G.R. Nos. 76649-51 August 19, 1988
20TH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, EDUARDO M. BARRETO, RAUL SAGULLO and FORTUNE LEDESMA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, through counsel, sought the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in its anti-film piracy campaign. The complaint alleged that certain Metro Manila video outlets were engaged in the unauthorized sale and rental of copyrighted films in videotape form, violating Presidential Decree No. 49. Acting on this, the NBI conducted surveillance and filed three applications for search warrants against the video outlets owned by private respondents. The Regional Trial Court of Makati, after examining the NBI’s witnesses, issued the search warrants on September 4, 1985. The NBI, accompanied by the petitioner’s agents, raided the outlets and seized the described items.
Subsequently, the private respondents filed a motion to lift the search warrants and release the seized properties. The lower court granted the motion in an order dated October 8, 1985, lifting the warrants and ordering the return of all seized articles to their owners. The court found that it had been misled into believing that an infringement or piracy of a particular film had been committed. It ruled that the warrants were issued for the seizure of items not specifically described, as they authorized the seizure of “all video tapes which are found infringing,” which constituted a general warrant. The court denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner’s subsequent petition for certiorari, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion in lifting the search warrants it had earlier issued against the private respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The constitutional provision against unreasonable searches and seizures requires that a search warrant issue only upon probable cause, determined personally by the judge after examination under oath, and must particularly describe the things to be seized. The Court found that the search warrants authorized the seizure of “all video tapes which are found infringing,” which is a general warrant prohibited by the Constitution. A warrant must describe the items to be seized with particularity to leave no discretion to the executing officers; it cannot be a sweeping authorization to confiscate all video tapes and then determine which are pirated later.
The lifting of the warrants was a valid correction of an error, as the issuing judge realized the initial finding of probable cause was flawed. The order was motivated by a desire to rectify a mistake that collided with the constitutional rights of the private respondents, not by caprice or arbitrariness. While the Court acknowledged the serious problem of film piracy and the government’s legitimate campaign against it, such efforts cannot justify the use of unconstitutional shortcuts. The constitutional safeguards embodied in the Bill of Rights must be upheld. The trial court’s action was within its authority and did not constitute a grave abuse of discretion. The petition was dismissed, and the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.