Century Chinese Medicine v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Ling Na Lau, doing business as Worldwide Pharmacy, is the sole distributor and registered trademark owner of "TOP GEL T.G. & DEVICE OF A LEAF" papaya whitening soap. Her representative requested the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to investigate several drugstores selling counterfeit soaps bearing the general appearance of their product. NBI Agent Furing, along with an associate, conducted test buys from petitioners' drugstores and confirmed the sale of counterfeit "TOP-GEL" soaps. Ping Na Lau, respondent's representative, certified that the purchased soaps were counterfeit. Procedural History: On November 21, 2005, Agent Furing applied for search warrants before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 143, Makati City, for violations of Sections 168 (unfair competition) and 155 (trademark infringement), in relation to Section 170 of Republic Act No. 8293. The RTC granted the applications and issued several search warrants. Petitioners moved to quash the warrants, alleging forum shopping and the existence of a prejudicial question in a civil case filed by Benjamin Yu. The RTC granted the motion to quash, finding no probable cause and applying the Rules on Search and Seizure for Civil Action in Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC's order, holding that Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure was applicable as the warrants were issued in anticipation of criminal actions. The CA found that the search warrants were validly issued based on probable cause. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision. They argued that the CA erred in reversing the RTC's findings and in applying a rule not previously raised. They also claimed the seized products were not fruits of any crime and that the confiscation was excessive.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the Regional Trial Court's quashal of the search warrants. Whether the Rules on Search and Seizure for Civil Actions for Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, or Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, were applicable to the issuance of the search warrants. Whether there was sufficient probable cause for the issuance of the search warrants, and related arguments regarding prejudicial questions, prior cases, scope of seizure, and procedural arguments.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the quashal of the search warrants: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling, addressing several arguments raised by the petitioners. The Court found no merit in the petitioners' claims and upheld the validity of the search warrants. On the applicability of the Rules: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure was applicable, not the Rules on Search and Seizure for Civil Actions for Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights. This is because the search warrants were applied for and issued in anticipation of criminal actions for violations of intellectual property rights under Republic Act No. 8293, as evidenced by the NBI agent's affidavit stating the items seized would be used as evidence in likely criminal actions. The Court emphasized that the nature of the application, whether for civil or criminal proceedings, dictates the applicable rules. On probable cause, prejudicial question, scope of seizure, and procedural arguments: The Court found that there was sufficient probable cause for the issuance of the search warrants. The affidavits of the NBI agent and witnesses established that the respondent was the registered owner of the trademark "TOP GEL T.G. & DEVICE OF A LEAF" and that the petitioners were selling counterfeit products bearing this trademark. The Court disagreed with the RTC's finding of a prejudicial question, noting the dismissal of the civil case and the compromise agreement acknowledging the complainant's trademark rights. The Court rejected the argument that the confiscation of products was excessive, stating that the counterfeit soaps themselves were the subject of the violation. The Court also found no merit in the petitioners' procedural argument regarding the CA's ruling on the applicability of Rule 126.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals correctly reversed the Regional Trial Court's quashal of search warrants, finding that the warrants were applied for in anticipation of criminal actions for violations of intellectual property rights under Republic Act No. 8293, thus making Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure applicable. The existence of probable cause was established through the affidavits of NBI agents and witnesses, confirming the sale of counterfeit goods bearing the registered trademark, and the prior dismissal of a civil case and the existence of a compromise agreement further solidified the complainant's rights.