Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Savage V Taypin
Savage V Taypin
Taypin
GR No. 134217, May 11, 2000
Bellosillo, J.:
FACTS: Acting on a complaint lodged by private respondent Eric Ng Mendoza, president and general manager of
Mendco Development Corporation (MENDCO), the NBI filed an application for search warrant with the Regional Trial
Court of Cebu City. 2 The application sought the authorization to search the premises of K Angelin Export
International located in Biasong, Talisay, Cebu, and to seize the pieces of wrought iron furniture found therein which
were allegedly the object of unfair competition involving design patents, punishable under Art. 189 of the Revised
Penal Code as amended.
Petitioner moved to quash the search warrant alleging the following issues below.
ISSUES: (1) Questions involving jurisdiction over the offense; (2) The need for certification of non-forum shopping;
(3) The existence of the crime.
I. Petitioners apparently misconstrued the import of the designation of Special Courts for IPR. The power to issue
search warrants for violations of IPR has not been exclusively vested in the courts enumerated in Supreme
Court Administrative Order No.113-95. The power to issue search warrants is inherent in all courts and may be
effected outside the territorial jurisdiction.
II. In this case at bar, there is no allegation of forum-shopping, only failure to acquire a certification against forum-
shopping. . The Rules of Court as amended requires such certification only from initiatory pleadings, omitting
any mention of "applications."
III. The Intellectual Property Code took effect on 1 January 1998. The issue involving the existence of "unfair
competition" as a felony involving design patents, referred to in Art. 189 of the Revised Penal Code, has been
rendered moot and academic by the repeal of the article. Although this case traces its origins to the year 1997
or before the enactment of the IPR Code, we are constrained to invoke the provisions of the Code. Article 22 of
the Revised Penal Code provides that penal laws shall be applied retrospectively, if such application would be
beneficial to the accused. 26 Since the IPR Code effectively obliterates the possibility of any criminal liability
attaching to the acts alleged, then that Code must be applied here.
Hence, since there is no crime to speak of, the search warrant does not even begin to fulfill these stringent
requirements and is therefore defective on its face. All property seized by virtue thereof should be returned to
petitioners in accordance with established jurisprudence.