$ ($ INA, JR., and CAS$) FRANCISCO, respondents.

($N O&A, J.: This is a petition for certiorari. Petitioners seek to annul the resolution of the Department of Justice, dated August 12, 1992, in Criminal Case o. !"92"2#$%&, entitled '(a)riel *osa, et al. v. Cit+ Prosecutor of !ue,on Cit+ and -rancisco Joa.uin, Jr.,' and its resolution, dated Decem)er /, 1992, den+ing petitioner Joa.uin0s motion for reconsideration. Petitioner 1J Productions, 2nc. 31JP24 is the holder5grantee of Certificate of Cop+right o. 6922, dated Januar+ 2$, 19#1, of Rhoda and Me, a dating game sho7 aired from 19#8 to 19##. 9n June 2$, 19#/, petitioner 1JP2 su)mitted to the ational :i)rar+ an addendum to its certificate of cop+right specif+ing the sho70s format and st+le of presentation. 9n Jul+ 1&, 1991, 7hile 7atching television, petitioner -rancisco Joa.uin, Jr., president of 1JP2, sa7 on ;P Channel 9 an episode of It's a Date, 7hich 7as produced )+ 2<: Productions, 2nc. 32<:4. 9n Jul+ 1$, 1991, he 7rote a letter to private respondent (a)riel 6. *osa, president and general manager of 2<:, informing *osa that 1JP2 had a cop+right to Rhoda and Me and demanding that 2<: discontinue airing It's a Date. 2n a letter, dated Jul+ 19, 1991, private respondent *osa apologi,ed to petitioner Joa.uin and re.uested a meeting to discuss a possi)le settlement. 2<:, ho7ever, continued airing 2t0s a Date, prompting petitioner Joa.uin to send a second letter on Jul+ 2%, 1991 in 7hich he reiterated his demand and 7arned that, if 2<: did not compl+, he 7ould endorse the matter to his attorne+s for proper legal action.

6ean7hile, private respondent *osa sought to register 2<:0s cop+right to the first episode of 2t0s a Date for 7hich it 7as issued )+ the ational :i)rar+ a certificate of cop+right August 1&, 1991. =pon complaint of petitioners, an information for violation of P.D. o. &9 7as filed against private respondent *osa together 7ith certain officers of ;P Channel 9, namel+, >illiam ?sposo, -elipe 6edina, and Case+ -rancisco, in the ;egional Trial Court of !ue,on Cit+ 7here it 7as docketed as Criminal Case o. 92"2#$%& and assigned to 1ranch 18& thereof. @o7ever, private respondent *osa sought a revie7 of the resolution of the Assistant Cit+ Prosecutor )efore the Department of Justice. 9n August 12, 1992, respondent Aecretar+ of Justice -ranklin 6. Drilon reversed the Assistant Cit+ Prosecutor0s findings and directed him to move for the dismissal of the case against private respondents. 1

Petitioner Joa.uin filed a motion for reconsideration, )ut his motion denied )+ respondent Aecretar+ of Justice on Decem)er /, 1992. @ence, this petition. Petitioners contend thatB 1. The pu)lic respondent gravel+ a)used his discretion amounting to lack of Curisdiction D 7hen he invoked non"presentation of the master tape as )eing fatal to the eEistence of pro)a)le cause to prove infringement, despite the fact that private respondents never raised the same as a controverted issue. 2. The pu)lic respondent gravel+ a)used his discretion amounting to lack of Curisdiction 7hen he arrogated unto himself the determination of 7hat is cop+righta)le D an issue 7hich is eEclusivel+ 7ithin the Curisdiction of the regional trial court to assess in a proper proceeding. 1oth pu)lic and private respondents maintain that petitioners failed to esta)lish the eEistence of pro)a)le cause due to their failure to present the cop+righted master videotape of Rhoda and Me. The+ contend that petitioner 1JP20s cop+right covers onl+ a specific episode of Rhoda and Me and that the formats or concepts of dating game sho7s are not covered )+ cop+right protection under P.D. o. &9. on"Assignment of ?rror.

