ABS-CBN vs.

FELIPE GOZON
G.R. No. 195956. March 11, 2015

FACTS:

The controversy arose from GMA-7's news coverage on the homecoming of Filipino overseas worker
and hostage victim Angelo dela Cruz on July 22, 2004.

ABS-CBN "conducted live audio-video coverage of and broadcasted the arrival of Angelo dela Cruz at the
Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) and the subsequent press conference." 8 ABS-CBN allowed
Reuters Television Service (Reuters) to air the footages it had taken earlier under a special embargo
agreement.

ABS-CBN alleged that under the special embargo agreement, any of the footages it took would be for
the "use of Reuter's international subscribers only, and shall be considered and treated by Reuters
under 'embargo' against use by other subscribers in the Philippines. . . . [N]o other Philippine subscriber
of Reuters would be allowed to use ABS-CBN footage without the latter's consent."

GMA-7 immediately carried the live newsfeed in its program "Flash Report," together with its live
broadcast. Allegedly, GMA-7 did not receive any notice or was not aware that Reuters was airing
footages of ABS-CBN. 14 GMA-7's news control room staff saw neither the "No Access Philippines"
notice nor a notice that the video feed was under embargo in favor of ABS-CBN.

On August 13, 2004, ABS-CBN filed the Complaint for copyright infringement under Sections 177 16 and
211 17 of the Intellectual Property Code.

On December 3, 2004, Assistant City Prosecutor Dindo Venturanza issued the Resolution finding
probable cause to indict Dela Peña-Reyes and Manalastas.

Respondents filed the Petition for Review before the Department of Justice. In the Resolution (Gonzalez
Resolution) dated August 1, 2005, Department of Justice Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez (Secretary
Gonzalez) ruled in favor of respondents and held that good faith may be raised as a defense in the case.

On June 29, 2010, Department of Justice Acting Secretary Alberto C. Agra (Secretary Agra) issued the
Resolution (Agra Resolution) that reversed the Gonzalez Resolution and found probable cause to charge
Dela Peña-Reyes and Manalastas for violation of the Intellectual Property Code. Secretary Agra also
found probable cause to indict Gozon, Duavit, Jr., Flores, and Soho for the same violation.

ISSUE: Whether there is probable cause to charge respondents with infringement under Republic Act
No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code.
RULING: - YES

The mere act of rebroadcasting without authority from the owner of the broadcast gives rise to the
probability that a crime was committed under the Intellectual Property Code.

Respondents cannot invoke the defense of good faith to argue that no probable cause exists.

Respondents are involved and experienced in the broadcasting business. They knew that there would be
consequences in carrying ABS-CBN's footage in their broadcast.

To admit a different treatment for broadcasts would mean abandonment of a broadcasting

organization's minimum rights, including copyright on the broadcast material and the right against
unauthorized rebroadcast of copyrighted material.

There is probable cause that respondents Dela Peña-Reyes and Manalastas directly committed copyright
infringement of ABS-CBN's news footage to warrant piercing of the corporate veil. They are responsible
in airing the embargoed Angelo dela Cruz footage. They could have prevented the act of infringement
had they been diligent in their functions as Head of News Operations and Program Manager.

Good faith, lack of knowledge of the copyright, or lack of intent to infringe is not a defense against
copyright infringement.

ESTRADA vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

G.R. Nos. 212140-41. January 21, 2015

FACTS:

criminal proceedings for Plunder was conducted against Sen. Jingoy Estrada.

Estrada filed his counter-affidavit in OMB-C-C-13-0397 on 16 January 2014.

Eighteen of Sen. Estrada's co-respondents in the two complaints filed their counter affidavits between 9
December 2013 and 14 March 2014.

Sen. Estrada filed his Request to be furnished with Copies of Counter-Affidavits of the Other
Respondents.

Sen. Estrada's request was made pursuant to the right of a respondent to examine the evidence
submitted by the complainant and to 'have access to the evidence on record.

On 27 March 2014, the Ombudsman issued an order that do not entitle respondent [Sen. Estrada] to be
furnished all the filings of the respondents. And that Under the Rules of Court as well as the Rules of
Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, the respondents are only required to furnish their counter
affidavits and controverting evidence to the complainant, and not to the other respondents.
The Ombudsman issued in OMB-C-C-13-0313 and OMB-C-C-13- 0397 a Joint Resolution 9 which found
probable cause to indict Sen. Estrada and his co-respondents with one count of plunder and 11 counts
of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the denial of the request to be furnished copies of counter-affidavits of his co-
respondents deprived Estrada of his right to procedural due process.

RULING: - NO

The Ombudsman's denial in its 27 March 2014 Order of Sen. Estrada's Request did not constitute grave
abuse of discretion and the denial did not violate Sen. Estrada's constitutional right to due process.

There is no law or rule which requires the Ombudsman to furnish a respondent with copies of the
counter-affidavits of his co-respondents.

A respondent's right to examine refers only to "the evidence submitted by the complainant." There is no
requirement whatsoever that the affidavits executed by the co-respondents should be furnished to a
respondent.

It should be underscored that the conduct of a preliminary investigation is only for the determination of
probable cause, and "probable cause merely implies probability of guilt and should be determined in a
summary manner.

The court is in accord with the state prosecutor's findings in the case at bar that there exists prima facie
evidence of petitioner's involvement in the commission of the crime, it being sufficiently supported by
the evidence presented and the facts obtaining therein.

It is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary investigation has no right to cross-examine
the witnesses which the complainant may present.

The sufficiency of the evidence put forward by the Ombudsman against Sen. Estrada to establish its
finding of probable cause in the 28 March 2014 Joint Resolution in OMB-C-C-13-0313 and OMB-C-C-13-
0397 was judicially confirmed by the Sandiganbayan, when it examined the evidence, found probable
cause, and issued a warrant of arrest against Sen. Estrada on 23 June 2014.