GR 108946; (January, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 108946 . January 28, 1999
FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN, JR., and BJ PRODUCTIONS, INC., petitioners, vs. HON. FRANKLIN DRILON, GABRIEL ZOSA, WILLIAM ESPOSO, FELIPE MEDINA, JR., and CASEY FRANCISCO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) holds a copyright for the television show “Rhoda and Me.” Petitioner Francisco Joaquin, Jr., BJPI’s president, observed the airing of a similar show, “It’s a Date,” produced by respondent Gabriel Zosa’s IXL Productions. After a demand to cease airing was ignored, petitioners filed a criminal complaint for copyright infringement under P.D. No. 49 against Zosa and officers of RPN Channel 9. The Assistant City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed an information in the Regional Trial Court.
Private respondents sought a review by the Secretary of Justice. Respondent Secretary Franklin Drilon reversed the prosecutor’s finding, directing the dismissal of the case. He held that probable cause was lacking because petitioners failed to present the master videotape of “Rhoda and Me” for comparison, making it impossible to determine substantial similarity—a requisite for infringement. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.
ISSUE
Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the prosecutor’s finding of probable cause based on the petitioners’ failure to submit the master videotape, and in determining the copyrightability of the show’s format.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. On the first issue, the Secretary of Justice, in exercising his power of review and control over prosecutors, is not confined to the issues raised by the parties during preliminary investigation. He is authorized to make an independent finding of probable cause and may consider errors, even if unassigned, to ensure a proper determination. His finding that the master tape was indispensable for a proper comparison was reasonable. A television show encompasses a spectrum of audio-visual elements that cannot be adequately assessed by mere verbal descriptions of its general format.
On the second issue, the Secretary did not arrogate the judicial function of determining copyrightability. His resolution addressed the evidentiary issue of proving infringement for the purpose of establishing probable cause, not the substantive issue of whether the format itself is copyrightable. The determination of probable cause is an executive function, and the Secretary acted within his authority in evaluating the sufficiency of evidence presented. No grave abuse of discretion was found, as his actions were neither capricious nor whimsical.