Petitioners claim that their failure to su)mit the cop+righted master videotape of the television sho7 ;hoda and 6e 7as not raised in issue )+ private respondents during the preliminar+ investigation and, therefore, it 7as error for the Aecretar+ of Justice to reverse the investigating prosecutor0s finding of pro)a)le cause on this ground. A preliminar+ investigation falls under the authorit+ of the state prosecutor 7ho is given )+ la7 the po7er to direct and control criminal actions. 2 @e is, ho7ever, su)Cect to the control of the Aecretar+ of Justice. Thus, ;ule 112, F& of the ;evised ;ules of Criminal
Procedure, providesB Aec. &. Duty of investigating fiscal. D 2f the investigating fiscal finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution and corresponding information. @e shall certif+ under oath that he, or as sho7n )+ the record, an authori,ed officer, has personall+ eEamined the complainant and his 7itnesses, that there is reasona)le ground to )elieve that a crime has )een committed and that the accused is pro)a)l+ guilt+ thereof, that the accused 7as informed of the complaint and of the evidence su)mitted against him and that he 7as given an opportunit+ to su)mit controverting evidence. 9ther7ise, he shall recommend dismissal of the complaint. 2n either case, he shall for7ard the records of the case to the provincial or cit+ fiscal or chief state prosecutor 7ithin five 3%4 da+s from his resolution. The latter shall take appropriate action thereon ten 3184 da+s from receipt thereof, immediatel+ informing the parties of said action. o complaint or information ma+ )e filed or dismissed )+ an investigating fiscal 7ithout the prior 7ritten authorit+ or approval of the provincial or cit+ fiscal or chief state prosecutor. >here the investigating assistant fiscal recommends the dismissal of the case )ut his findings are reversed )+ the provincial or cit+ fiscal or chief state prosecutor on the ground that a pro)a)le cause eEists, the latter ma+, )+ himself, file the corresponding information against the respondent or direct an+ other assistant fiscal or state prosecutor to do so, 7ithout conducting another preliminar+ investigation. 2f upon petition )+ a proper part+, the Aecretar+ of Justice reverses the resolution of the provincial or cit+ fiscal or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the fiscal concerned to file the corresponding information 7ithout conducting another preliminar+ investigation or to dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or information. 2n revie7ing resolutions of prosecutors, the Aecretar+ of Justice is not precluded from considering errors, although unassigned, for the purpose of determining 7hether there is pro)a)le cause for filing cases in court. @e must make his o7n finding, of pro)a)le cause and is not confined to the issues raised )+ the parties during preliminar+ investigation. 6oreover, his findings are not su)Cect to revie7 unless sho7n to have )een made 7ith grave a)use. 9pinion of the Aecretar+ of Justice Petitioners contend, ho7ever, that the determination of the .uestion 7hether the format or mechanics of a sho7 is entitled to cop+right protection is for the court, and not the Aecretar+ of Justice, to make. The+ assail the follo7ing portion of the resolution of the respondent Aecretar+ of JusticeB GTHhe essence of cop+right infringement is the cop+ing, in 7hole or in part, of cop+righta)le materials as defined and enumerated in Aection 2 of PD. o. &9. Apart from the manner in which it is actually expressed, however, the idea of a dating game show is, in the opinion of this Office, a non-copyrighta le material! Ideas, concepts, formats, or schemes in their a stract form clearly do not fall within the class of wor"s or materials suscepti le of copyright registration as provided in #D! $o! %& .

3?mphasis

added.4 2t is indeed true that the .uestion 7hether the format or mechanics of petitioners television sho7 is entitled to

cop+right protection is a legal .uestion for the court to make. This does not, ho7ever, preclude respondent Aecretar+ of Justice from making a preliminar+ determination of this .uestion in resolving 7hether there is pro)a)le cause for filing the case in court. 2n doing so in this case, he did not commit an+ grave error. Presentation of 6aster Tape Petitioners claim that respondent Aecretar+ of Justice gravel+ a)used his discretion in ruling that the master videotape should have )een predented in order to determine 7hether there 7as pro)a)le cause for cop+right infringement. The+ contend that '(th )entury *ox *ilm )orporation v! )ourt of Appeals, 4 on 7hich respondent Aecretar+
of Justice relied in reversing the resolution of the investigating prosecutor, is inapplica)le to the case at )ar )ecause in the present case, the parties presented sufficient evidence 7hich clearl+ esta)lish 'linkage )et7een the cop+right sho7 ';hoda and 6e' and the infringing TI sho7 '2t0s a Date.' + The case of 28th Centur+ -oE -ilm Corporation involved raids conducted on various videotape outlets allegedll+ selling or renting out 'pirated' videotapes. The trial court found that the affidavits of 12 agents, given in support of the application for the search 7arrant, 7ere insufficient 7ithout the master tape. Accordingl+, the trial court lifted the search 7arrants it had previousl+ issued against the defendants. 9n petition for revie7, this Court sustained the action of the trial court and ruledB 6 The presentation of the master tapes of the cop+righted films from 7hich the pirated films 7ere allegedl+ copied, 7as necessar+ for the validit+ of search 7arrants against those 7ho have in their possession the pirated films. The petitioner0s argument to the effect that the presentation of the master tapes at the time of application ma+ not )e necessar+ as these 7ould )e merel+ evidentiar+ in nature and not determinative of 7hether or not a pro)a)le cause eEists to Custif+ the issuance of the search 7arrants is not

