Manly Sportwear Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Dadodette Enterprises, 470 SCRA 384 (2005) [IPL case]

• Manly Sportwear Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Dadodette Enterprises, 470 SCRA 384 (2005)

FACTS:

On March 14, 2003, Special Investigator Eliezer P. Salcedo of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) applied for a search warrant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, based on the information that Dadodette Enterprises and/or Hermes Sports Center were in possession of goods, the copyright of which belonged to Manly Sportswear Mfg., Inc. (MANLY).

After finding reasonable grounds that a violation under RA 8293, a search warrant was issued.

Respondents thereafter moved to quash and annul the search warrant contending that the same is invalid since the requisites for its issuance have not been complied with. They insisted that the sporting goods manufactured by and/or registered in the name of MANLY are ordinary and common hence, not among the classes of work protected under Section 172 of RA 8293.

The trial court granted the motion to quash and the search warrant null and void based on its finding that the copyrighted products of MANLY do not appear to be original creations and were being manufactured and distributed by different companies locally and abroad under various brands, and therefore unqualified for protection under Section 172 of RA 8293. The lower court also denied Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals which was denied for lack of merit. The appellate court likewise denied its Motion for Reconsideration. Hence, this present petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the copyrighted products of MANLY are original creations subject to the protection of RA 8293?

RULING:

The Court held NO.

The Court discussed that the copyright certificates issued in favor of MANLY constitute merely prima facie evidence of validity and ownership. However, no presumption of validity is created where other evidence exist that may cast doubt on the copyright validity. Hence, where there is sufficient proof that the copyrighted products are not original creations but are readily available in the market under various brands, as in this case, validity and originality will not be presumed xxx. (underscoring, italics and emphasis supplied)

Besides, no copyright accrues in favor of MANLY despite issuance of the certificates of registration and deposit pursuant to Section 2, Rule 7 of the Copyrights Safeguards and Regulations which states:

Sec. 2 Effects of Registration and Deposit of Work. The registration and deposit of the work is purely for recording the date of registration and deposit of the work and shall not be conclusive as to copyright ownership or the term of the copyrights or the rights of the copyright owner, including neighboring rights.

At most, the certificates of registration and deposit issued by the National Library and the Supreme Court Library serve merely as a notice of recording and registration of the work but do not confer any right or title upon the registered copyright owner or automatically put his work under the protective mantle of the copyright law. It is not a conclusive proof of copyright ownership. As it is, non-registration and deposit of the work within the prescribed period only makes the copyright owner liable to pay a fine.

Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) v. Spouses Salvador (Capital Gains Tax; Expropriation Proceedings)

Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) v. Spouses Salvador

GR No. 205428, June 7, 2017

FACTS:

The case rooted from a verified complaint filed with the RTC-Valenzuela by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) on 9 November 2011 for the expropriation of the 83 out of 229 square meters parcel of land owned by herein Respondents spouses Senando Salvador and Josefina Salvador (Respondents, for brevity), for the construction of the C-5 Northern Link Road Project Phase 2 (Segment 9).

On 10 February 2012, Respondents posed no objection on the said expropriation and manifested that they already received 2 checks from DPWH amounting in total to P685,349.22 representing the full zonal value of the subject property and the cost of the house erected thereon.

On 23 August 2012, the RTC rendered judgment in favour of the Republic but directed the latter to pay Respondents consequential damages equivalent to the capital gains tax and other taxes necessary for the transfer of the subject property to Republic’s name.

DPWH moved for partial reconsideration but was denied for having been belatedly filed and for having no justifiable basis. Hence, this case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the capital gains tax on the transfer of the expropriated property can be considered as consequential damages?

RULING:

The Court ruled NO.

The Court stated that just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property sought to be expropriated and the measure is not the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss. While it is true that the determination of the amount of just compensation is within the court’s jurisdiction, it should not be done arbitrarily or capriciously.

