ABS-CBN CORPORATION v. FELIPE GOZON et al. (G.R. No.

195956, March 11, 2015)

FACTS
On August 13, 2004, petitioner ABS-CBN filed a criminal complaint against respondent GMA
for (alleged) act of copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Code because the
GMA aired footage of the arrival and homecoming of OFW Angelo dela Cruz at NAIA from Iraq
without the petitioner's consent. ABS-CBN stated that it has an agreement with Reuter's that the
petition will contribute news and content that it owns and makes to Reuters in exchange of the
latter's news and video material, and Reuters will ensure that ABS-CBN's materials cannot be
aired in the country.

The respondent was a subscriber of Reuter's and CNN live feeds. After it received the live feed
of Angelo Dela Cruz's arrival and homecoming from Reuter's, it immediately aired the video
from that news feed. The respondent alleged that its news staff was not aware that there was (a
news embargo) agreement between ABSCBN and Reuters. Respondent alleged that it was not
also aware that it aired petitioner's footage.

On December 3, 2004, Prosecutor Venturanza issued resolution which found probable

cause to indict Dela Pena-Reyes and Manalastas. The respondents appealed the Prosecutors
resolution before the DOJ. DOJ Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez ruled in favor of GMA in his
resolution dated 1 August 2005 and held that good faith may be raised as a defense in the case.

Dela Pea-Reyes and Manalastas motioned to suspend proceedings. The trial court granted the
Motion to Suspend Proceedings filed by Dela Pea-Reyes and Manalastas on January 19, 2005
saying that Under Section 11 (c), Rule 116 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, once a petition
for review is filed with the Department of Justice, a suspension of the criminal proceedings may
be allowed by the court.

Meanwhile, DOJ Acting Secretary Alberto C. Agra issued a resolution on which reversed Sec.
Gonzalez's resolution and found probable cause to charge Dela Pena-Reyes, Manalastas, as
well as to indict Gozon, Duavit, Jr., Flores, and Soho for violation of the Intellectual Property
Code (due to copyright infringement).

The Court of Appeals rendered a decision reversing and setting aside DOJ Sec. Agra's
resolution.

The appellate court stated that the ABSCBN has copyright of its news coverage, but GMAs act
of airing five (5) seconds of the homecoming footage without notice of the No Access
Philippines restriction of the live Reuter's video feed, was undeniably attended by good faith
and thus, serves to exculpate from criminal liability under the Intellectual Property Code.

ISSUE ON MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDING

W/N the granting of the trial court on the motion to suspend proceedings was proper.
HELD
The trial court granted respondents' Motion to Suspend Proceedings and deferred respondents
Dela Pea-Reyes and Manalastas' arraignment for 60 days in view of the Petition for Review
filed before the Department of Justice.

Rule 116, Section 11 (c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure allows the suspension of the
accused's arraignment in certain circumstances only:
SEC. 11. Suspension of arraignment. -Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be
suspended in the following cases:

(a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which
effectively renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead
intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his mental examination and, if
necessary, his confinement for such purpose;

(b) There exists a prejudicial 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.

The trial court should have proceeded with respondents Dela Pea-Reyes and Manalastas'
arraignment after the 60-day period from the filing of the Petition for Review before the
Department of Justice on March 8, 2005. It was only on September 13, 2010 that the temporary
restraining order was issued by the Court of Appeals. The trial court erred when it did not act on
the criminal case during the interim period. It had full control and direction of the case. As Judge
Mogul reasoned in denying the motion to dismiss in Crespo, failure to proceed with the
arraignment "disregards the requirements of due process [and] erodes the Court's independence
and integrity."