ABS-CBN Corporation vs. Gozon

Copyright infringement under Republic Act No. 8293 (the Intellectual Property Code) is a crime malum prohibitum that imposes strict liability; consequently, good faith, lack of intent to infringe, and lack of knowledge of the copyright are not valid defenses against criminal prosecution. Corporate officers may only be held criminally liable for copyright infringement if they actively participated in the commission of the offense or had the power to prevent it, not merely by virtue of their position or title.

Overseas Filipino worker Angelo dela Cruz was kidnapped by Iraqi militants and released after negotiations, generating significant public interest for his return to the Philippines on July 22, 2004. ABS-CBN Corporation conducted exclusive live audio-video coverage of dela Cruz's arrival at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) and subsequent press conference. Under a special embargo agreement with Reuters Television Service, ABS-CBN's footage was restricted for use by Reuters' international subscribers only, with a "No Access Philippines" restriction prohibiting other Philippine subscribers from using the footage without ABS-CBN's consent. GMA Network, Inc., a subscriber to both Reuters and CNN, assigned reporters to NAIA for its own coverage and received a live video feed from Reuters which it immediately carried in its news program "Flash Report." GMA-7 claimed it did not receive notice of the embargo and was unaware that the footage originated from ABS-CBN.

• ABS-CBN conducted live audio-video coverage of Angelo dela Cruz's arrival at NAIA on July 22, 2004, and allowed Reuters Television Service to air the footage under a special embargo agreement restricting use to Reuters' international subscribers only and prohibiting access by other Philippine subscribers without ABS-CBN's consent.
• GMA-7, to which respondents were connected as officers and employees, subscribed to Reuters and CNN and received a live video feed of the coverage which it immediately carried in its program "Flash Report" along with its own live broadcast.
• GMA-7 claimed it did not receive any notice or was not aware that Reuters was airing ABS-CBN's footage, and that its news control room staff saw neither the "No Access Philippines" notice nor the embargo advisory.
• The parties disputed the duration of the aired footage: ABS-CBN claimed two minutes and forty seconds, while respondents claimed only five seconds, which the Court of Appeals noted was admitted by the parties.
• ABS-CBN's service contract with Reuters provided that Reuters would embargo contributed content against use by other broadcast subscribers in the Philippines.
• An advisory was sent by Reuters to its clients, including GMA-7, stating "TV AND WEB RESTRICTIONS: NO ACCESS PHILIPPINES" regarding the Angelo dela Cruz coverage sourced from ABS-CBN.
• Respondents Dela Peña-Reyes and Manalastas denied receiving the advisory and claimed they had no prior knowledge that the footage was owned by ABS-CBN, asserting they immediately cut the feed upon seeing ABS-CBN's reporter on screen.

• ABS-CBN argued that news footage is copyrightable material under the Intellectual Property Code, distinguishing between the newsworthy event itself (not copyrightable) and the specific footage or expression of that event (copyrightable).
• It contended that good faith and lack of knowledge of the copyright are not valid defenses against criminal prosecution for copyright infringement, citing Habana v. Robles and Columbia Pictures v. Court of Appeals.
• It asserted that fair use does not apply to the rebroadcast of entire video footage by a competing commercial broadcaster, and that the determination of fair use requires a full-blown trial, not a preliminary investigation.
• It argued that all respondents, including the corporate officers, were liable for copyright infringement as they were responsible for the management, operations, and production of news and public affairs programs of GMA-7.

• Respondents argued that the news footage of Angelo dela Cruz's arrival is not copyrightable as it constitutes "news of the day" and "mere items of press information" under Section 175 of the Intellectual Property Code, and that there was no ingenuity or inventiveness added to the footage.
• They claimed that they acted in good faith and without knowledge of the embargo, asserting that they were merely receiving a live video feed from Reuters and CNN as subscribers, not copying ABS-CBN's material directly.
• They argued that the use of the footage falls under fair use for reporting current events under Section 212.2 and Section 185 of the Intellectual Property Code.
• They contended that copyright infringement is malum in se requiring criminal intent, and that the lack of intent to infringe and the absence of knowledge of the copyright should negate criminal liability.
• They maintained that corporate officers such as the President, EVP, VP, and Director cannot be held criminally liable for the acts of the corporation unless the law expressly provides for their direct liability, and that there was no evidence of their active participation in the alleged infringement.

• Procedural Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that a motion for reconsideration was unnecessary before filing a petition for certiorari assailing the DOJ Resolution.
  • Whether the trial court properly suspended the arraignment of the accused beyond the 60-day period allowed under Rule 116, Section 11(c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
  • Whether the Court of Appeals correctly found that the DOJ Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Agra Resolution.

• Substantive Issues:

  • Whether news footage is copyrightable material under the Intellectual Property Code.
  • Whether good faith and lack of knowledge of the copyright constitute valid defenses against criminal prosecution for copyright infringement.
  • Whether the use of the footage by GMA-7 constitutes fair use under Sections 185 and 212 of the Intellectual Property Code.
  • Whether corporate officers may be held criminally liable for copyright infringement committed by the corporation, and whether there was probable cause to charge all respondents.