The Court furthered that in this case, the RTC’s consideration of the capital gains tax that should be paid by the Republic was clearly an error. The Court stressed that it is settled that the transfer of property through expropriation proceedings is a sale or exchange within the meaning of the NIRC, and profit from the transaction constitutes capital gain. Since capital gains tax is a tax on passive income, it is the seller, which in this case, the Respondents, who are liable to shoulder the same.

Moreover, in BIR Ruling No. 476-2013, the BIR constituted the DPWH as a withholding agent tasked to withhold the 6% withholding tax in the expropriation of real properties for infrastructure projects. Thus, as far as the government is concerned, the capital gains tax in expropriation proceedings remains a liability of the seller (Respondent).

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LAHMONDIN AMERIL Y ABDUL @ “AMOR/MHONG” (Justice Leonen case)

TOPIC: RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Acts 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LAHMONDIN AMERIL Y ABDUL @ “AMOR/MHONG”

G.R. No. 222192/March 13, 2019

Leonen, J.

FACTS:

In an Information dated 24 April 2006 where accused Ameril was charged with violation of section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for willfully, unlawfully and knowingly selling or offering for sale three (3) transparent plastic sachets of shabu.

The Information was based on a buy-bust operation conducted on 17 April 2006 by the NBI where its Special Investigator Fernandez posed as a buyer to Ameril and later on arrested the latter after the boodle money was received, in exchange of the sachets of shabu.

After the arrest, SI Fernandez marked the 3 plastic sachets with Ameril’s initials in the presence of a Kagawad and media person. Photos and inventory of the seized items were also taken. SI Fernandez thereafter submitted the seized items to the Forensic Chemistry Division of the NBI for examination, results revealed that the seized items tested positive for shabu.

Accused denied the allegations against him and claimed that during the day of the incident, he was in his house preparing to go to an agency in Pedro Gil, Manila to meet a friend who was applying for a job in Saudi Arabia.

Regional Trial Court decision: the trial court convicted Ameril. It ruled that the prosecution had successfully established his guilt by presenting sufficient evidence that showed the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The RTC noted that there was inconsistency on the markings on the seized items, but nevertheless still convicted Ameril.

Aggrieved, Ameril appealed before the Court of Appeals. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti, as the documents and testimonies revealed flaws in the prosecution’s handling of illegal drugs allegedly seized from him. He furthered argued that the inconsistencies in the marking of the seized items “compromised the integrity of the seized items”.

Court of Appeals decision: the CAAFFIRMED Ameril’s conviction. It ruled that the chain of custody was not in any way broken and emphasized that under the rules on evidence, law enforcers are presumed to have carried out their duties regularly under the law.

Accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. Hence, the present case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA correctly upheld the conviction of accused-appellant?

RULING: NO.

In sustaining a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established:

(1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and,

(2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence

The illegal drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense, its existence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. “Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti, the chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed”.

Section 21 of RA 9165 outlines the procedure that police must follow in handling seized illegal drugs and failure to comply with it implies “a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti” and “produces doubts as to the origins of the [seized illegal drugs]”.

On the issue on inconsistency of the markings, the Court ruled that contrary to the RTC’s findings, the integrity of the seized illegal drugs was not preserved. Again, it must be emphasized that the seized illegal drugs constitute the corpus delicti of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Its identity must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. When there is doubt on its identity, conviction cannot be sustained.

In this case, the discrepancy in the markings of the illegal drugs seized from the accused-appellant raised doubts if the items presented in court were the exact ones taken from the latter.

Therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming the Regional Trial Court’s decision is reversed and accused-appellant was acquitted.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GAJIR ACUB Y ARAKANI a.k.a “ASAW” (Justice Leonen case)

TOPIC: Republic Act 9165; section 21 – for the custody and disposition of seized illegal drugs, to ensure the evidence was not tampered with, substituted, or planted.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GAJIR ACUB Y ARAKANI a.k.a “ASAW”

G.R. No. 220456/June 10, 2019

Leonen, J.

