15. Union Bank vs. People, 667 SCRA 113 (G.R. No.

192565)

FACTS:

The petition seeks to reverse and set aside the RTC-Makati City decision dismissing the petition
for certiorari of petitioners Union Bank of the Philippines (Union Bank) and Desi Tomas
(collectively, the petitioners). The RTC found that the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati City
(MeTC-Makati City) did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash the
information for perjury filed by Tomas.

The accusation stemmed from petitioner Union Banks two (2) complaints for sum of money with prayer
for a writ of replevin against the spouses Eddie and Eliza Tamondong and a John Doe. The first
complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 98-0717, was filed before the RTC, Branch 109, Pasay City on
April 13, 1998. The second complaint, docketed as Civil Case No. 342-000, was filed on March 15,
2000 and raffled to the MeTC, Branch 47, Pasay City. Both complaints showed that Tomas executed and
signed the Certification against Forum Shopping. Accordingly, she was charged of deliberately violating
Article 183 of the RPC by falsely declaring under oath in the Certificate against Forum Shopping in the
second complaint that she did not commence any other action or proceeding involving the same issue in
another tribunal or agency.

Desi Tomas filed a motion to quash citing that the Makati MTC has no jurisdiction as the document was
submitted and used in Pasay and that there was no crime committed as not all of the elements of perjury
was present.

The lower courts denied the motion saying that Makati has jurisdiction as it was notarized there and ruled
that she was sufficiently charged with perjury.

ISSUE: Whether, in a crime of perjury, the proper venue is where it was notarized or where it was used.

HELD: The SC ruled that Makati was the right venue.

The SC cites Rule 110, Sec. 15 of the Rules of Court where it was stated that criminal action shall be
instituted where the offense was committed or where any of its essential elements occurred.

The SC, one-by-one stated the elements of perjury and provided that Tomas did all things in Makati, thus
making Makati the right venue for the case.

54. ABS-CBN Corp. vs. Gozon, 753 SCRA 1

FACTS:
On August 13, 2004, petitioner ABS-CBN filed a criminal complaint against respondent GMA for
(alleged) act of copyright infringement under Sections 177 and 211 of the Intellectual Property Code (RA
8293, as amended), because the respondent 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

Also. and Jessica A.news embargo) agreement between ABSCBN and Reuters.C. can be negated by good faith. Atty. the Supreme Court deemed GMA's mere act of rebroadcast of ABS-CBN’s news footage (arrival and homecoming of OFW Angelo dela Cruz at NAIA from Iraq last 22 July 2004) for 2 mins and 40 secs. was undeniably attended by good faith and thus. as well as to indict Gozon. 8293. The resolution of this issue requires clarification of the concept of "copyrightable material" in relation to material that is rebroadcast live as a news story. there was lack of proof that they actively participated or exercised moral ascendancy over Manalastas and Dela Cruz-Pena.. otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code. the act of infringement and not the intent is the one that causes the damage. Duavit. ISSUE: Whether there is probable cause to charge respondents with infringement under Republic Act No.. Gonzalez ruled in favor of respondents in his resolution dated 1 August 2005 and held that good faith may be raised as a defense in the case. Meanwhile. Gilberto Duavit Jr. presence of criminal intent and the person's knowledge is not necessary.. Soho were held not liable for the (criminal) act of copyright infringement. We are also asked to rule on whether criminal prosecution for infringement of copyrightable material. Alberto Agra's resolution and a prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. serves to exculpate from criminal liability under the Intellectual Property Code. Flores. The Court also stated that Philippine laws on copyright infringement does not require criminal intent (mens rea) and does not support good faith as a defense. Flores. or participation in the criminal act of copyright infringement. . The other respondents. which granted the Petition for Certiorari to reverse and set aside DOJ Sec. DOJ Acting Secretary Alberto C. approval. The Court of Appeals rendered a decision on 9 November 2010. as there is a need for their direct/active participation in such act. Branch 93 to continue with the criminal proceedings against Grace Dela Peña-Reyes and John Oliver Manalastas due to copyright infringement. Acts mala in se requires presence of criminal intent and the person's knowledge of the nature of his/her act. since they have not been diligent in their functions to prevent that footage from being aired on television. such as live rebroadcast. Jr. Contrary to GMA’s contention. while in acts mala prohibita. The difference of an act mala in se and mala prohibita was stated in the present case. Gonzalez's resolution and found probable cause to charge Dela Peña-Reyes. as amended) that imposes strict liability for copyright infringement. The Court held that their mere membership in GMA7's Board of Directors does not mean that they have knowledge.without the latter's authority creates probable cause to find GMA's news personnel Manalastas and Dela Peña-Reyes criminally liable for violating provisions of Intellectual Property Code (Section 216217 of RA 8293. The respondents appealed the Prosccutor's resolution before DOJ. They knew that there would be consequences in carrying ABS-CBN’s footage in their broadcast –which is why they allegedly cut the feed from Reuters upon seeing ABS-CBN’s logo and reporter. Manalastas. but respondents’ 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. Thus. and Soho for violation of the Intellectual Property Code (due to copyright infringement). HELD: The Supreme Court PARTIALLY GRANTED ABS-CBN’s petition and ordered RTC Q. Felipe Gozon. Marissa L. Assistant City Prosecutor Dindo Venturanza issued resolution on 3 December 2004 which found probable cause to indict Dela Peña-Reyes and Manalastas. Agra issued a resolution on 29 June 2010 which reversed Sec. The appellate court stated that the petitioner has copyright of its news coverage. DOJ Secretary Raul M. Respondent alleged that it was not also aware that it aired petitioner's footage.

not the idea itself”. 99). including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes. citing the US Supreme Court's decision in Baker vs Selden (101 U. and d. . c. expression applies to the event captured and presented in a specific medium via cinematography or processes analogous to it. the look or appearance of a thing” while expression is its reality or the “external. In the present case. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.” It also stated that news or the event itself is not copyrightable. The nature of the copyrighted work.It held that ABS-CBN's video footage is copyrightable because it is under “audiovisual works and cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audiovisual recordings. Fair use. It also said that determination of whether the Angelo dela Cruz footage is subject to fair use is better left to the trial court where the proceedings are currently pending. The Court differentiated idea and expression – idea meant as “a form. the Supreme Court stated that “only the expression of an idea is protected by copyright. perceptible world of articulate sounds and visible written symbols that others can understand.S. b. was defined by the Supreme Court as privilege to use the copyrighted material in a reasonable manner without the copyright owner's consent or by copying the material's theme or idea rather than its expression. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. as amended) to determine fair use: a. which is an exception to copyright owner’s monopoly of the work's usage.” Thus. The Court also gave the four-fold test under the Fair Use Doctrine (stated in section 185 of RA 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code. The purpose and character of the use.