Constitutional Law II - Procedural Due ProcessFull description
Oca vs. Judge RuizFull description
Digested case of COMELC vs Judge SilvaFull description
Baranda vs. Gustilo Digest.docFull description
Legal DigestFull description
Tankeh vs Dbp DigestFull description
Briones vs. Macabagdal case digestFull description
Philosophy by atty. Buban
Obligations and Contracts, case digest
case digest for Lunod v. Meneses
Sony Music vs. Judge Espanol Retrieved from: (http://www.uberdigests.info/!"/!/sony#music#philippines#vs# ( http://www.uberdigests.info/!"/!/sony#music#philippines#vs# $udge#dolores#espanol#et#al/ $udge#dolor es#espanol#et#al/%% &acts:
In 2000, Sony Music Music Entertainm Entertainment ent (Phils.), (Phils.), Inc. sought sought the assistanc assistance e of the National National Bure Bureau au of Inve Invest stig igat atio ion n (NBI (NBI)) agen agentt avi avin n as they they com! com!la lain ine" e" that that Soli Soli" " agu aguna na #or!oration, together $ith its officers $ere engage" in the re!lication, re!ro"uction an" "istri%ution of Sony vi"eograms $ithout license an" authority from the &i"eo 'egulatory Boar" (violation of P.. P.. *+)hat Soli" aguna $as manufacturing, selling, an" "istri%uting various titles of #s in violation of Sony Music/s co!yrights (an" a violation of ' +2*1). gent avin, in a!!lying for a search $arrant, state" %efore u"ge olores Es!a3ol that an unname" !erson !rovi"e" them information as to the !resence of !irate" #s in the !remises of Soli" aguna- that avin an" other $itnesses $ere accom!anie" %y unname" !ersons to enter the !remise an" con"uct further investigation. he 4u"ge then issue" t$o corres!on"ing search $arrants- one for !ro%a%le violation of P *+ an" the other for !ro%a%le violation of ' ' +2*1. he search $arrants $ere su%se5uently enforce" an" items $ere sei6e" from Soli" aguna on the strength of the t$o $arrants. $a rrants. Soli" Soli" aguna aguna therea thereafte fterr !resen !resente" te" a certif certifica icatio tion n that that they are actual actually ly author authori6e i6e" " to manufacture an" sell #s %y the &'B at the same time it as7e" the court to 5uash the search $arrants an" return the items sei6e". u"ge Es!a3ol then 5uashe" the search $arrant issue" for !ro%a%le violation of P *+. u"ge Es!a3ol later 5uashe" the other $arrant %ecause of the fact that the items sei6e" as a result of the t$o $arrants $ere commingle" hence they cannot %e e8amine" !ro!erly. u"ge Es!a3ol also rule" that the issuance of the $arrant stemme" from the intimation ma"e %y !etitioners that Soli" aguna $as not authori6e" to manufacture an" sell #s %ut in fact they $ere authori6e" %y the &'B. his %eing, the $arrants are of no force an" effect %ecause of the lac7 of !ro%a%le cause.
9:N the search $arrants $ere vali";
he issuance of the search $arrant in 5uestion "i" not meet the re5uirements of !ro%a%le cause. u"ge Es!a3ol "i" not accor"ingly err in 5uashing the same, let alone gravely a%use her "iscretion. It is also $ithin her authority to 5uash the sai" $arrants %ase" on her fin"ings $hich $ere foun" to %e vali" %y the Su!reme #ourt.