Art III Sec 2 Microsoft Corporation vs. Maxicorp, Inc. G.R. No. 140946.

September 13, 2004 FACTS: NBI Agent Samiano filed several applications for search warrants in the RTC against Maxicorp for committing Copyright Infringement. After conducting a preliminary examination of the applicant and his witnesses, Judge William M. Bayhon issued Search Warrants Armed with the search warrants, NBI seized property fitting the description stated in the search warrants. Maxicorp filed a motion to quash the search warrants alleging that there was no probable cause for their issuance and that the warrants are in the form of general warrants. The RTC denied Maxicorps motion. The RTC also denied Maxicorps motion for reconsideration. The RTC found probable cause to issue the search warrants after examining NBI Agent Samiano, Sacriz, and computer technician Pante. The three testified on what they discovered during their respective visits to Maxicorp. NBI Agent Samiano also presented certifications from petitioners that they have not authorized Maxicorp to perform the witnessed activities using petitioners products. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTCs order denying Maxicorps motion to quash the search warrants. The Court of Appeals held that NBI Agent Samiano failed to present during the preliminary examination conclusive evidence that Maxicorp produced or sold the counterfeit products. The Court of Appeals pointed out that the sales receipt NBI Agent Samiano presented as evidence that he bought the products from Maxicorp was in the name of a certain Joel Diaz. ISSUE: 1) WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE THE SEARCH WARRANTS 2) WHETHER THE SEARCH WARRANTS ARE GENERAL WARRANTS HELD: THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE. The judge determining probable cause must do so only after personally examining under oath the complainant and his witnesses. The oath required must refer to "the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses.--- Both NBI Agent Samiano and Sacriz related to the RTC how they personally saw Maxicorp commit acts of infringement and unfair competition. NBI Agent Samiano testified that he saw Maxicorp display and offer for sale counterfeit software in its premises. He also saw how the counterfeit software were produced and packaged within Maxicorps premises. NBI Agent Samiano categorically stated that he was certain the products were counterfeit because Maxicorp sold them to its customers without giving the accompanying ownership manuals, license agreements and certificates of authenticity.

The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. As implied by the words themselves, "probable cause is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The testimonies of these two witnesses, coupled with the object and documentary evidence they presented, are sufficient to establish the existence of probable cause. The prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. No law or rule states that probable cause requires a specific kind of evidence. Probable cause is determined in the light of conditions obtaining in a given situation. For purposes of determining probable cause, the sales receipt is not the only proof that the sale of petitioners software occurred. During the search warrant application proceedings, NBI Agent Samiano presented to the judge the computer unit that he purchased from Maxicorp, in which computer unit Maxicorp had pre-installed petitioners software. Sacriz, who was present when NBI Agent Samiano purchased the computer unit, affirmed that NBI Agent Samiano purchased the computer unit. Pante, the computer technician, demonstrated to the judge the presence of petitioners software on the same computer unit. There was a comparison between petitioners genuine software and Maxicorps software preinstalled in the computer unit that NBI Agent Samiano purchased. Even if we disregard the sales receipt issued in the name of Joel Diaz, which petitioners explained was the alias NBI Agent Samiano used in the operation, there still remains more than sufficient evidence to establish probable cause for the issuance of the search warrants. 2) PARTLY. There is no existing provision of law which requires that a warrant, partially defective in specifying some items sought to be seized yet particular with respect to the other items, should be nullified as a whole. A partially defective warrant remains valid as to the items specifically described in the warrant. --- It is only required that a search warrant be specific as far as the circumstances will ordinarily allow. The description of the property to be seized need not be technically accurate or precise. The nature of the description should vary according to whether the identity of the property or its character is a matter of concern. Measured against this standard we find that paragraph (e) is not a general warrant.
e) Computer hardware, including central processing units including hard disks, CD-ROM drives, keyboards, monitor screens and diskettes, photocopying machines and other equipment or paraphernalia used or intended to be used in the illegal and unauthorized copying or reproduction of Microsoft software and their manuals, or which contain, display or otherwise exhibit, without the authority of MICROSOFT CORPORATION, any and all Microsoft trademarks and copyrights;

The articles to be seized were not only sufficiently identified physically, they were also specifically identified by stating their relation to the offense charged. Paragraph (e) specifically refers to those articles used or intended for use in the illegal and unauthorized copying of petitioners software. However, we find paragraph (c) of the search warrants lacking in particularity. Paragraph (c) states:
c) Sundry items such as labels, boxes, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, advertisements and other paraphernalia bearing the copyrights and/or trademarks owned by MICROSOFT CORPORATION

The scope of this description is all-embracing since it covers property used for personal or other purposes not related to copyright infringement or unfair competition.