meritorious. The court cannot presume that duplicate or copied tapes 7ere necessaril+ reproduced from master tapes that it o7ns. The application for search 7arrants 7as directed against video tape outlets 7hich allegedl+ 7ere engaged in the unauthori,ed sale and renting out of cop+righted films )elonging to the petitioner pursuant to P.D. &9. The essence of a cop+right infringement is the similarit+ or at least su)stantial similarit+ of the purported pirated 7orks to the cop+righted 7ork. @ence, the applicant must present to the court the cop+righted films to compare them 7ith the purchased evidence of the video tapes allegedl+ pirated to determine 7hether the latter is an unauthori,ed reproduction of the former. This linkage of the cop+righted films to the pirated films must )e esta)lished to satisf+ the re.uirements of pro)a)le cause. 6ere allegations as to the eEistence of the cop+righted films cannot serve as )asis for the issuance of a search 7arrant. This ruling 7as .ualified in the later case of )olum ia #ictures, Inc! v! )ourt of Appeals , in 7hich it 7as heldB

2n fine, the supposed pronunciamento in said case regarding the necessit+ for the presentation of the master tapes of the cop+righted films for the validit+ of search 7arrants should at most )e understood to merel+ serve as a guidepost in determining the eEistence of pro)a)le cause in cop+right infringement cases where there is dou t as to the true nexus etween the master tape and the printed copies. An o)Cective and careful reading of the decision in said case could lead to no other conclusion than that said directive 7as hardl+ intended to )e a

s7eeping and infleEi)le re.uirement in all or similar cop+right infringement cases. . . 8


2n the case at )ar during the preliminar+ investigation, petitioners and private respondents presented 7ritten descriptions of the formats of their respective televisions sho7s, on the )asis of 7hich the investigating prosecutor ruledB As ma+ G)eH gleaned from the evidence on record, the su)stance of the television productions complainant0s ';@9DA A D 6?' and *osa0s '2T0A A DAT?' is that t7o matches are made )et7een a male and a female, )oth single, and the t7o couples are treated to a night or t7o of dining and5or dancing at the eEpense of the sho7. The maCor concepts of )oth sho7s is the same. An+ difference appear mere variations of the maCor concepts. That there is an infringement on the cop+right of the sho7 ';@9DA A D 6?' )oth in content and in the eEecution of the video presentation are esta)lished )ecause respondent0s '2T0A A DAT?' is practicall+ an eEact cop+ of complainant0s ';@9DA A D 6?' )ecause of su)stantial similarities as follo7s, to 7itB
;@9DA A D 6? Aet 1 '2T0A A DAT?' Aet 1

a. =nmarried participant of one gender 3searcher4 appears on one side of a. same a divider, 7hile three 3/4 unmarried participants of the other gender are on the other side of the divider. This arrangement is done to ensure that the searcher does not see the searchees. ). Aearcher asks a .uestion to )e ans7ered )+ each of the searchees. The purpose is to determine 7ho among the searchees is the most compati)le 7ith the searcher. c. Aearcher speculates on the match to the searchee. d. Aelection is made )+ the use of compute 3sic4 methods, or )+ the 7a+ .uestions are ans7ered, or similar methods. Aet 2 Aame as a)ove 7ith the genders of the searcher and searchees 9 interchanged. ). same

c. same d. Aelection is )ased on the ans7er of the Aearchees. Aet 2 same

Petitioners assert that the format of Rhoda and Me is a product of ingenuit+ and skill and is thus entitled to cop+right protection. 2t is their position that the presentation of a point")+"point comparison of the formats of the t7o sho7s clearl+ demonstrates the neEus )et7een the sho7s and hence esta)lishes the eEistence of pro)a)le cause for cop+right infringement. Auch )eing the case, the+ did not have to produce the master tape.

