Sony Music vs.

Judge Espanol
Retrieved from: (http://www.uberdigests.info/2012/02/sony-music-philippines-vs-
judge-dolores-espanol-et-al/)
Facts:

In 2000, Sony Music Entertainment (Phils.), Inc. sought the assistance of the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent Lavin as they complained that Solid Laguna
Corporation, together with its officers were engaged in the replication, reproduction and
distribution of Sony videograms without license and authority from the Video Regulatory
Board (violation of P.D. 1987);

That Solid Laguna was manufacturing, selling, and distributing various titles of CDs in
violation of Sony Musics copyrights (and a violation of RA 8293).

Agent Lavin, in applying for a search warrant, stated before Judge Dolores Espaol that an
unnamed person provided them information as to the presence of pirated CDs in the
premises of Solid Laguna; that Lavin and other witnesses were accompanied by unnamed
persons to enter the premise and conduct further investigation. The judge then issued two
corresponding search warrants; one for probable violation of PD 1987 and the other for
probable violation of RA 8293.

The search warrants were subsequently enforced and items were seized from Solid Laguna
on the strength of the two warrants.

Solid Laguna thereafter presented a certification that they are actually authorized to
manufacture and sell CDs by the VRB at the same time it asked the court to quash the
search warrants and return the items seized. Judge Espaol then quashed the search
warrant issued for probable violation of PD 1987.

Judge Espaol later quashed the other warrant because of the fact that the items seized as
a result of the two warrants were commingled hence they cannot be examined properly.
Judge Espaol also ruled that the issuance of the warrant stemmed from the intimation
made by petitioners that Solid Laguna was not authorized to manufacture and sell CDs but
in fact they were authorized by the VRB. This being, the warrants are of no force and effect
because of the lack of probable cause.

ISSUE: WON the search warrants were valid?

HELD:

NO.
The issuance of the search warrant in question did not meet the requirements of probable
cause.

Judge Espaol did not accordingly err in quashing the same, let alone gravely abuse her
discretion. It is also within her authority to quash the said warrants based on her findings
which were found to be valid by the Supreme Court. Further, it cannot be overemphasized
that not one of the applicants of the warrants testified seeing the pirated discs being
manufactured at Solid Lagunas premises, they merely relied on unnamed persons which is
at best are hearsays.

The Supreme Court also noted that the lack of supporting evidence and documents in
applying for the search warrants on this infringement case does not mean that the master
tapes of the alleged copies being pirated should have been produced. It is true that the
Supreme Court, in 20th Century Fox Case, underscored the necessity, in determining the
existence of probable cause in copyright infringement cases, of presenting the master tapes
of the copyrighted work. But, as emphatically clarified in Columbia Pictures vs CA such
auxiliary procedure, however, does not rule out the use of testimonial or documentary
evidence, depositions, admissions or other classes of evidence xxx especially where the
production in court of object evidence would result in delay, inconvenience or expenses out
of proportion to its evidentiary value. What the Supreme Court is saying is that any evidence
presented in lieu of the master tapes, if not readily available, in similar application
proceedings must be reliable, and, if testimonial, it must, at the very least, be based on the
witness personal knowledge.