Professional Documents
Culture Documents
++sasot v. People, G.R No. 143193, June 29, 2005
++sasot v. People, G.R No. 143193, June 29, 2005
DECISION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
The case subject of the present special civil action for certiorari is a criminal prosecution against
petitioners for unfair competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code, filed before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (Branch 1), and docketed as Criminal Case No. 98-166147.1
Some time in May 1997, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted an investigation
pursuant to a complaint by the NBA Properties, Inc., against petitioners for possible violation of
Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code on unfair competition. In its Report dated June 4, 1997, the
NBI stated that NBA Properties, Inc., is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of the United
States of America, and is the registered owner of NBA trademarks and names of NBA basketball
teams such as "USA Basketball," "Chicago Bulls," "Orlando Magic," "Los Angeles Lakers,"
"Rockets," "Phoenix Suns," "Bullets," "Pacers," "Charlotte Hornets," "Blazers," "Denver Nuggets,"
"Sacramento Kings," "Miami Heat," Utah Jazz," "Detroit Pistons," "Milwaukee Bucks," "Seattle
Sonics," "Toronto Raptors," "Atlanta Hawks," "Cavs," "Dallas Mavericks," "Minnesota Timberwolves,"
and "Los Angeles Clippers." These names are used on hosiery, footwear, t-shirts, sweatshirts, tank
tops, pajamas, sport shirts, and other garment products, which are allegedly registered with the
Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer. The Report further stated that during the
investigation, it was discovered that petitioners are engaged in the manufacture, printing, sale, and
distribution of counterfeit "NBA" garment products. Hence, it recommended petitioners’ prosecution
for unfair competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code.2
In a Special Power of Attorney dated October 7, 1997, Rick Welts, as President of NBA Properties,
Inc., constituted the law firm of Ortega, Del Castillo, Bacorro, Odulio, Calma & Carbonell, as the
company’s attorney-in-fact, and to act for and on behalf of the company, in the filing of criminal, civil
and administrative complaints, among others.3 The Special Power of Attorney was notarized by
Nicole Brown of New York County and certified by Norman Goodman, County Clerk and Clerk of the
Supreme Court of the State of New York. Consul Cecilia B. Rebong of the Consulate General of the
Philippines, New York, authenticated the certification.4 Welts also executed a Complaint-Affidavit on
February 12, 1998, before Notary Public Nicole J. Brown of the State of New York.5
Thereafter, in a Resolution dated July 15, 1998, Prosecution Attorney Aileen Marie S. Gutierrez
recommended the filing of an Information against petitioners for violation of Article 189 of the
Revised Penal Code.6 The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That on or about May 9, 1997 and on dates prior thereto, in the City of Manila, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above named accused ALLANDALE SASOT and
MELBAROSE SASOT of Allandale Sportslines, Inc., did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously manufacture and sell various garment products bearing the appearance of "NBA" names,
symbols and trademarks, inducing the public to believe that the goods offered by them are those of
"NBA" to the damage and prejudice of the NBA Properties, Inc., the trademark owner of the "NBA".
CONTRARY TO LAW.7
Before arraignment, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the following grounds:
II. AND THIS HONORABLE COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE CHARGED
OR THE PERSON OF THE ACCUSED8
In support of the foregoing, petitioners argue that the fiscal should have dismissed Welts’s complaint
because under the rules, the complaint must be sworn to before the prosecutor and the copy on
record appears to be only a fax transmittal.9 They also contend that complainant is a foreign
corporation not doing business in the Philippines, and cannot be protected by Philippine patent laws
since it is not a registered patentee. Petitioners aver that they have been using the business name
"ALLANDALE SPORTSLINE, INC." since 1972, and their designs are original and do not appear to
be similar to complainant’s, and they do not use complainant’s logo or design.10
The trial prosecutor of the RTC-Manila (Branch 1), Jaime M. Guray, filed his Comment/Opposition to
the motion to quash, stating that he has the original copy of the complaint, and that complainant has
an attorney-in-fact to represent it. Prosecutor Guray also contended that the State is entitled to
prosecute the offense even without the participation of the private offended party, as the crime
charged is a public crime.11
The trial court sustained the prosecution’s arguments and denied petitioners’ motion to quash in its
Order dated March 5, 1999.12
Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) docketed as CA-
G.R. SP No. 52151 which was dismissed per its Decision dated January 26, 2000.13 According to the
CA, the petition is not the proper remedy in assailing a denial of a motion to quash, and that the
grounds raised therein should be raised during the trial of the case on the merits.14 The dispositive
portion of the assailed Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED. Respondent
court is hereby ordered to conduct further proceedings with dispatch in Criminal Case No. 98-
166147.
SO ORDERED.15
Petitioners sought reconsideration of the Decision but this was denied by the CA.16
Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, with issues
raised as follows:
Petitioners reiterate the argument that the complaint filed by Rick Welts of the NBA Properties, Inc.,
is defective and should have been dismissed by the fiscal because it should have been personally
sworn to by the complainant before the investigating prosecutor. They also reiterate the claim that
Welts failed to show any board resolution showing his authority to institute any action in behalf of the
company, and that the NBA’s trademarks are not being actually used in the Philippines, hence, they
are of public dominion and cannot be protected by Philippine patent laws. Petitioners further contend
that they have not committed acts amounting to unfair competition.18
The Office of the Solicitor General appeared in behalf of the People, and filed its Amended
Comment to the petition, praying for its dismissal, arguing that the CA did not commit any grave
abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for reasons stated in its Decision dated January 26,
2000.19
The Court has consistently held that a special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to
assail the denial of a motion to quash an information.20 The proper procedure in such a case is for
the accused to enter a plea, go to trial without prejudice on his part to present the special defenses
he had invoked in his motion to quash and, if after trial on the merits, an adverse decision is
rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by law.21 Thus, petitioners should not have
forthwith filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA and instead, they should have gone to
trial and reiterate the special defenses contained in their motion to quash. There are no special or
exceptional circumstances22 in the present case such that immediate resort to a filing of a petition
for certiorari should be permitted. Clearly, the CA did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing the petition.