To )egin 7ith the format of a sho7 is not cop+righta)le. Aection 2 of P.D. o. &9, 10 other7ise kno7n as the D?C;?? 9 2 T?::?CT=A: P;9P?;TJ, enumerates the classes of 7ork entitled to cop+right protection, to 7itB Aec. 2. The rights granted )+ this Decree shall, from the moment of creation, su)sist 7ith respect to an+ of the follo7ing classes of 7orksB 3A4 1ooks, including composite and c+clopedic 7orks, manuscripts, directories, and ga,etteersB 314 Periodicals, including pamphlets and ne7spapersK 3C4 :ectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral deliver+K 3D4 :ettersK 3?4 Dramatic or dramatico"musical compositionsK choreographic 7orks and entertainments in dum) sho7s, the acting form of 7hich is fiEed in 7riting or other7iseK 3-4 6usical compositions, 7ith or 7ithout 7ordsK 3(4 >orks of dra7ing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithograph+, and other 7orks of artK models or designs for 7orks of artK 3@4 ;eproductions of a 7ork of artK 324 9riginal ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, 7hether or not patenta)le, and other 7orks of applied artK 3J4 6aps, plans, sketches, and chartsK 3L4 Dra7ings or plastic 7orks of a scientific or technical characterK 324 Photographic 7orks and 7orks produced )+ a process analogous to photograph+ lantern slidesK

364 Cinematographic 7orks and 7orks produced )+ a process analogous to cinematograph+ or an+ process for making audio"visual recordingsK 3 4 Computer programsK 394 Prints, pictorial illustrations advertising copies, la)els tags, and )oE 7rapsK 3P4 Dramati,ations, translations, adaptations, a)ridgements, arrangements and other alterations of literar+, musical or artistic 7orks or of 7orks of the Philippine government as herein defined, 7hich shall )e protected as provided in Aection $ of this Decree. 3!4 Collections of literar+, scholarl+, or artistic 7orks or of 7orks referred to in Aection 9 of this Decree 7hich )+ reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations, the same to )e protected as such in accordance 7ith Aection $ of this Decree. 3;4 9ther literar+, scholarl+, scientific and artistic 7orks. This provision is su)stantiall+ the same as F1#2 of the 2 T?::?CT=A: P;9P?;TJ C9D? 9- P@2:2PP2 ?A 3;.A. o. $29/4. 11 The format or mechanics of a television sho7 is not included in the list of protected 7orks in F2 of P.D. o. &9. -or this reason, the protection afforded )+ the la7 cannot )e eEtended to cover them. Cop+right, in the strict sense of the term, is purel+ a statutor+ right. 2t is a ne7 or independent right granted )+ the statute, and not simpl+ a pre"eEisting right regulated )+ the statute. 1eing a statutor+ grant, the rights are onl+ such as the statute confers, and ma+ )e o)tained and enCo+ed onl+ 7ith respect to the su)Cects and )+ the persons and on terms and conditions specified in the statute. 12 Aince . . . cop+right in pu)lished 7orks is purel+ a statutor+ creation, a cop+right ma+ )e o)tained onl+ for a 7ork falling 7ithin the statutor+ enumeration or description. 1*