FACTS:

In an Information dated 11 February 2005, accused Acub was charged with selling a dangerous drug to an undercover police officer during a buy-bust operation. Upon arraignment, Acub pleaded not guilty to the charge against him. Trial on the merits ensued, with the prosecution presenting thee (3) police officers as its witnesses and the defense presenting Acub and his wife, as its witnesses.

PO3 Delumpines then marked the sachet with his own initials, prepared a request for laboratory examination, and delivered the request and the seized sachet to the Regional Crim Laboratory Office. The latter received the request with the sachet, turned them over to one Inspectio Manual who examined the specimen and found it positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

In his defense, Acub, a pedicab driver, testified that on the date, he was at home resting after he and his wife has gone to the pawnshop earlier that morning to pawn her earring. Then on their way back, two men and a woman restrined him, while the other poked a gun at him and asked if he had money. After denying having money, they all borught him to his house where they searched for shabu but found nothing. After, he was brought to the police station.

Regional Trial Court decision: Found Acub guilty of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.  Upholding the presumption of regularity in the police officers’ official actions, the trial court pointed out that it was “out of sync with human nature” for a team of police officers to rey on an impoverished pedicab driver. The RTC also brushed aside the lack of inventory, as the chain of custody of evidence remained unbroken and the evidence was properly identified in court.

Court of Appeals decision: AFFIRMED RTC decision that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of illegal sale of a dangerous drugs. Also found that there were no gaps in the chain of custody. Opined that the police officers’ failure to strictly comply with Article 2, section 21 of the CDDA was immaterial as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu were properly preserved.

Acub filed a Notice of Appeal. Accused-appellant alleges that the prosecution failed to show strict compliance with Section 21 of the CDDA. That the police officers have not marked, inventoried, and photographed the sachet of shabu upon seizure and in the presence of the required representatives.

Plaintiff-appellee for its part denies that non-compliance with section 21 was fatal to its case since the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized sachet were preserved by the apprehending officers, as shown by the unbroken chain of custody.

ISSUE: Whether or not appellant Acub’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite noncompliance with the required procedure under section 21 of the CDDA, as amended?

RULING: NO. Accused-appellant must be acquitted.

To sustain a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it must be proved that a transaction took place and the corpus delicti of the illicit drug must be presented into evidence. Although not easily identifiable, the identity of the illicit drug must be clearly established since its very existence is essential to convict an accused.

The Court stressed that Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, provides the manner of custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia and has repeatedly emphasized that strict compliance is the expected standard when it comes to the custody and disposition of seized illegal drugs, to prevent tampering and planting of evidence. 

Citing People v. Que (G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018), the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act requires nothing less than strict compliance. Otherwise, the raison d’etre of the chain of custody requirement is compromised. Precisely, deviations from it leave the door open for tampering, substitution, and planting of evidence.

Even acts which approximate compliance but do not strictly comply with Section 21 have been considered insufficient. Strict compliance with Section 21 is in keeping with the doctrine that penal laws are strictly construed against the government and its agents.

While in People v. Gonzales, the Court ruled that “The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act recognizes that strict compliance with its provisions may not always be possible. Hence, a saving clause was introduced, first in the Implementing Rules and Regulations, before being eventually inserted in the amended law. The saving clause states:

[P]rovided, finally, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.”

The law is clear that for the saving clause to apply, the twin requirements must be met: (1) the noncompliance was justifiable; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved. Not only must the prosecution explain why the requirements were not strictly complied with, must also prove during trial the justifiable grounds for noncompliance.

In the present case, the SC stated that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals acknowledged that the prosecution failed to prove strict compliance with Section 21. However, they both brushed this failure aside by reasoning that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu were nevertheless preserved.

