G.R. No. 169156 ; February 15, 2007
SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Petitioner, vs. BRIGHT FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Respondent.

FACTS

Based on a complaint from petitioner Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. (SCEI), the Manila RTC issued search warrants against respondent Bright Future Technologies, Inc. (BFTI) for copyright and trademark infringement. A raid on BFTI’s premises led to the seizure of numerous items, including replicating machines, counterfeit Sony Playstation DVDs, and raw materials for disc production. BFTI filed an urgent motion to quash the warrants, alleging multiple procedural defects in their issuance and implementation, including a violation of the two-witness rule during the search.
The RTC initially denied the motion to quash. Upon BFTI’s motion for reconsideration, the case was re-raffled to Judge Olalia. The new court, while acknowledging SCEI’s right to participate in the proceedings, granted the motion to quash. It found that the searching team violated Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that a search be conducted in the presence of the lawful occupant or, in their absence, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. The RTC also criticized the use of a bolt cutter as unnecessary. Consequently, it ordered the return of the seized items to BFTI upon the posting of a bond.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether the Regional Trial Court erred in quashing the search warrants based on irregularities in their enforcement, specifically the violation of the two-witness rule; and (2) whether it erred in ordering the release of the seized property.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC’s orders quashing the search warrants and returning the seized items, but set aside the bond requirement. The Court upheld the finding that the enforcement of the warrants violated the mandatory two-witness rule under Section 8, Rule 126. The provision is a concrete manifestation of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures, designed to prevent abuses by ensuring the search is witnessed by disinterested parties. The prosecution failed to prove compliance; the mere presence of police officers and SCEI’s private representatives does not satisfy the rule requiring independent witnesses from the locality. This fatal irregularity in implementation rendered the search unlawful and the seized evidence inadmissible.
Regarding the return of the property, the Court ruled it was proper. Since the search was invalidated, the seized items, being inadmissible in evidence, had to be returned. However, the order for BFTI to post a bond had no legal basis, as there is no provision allowing a court to retain custody of illegally seized property via a bond. The bond was ordered cancelled. The Court also clarified that while a private complainant like SCEI has the personality to participate in search warrant proceedings to protect its interest, this right does not cure the fundamental procedural defect that invalidated the search itself.