;egardless of the historical vie7point, it is authoritativel+ settled in the =nited Atates that there is no cop+right eEcept that 7hich is )oth created and secured )+ act of Congress . . . . . 14 P.D. o. &9, F2, in enumerating 7hat are su)Cect to cop+right, refers to finished 7orks and not to concepts. The cop+right does not eEtend to an idea, procedure, process, s+stem, method of operation, concept, principle, or discover+, regardless of the form in 7hich it is descri)ed, eEplained, illustrated, or em)odied in such 7ork. 1+ Thus, the ne7 2 T?::?CT=A: P;9P?;TJ C9D? 9- T@?
P@2:2PP2 ?A providesB Aec. 1#%. +nprotected ,u -ect Matter. D ot7ithstanding the provisions of Aections 1#2 and 1#/, no protection shall eEtend, under this la7, to an+ idea, procedure, s+stem, method or operation, concept, principle, discover+ or mere data as such, even if the+ are eEpressed, eEplained, illustrated or em)odied in a 7orkK ne7s of the da+ and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press informationK or an+ official teEt of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as 7ell as an+ official translation thereof. >hat then is the su)Cect matter of petitioners0 cop+rightM This Court is of the opinion that petitioner 1JP20s cop+right covers audio"visual recordings of each episode of Rhoda and Me, as falling 7ithin the class of 7orks mentioned in P.D. &9, F2364, to 7itB Cinematographic 7orks and 7orks produced )+ a process analogous to cinematograph+ or an+ process for making audio"visual recordingsK The cop+right does not eEtend to the general concept or format of its dating game sho7. Accordingl+, )+ the ver+ nature of the su)Cect of petitioner 1JP20s cop+right, the investigating prosecutor should have the opportunit+ to compare the videotapes of the t7o sho7s. 6ere description )+ 7ords of the general format of the t7o dating game sho7s is insufficientK the presentation of the master videotape in evidence 7as indispensa)le to the determination of the eEistence of pro)a)le cause. As aptl+ o)served )+ respondent Aecretar+ of JusticeB A television sho7 includes more than mere 7ords can descri)e )ecause it involves a 7hole spectrum of visuals and effects, video and audio, such that no similarit+ or dissimilarit+ ma+ )e found )+ merel+ descri)ing the general cop+right5format of )oth dating game sho7s. >@?;?-9;?, the petition is here)+ D2A62AA?D A9 9;D?;?D../wphi.!n0t #uno, 1uisum ing and 2uena, 33!, concur! 2ellosillo, 3!, too" no part! Foo-no-./ 1 Petition, AnneE A, p. &K Rollo, p. 2#.. 2 Aangguniang 1a+an of 1atac, 2locos orte v. Al)ano, 2N8 AC;A %N1 3199N4 / Petition, AnneE 1, pp. 1"2K Rollo, pp. 2$"29. & 1N& AC;A N%% 319$$4. % Petition, p. 1#K Rollo, p. 1$.

N Id., at NN/"NN&. # 2N1 AC;A 1&& 3199N4. $ Id., 1#/. 9 Petition AnneE '('K Rollo, pp. &&"&%. 18 Promulgated on ovem)er 1&, 19#2.

11 ?ffective on Januar+ 1, 199$. Aec. 1#2. 4iterary and Artistic 5or"s. D 1#2.1. :iterar+ and artistic 7orks, hereinafter referred to as '7orks', are original intellectual creations in the literar+ and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation and shall include in particularB 3a4 1ooks, pamphlets, articles and other 7ritingsK 3)4 Periodicals and ne7spapersK 3c4 :ectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral deliver+ 7hether or not reduced in 7riting or other material formK 3d4 :ettersK 3e4 Dramatic or dramatico"musical compositionsK choreographic 7orks or entertainment in dum) sho7sK 3f4 6usical compositions, 7ith or 7ithout 7ordsK 3g4 >orks of dra7ing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithograph+ or other 7orks of artK models or designs for 7orks of artK 3h4 9riginal ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, 7hether or not registra)le as an industrial design and other 7orks of applied artK 3i4 2llustrations, maps, plans, sketches, charts and three"dimensional 7orks relative to geograph+, topograph+, architecture or scienceK 3C4 Dra7ings or plastic 7orks of a scientific or technical characterK 3k4 Photographic 7orks including 7orks produced )+ a process analogous to photograph+K lantern slidesK 3l4 Audiovisual 7orks and cinematographic 7orks and 7orks produced )+ a process analogous to cinematograph+ or an+ process for making audio"visual recordingK 3m4 Pictorial illustrations and advertisementsK 3n4 Computer programsK and 3o4 9ther literar+, scholarl+, scientific and artistic 7orks. 12 1$ C.J.A. 1N1. 1/ Id!, at 1N%. 1& @9;AC? (. 1A::, :A> 9- C9PJ;2(@T A D :2T?;A;J P;9P?;TJ &% 319&&4. 1% ?2: 199;ATJ , C9PJ;2(@T :A> 2% 319$14.

1N Comment of Pu)lic ;espondent, p. 9K Rollo, p. 1%2.

The :a7phil ProCect " Arellano :a7 -oundation

You might also like