The prosecution failed to prove that an inventory of the seized sachet was prepared and that it was photographed in the presence of accused-appellant, an elected public official, and representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media. Despite the blatant lapses, the prosecution did not explain the arresting officers’ failure to comply with the requirements in Section 21. Nonetheless, despite the prosecution’s indifference to the established legal safeguards, both the lower courts still found accused-appellant guilty of the charge against him. Contrary to what the lower courts may believe, the saving clause, as an exception to the rule of strict compliance, is not a talisman that the prosecution may invoke at will. Instead, it may only be appreciated in the prosecution’s favor if the latter shows a valid reason for not observing the procedure laid out in Section 21.

This noncompliance created a huge gap in the chain of custody that not even the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties may remedy, as the lapses themselves are undeniable evidence of irregularity.

Therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals, affirming the Regional Trial Court’s deicision is reversed and accused-appellant was acquitted.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NANCY LASACA RAMIREZ A.K.A “ZOY” OR “SOY” (Justice Leonen case)

TOPIC: Qualified trafficking of persons in relation to section 4(e) of RA 9208

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NANCY LASACA RAMIREZ A.K.A “ZOY” OR “SOY”

G.R. No. 217978/January 30, 2019

Leonen, J.

FACTS:

Accused was arrested during an entrapment operation conducted by the Regional Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force in Lapu-Lapu City based on their surveillance of a widespread sexual service for sale by young girls in the area.

The operation targeted one of the KTV Bars where accused allegedly works, together with the four (4) girls (Nica, AAA, BBB and Cindy) she unlawfully hired to engage in prostitution and offered them for sex or to any form of sexual exploitation to poseur customers.

The prosecution presented the testimony of BBB, a minor, who testified knowing Ramirez and that she herself was pimped out by the latter several times, paying her P200 for sex. AAA’s, also a minor, testimony was also presented stating that she knew Ramirez to be a pimp because the latter would look for customers, negotiate prices, get girls to have sex with the customers and get commission from it.

In her defense, Ramirez testified that on the night of the entrapment, she was with her friend watching a live band in the grill where the operation was conducted when two (2) men rushed to them, arrested her and pushed her into a van. The two men introduced themselves as police officers and were around the area to arrest prostitutes.

Regional Trial Court decision: the trial court found Ramirez guilty of the crime of Qualified Trafficking of Person in relation to section 4 (e) of RA 9208

Ramirez appealed before the Court of Appeals (CA), argued that she does not work at the KTV Bar and it was BBB who negotiated to poseur customers about the sexual services, and received payment from them.

Court of Appeals decision: DENIED the appeal and affirmed the RTC decision. The Court of Appeals held that Ramirez being employed at the KTV Bar is irrelevant. That even if BBB initiated the negotiation, the deal was only closed when she brought another pair of girls.

Ramirez filed a Notice of Appeal. While the case was pending, accused-appellant sent a handwritten letter insisting that she only met BBB on the night of the operation, and was only dragged by BBB and pointed to her as a pimp only because the police officers were threatening to detain her instead.

ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution proved accused-appellant Ramirez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified trafficking of persons?

RULING: YES.

Section 3(a) of RA 9208 defines trafficking in persons as “(a) Trafficking in Persons — refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the persons, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs”.

The crime is still considered trafficking if it involves the “recruitment transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for purpose of exploitation” even if it does not involve any of the means stated under the law. Trafficking is considered qualified when the “trafficked person is a child”.

The court stressed that the accused-appellant cannot use as a valid defense either BBB’s or AAA’s consent to the transaction, or that BBB receive the payment on her behalf. Citing People v. De Dios (G.R. No. 234018, June 6, 2018), “it did not matter that there was no threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception or abuse of power that was employed when the victim was involved in illicit sexual trade. AAA was still a minor when she was exposed to prostitution by the prodding, promises and acts of De Dios. Trafficking in persons may be committed also by means of taking advantage of the persons’ vulnerability as minors…”

Accused-appellant hired children to engage in prostitution, taking advantage of their vulnerability as minors. AAA’s and BBB’s acquiescence to the illicit transaction cannot be considered as a valid defense.

Therefore, the Court of Appeals, affirming the RTC decision is correct in finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified trafficking of persons.