Moreover, the Court does not find any justification for the quashal of the Information filed against
petitioners.
For one, while petitioners raise in their motion to quash the grounds that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense and that the trial court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged or the
person of the accused,23 their arguments focused on an alleged defect in the complaint filed before
the fiscal, complainant’s capacity to sue and petitioners’ exculpatory defenses against the crime of
unfair competition.
Section 3, Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, which was then in force at the time the
alleged criminal acts were committed, enumerates the grounds for quashing an information, to wit:
b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the offense charged or the person of
the accused;
c) That the officer who filed the information had no authority to do so;
d) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form;
e) That more than one offense is charged except in those cases in which existing laws
prescribe a single punishment for various offenses;
g) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification;
and
h) That the accused has been previously convicted or in jeopardy of being convicted, or
acquitted of the offense charged.
Nowhere in the foregoing provision is there any mention of the defect in the complaint filed before
the fiscal and the complainant’s capacity to sue as grounds for a motion to quash.
For another, under Section 3, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, a complaint is
substantially sufficient if it states the known address of the respondent, it is accompanied by
complainant’s affidavit and his witnesses and supporting documents, and the affidavits are sworn to
before any fiscal, state prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or in their
absence or unavailability, a notary public who must certify that he personally examined the affiants
and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. All these have
been duly satisfied in the complaint filed before Prosecution Attorney Aileen Marie S. Gutierrez. It
must be noted that even the absence of an oath in the complaint does not necessarily render it
invalid.24 Want of oath is a mere defect of form, which does not affect the substantial rights of the
defendant on the merits.25
Moreover, records show that there are other supporting documents from which the prosecutor based
his recommendation, to wit:
(1) The NBI Report dated June 4, 1997, containing an account of the investigation conducted
from April 30, 1997 to May 9, 1997, and the subsequent search and seizure of several items
from petitioners’ establishment;30
(2) The letter dated May 8, 1997 from the law firm of Ortega, Del Castillo, Bacorro, Odulio,
Calma & Carbonell to the NBI, seeking assistance in stopping the illegal manufacture,
distribution and sale of "fake products bearing the ‘NBA’ trademark, and in prosecuting the
proprietors of aforesaid factory;"31 and
(3) The Joint Affidavit executed by Rechie D. Malicse and Dalisay P. Bal-ot of the Pinkerton
Consulting Services (Phils.) Inc., which was certified to by Prosecution Attorney Gutierrez,
attesting to their findings that petitioners were found to be manufacturing, printing, selling,
and distributing counterfeit "NBA" garment products.32
Consequently, if the information is valid on its face, and there is no showing of manifest error, grave
abuse of discretion and prejudice on the part of public prosecutor, as in the present case, the trial
court should respect such determination.33
More importantly, the crime of Unfair Competition punishable under Article 189 of the Revised Penal
Code34 is a public crime. It is essentially an act against the State and it is the latter which principally
stands as the injured party. The complainant’s capacity to sue in such case becomes immaterial.
In La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. vs. Fernandez,35 a case akin to the present dispute, as it involved the
crime of Unfair Competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code, and the quashal of search
warrants issued against manufacturers of garments bearing the same trademark as that of the
petitioner, the Court succinctly ruled that:
More important is the nature of the case which led to this petition. What preceded this petition for
certiorari was a letter-complaint filed before the NBI charging Hemandas with a criminal offense, i.e.,
violation of Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code. If prosecution follows after the completion of
the preliminary investigation being conducted by the Special Prosecutor the information
shall be in the name of the People of the Philippines and no longer the petitioner which is
only an aggrieved party since a criminal offense is essentially an act against the State. It is
the latter which is principally the injured party although there is a private right violated.
Petitioner's capacity to sue would become, therefore, of not much significance in the main
case. We cannot allow a possible violator of our criminal statutes to escape prosecution upon a far-
fetched contention that the aggrieved party or victim of a crime has no standing to sue.
In upholding the right of the petitioner to maintain the present suit before our courts for unfair
competition or infringement of trademarks of a foreign corporation, we are moreover recognizing our
duties and the rights of foreign states under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial
Property to which the Philippines and France are parties. We are simply interpreting and enforcing a
solemn international commitment of the Philippines embodied in a multilateral treaty to which we are
a party and which we entered into because it is in our national interest to do so.36 (Emphasis
supplied)
Lastly, with regard to petitioners’ arguments that the NBA Properties, Inc., is not entitled to protection
under Philippine patent laws since it is not a registered patentee, that they have not committed acts
amounting to unfair competition for the reason that their designs are original and do not appear to be
similar to complainant’s, and they do not use complainant’s logo or design, the Court finds that these
are matters of defense that are better ventilated and resolved during trial on the merits of the case.
WHERFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Let the records of this case be REMANDED to
the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch 24) where Criminal Case No. 98-166147 is presently
assigned, for further proceedings with reasonable dispatch.
SO ORDERED.