• Procedural:

  • The filing of a motion for reconsideration was not required before resorting to certiorari because under DOJ Department Circular No. 70, no second motion for reconsideration shall be entertained, and the Agra Resolution was already the result of a motion for reconsideration of the Gonzalez Resolution; thus, filing another motion would have been useless and futile.
  • The trial court erred in suspending the arraignment beyond the 60-day period prescribed by Rule 116, Section 11(c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure; after the expiration of the period, the trial court was bound to arraign the accused or deny the motion to defer arraignment, as the court had full control and direction of the case once the information was filed.
  • The Court of Appeals erred in finding that Secretary Agra committed errors of jurisdiction; the determination of probable cause is within the executive's full discretionary authority, and judicial review is limited to determining whether there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

• Substantive:

  • News footage is copyrightable material. While "news of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information" are unprotected under Section 175, the expression of the news—specifically the audio-visual footage involving framing shots, graphics, sound effects, and creative process—is protected under Section 172.1(l) as an audio-visual work. The idea (the event) must be distinguished from its expression (the footage).
  • Copyright infringement under the Intellectual Property Code is malum prohibitum, not malum in se, and imposes strict liability. Good faith, lack of intent to infringe, and lack of knowledge of the copyright are not valid defenses against criminal prosecution. The law does not require mens rea or proof of willfulness for criminal liability to attach; it is the act of infringement itself, not the intent, that causes the damage.
  • Fair use is a matter of defense that must be raised and proven during trial, not a basis to dismiss a complaint at the preliminary investigation stage. The determination of whether the use constitutes fair use under Section 185 requires evaluation of the four-factor test (purpose and character, nature of the work, amount used, and effect on the market), which is better left to the trial court where evidence can be fully presented.
  • Corporate officers may be held criminally liable for copyright infringement only if they actively participated in the commission of the offense or, by virtue of their managerial positions, had the power to prevent the act. Mere membership in the Board or holding a corporate title without showing of active participation or moral ascendancy over the perpetrators is insufficient to establish criminal liability.
  • There is probable cause to charge respondents Grace Dela Peña-Reyes (Head of News Operations) and John Oliver Manalastas (Program Manager) because they had direct control and supervision over the news control room and could have prevented the airing of the embargoed footage had they been diligent. However, there is no probable cause to charge respondents Felipe Gozon (President), Gilberto Duavit, Jr. (Executive Vice-President), Marissa Flores (Vice-President for News), and Jessica Soho (Director for News) as there was no evidence of their active participation or conspiracy in the commission of the offense.

• Idea-Expression Dichotomy — Copyright protection does not extend to ideas, procedures, systems, or concepts, but only to the specific expression of these ideas. While news events themselves are not copyrightable, the particular expression of news through creative processes such as television footage (framing, graphics, audio) constitutes copyrightable subject matter.
• Malum Prohibitum vs. Malum In Se — Crimes mala prohibita are acts declared illegal because they are prohibited by statute, regardless of moral turpitude or criminal intent, while crimes mala in se are inherently immoral acts. Copyright infringement is malum prohibitum requiring strict liability, where neither knowledge nor criminal intent is necessary to establish guilt.
• Strict Liability in Copyright Infringement — The Intellectual Property Code imposes strict liability for copyright infringement, meaning that the mere commission of the prohibited act constitutes the offense, and defenses such as good faith or lack of knowledge of the copyright are not recognized at the stage of determining criminal liability.
• Piercing the Corporate Veil in Criminal Cases (Active Participation Test) — Corporate officers may be held individually liable for crimes committed by the corporation only when they actively participated in the commission of the wrongful act or, by virtue of their position, had the power to prevent the act. Mere corporate title or membership in the Board is insufficient to establish criminal liability without showing of personal participation or moral ascendancy over the actual perpetrators.
• Fair Use Doctrine — The fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research is not an infringement. Determination of fair use requires application of the four-factor statutory test and is a matter of defense to be raised and proven during trial, not a basis to quash an information at the preliminary investigation stage.

• "The news footage is copyrightable. The Intellectual Property Code is clear about the rights afforded to authors of various kinds of work. Under the Code, 'works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose.'"
• "News or the event itself is not copyrightable. However, an event can be captured and presented in a specific medium... Television news footage is an expression of the news."
• "Infringement under the Intellectual Property Code is malum prohibitum... An act which is declared malum prohibitum, malice or criminal intent is completely immaterial."
• "It is the act of infringement, not the intent, which causes the damage. To require or assume the need to prove intent defeats the purpose of intellectual property protection."
• "A corporate officer cannot protect himself behind a corporation where he is the actual, present and efficient actor... Mere membership in the Board or being President per se does not mean knowledge, approval, and participation in the act alleged as criminal."

• Habana v. Robles — Cited to establish that lack of knowledge of infringement is not a valid defense in copyright infringement cases, and that copying alone is not what is prohibited but the injurious effect of lifting from the copyright owner's work.
• Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals — Cited to support the principle that copyright infringement does not require knowledge of the infringement to constitute a violation, and to distinguish the idea-expression dichotomy.
• Joaquin, Jr. v. Drilon — Cited to explain the idea-expression dichotomy, holding that a television format (general concept) is not copyrightable, but the specific audio-visual recordings of each episode are protected as cinematographic works.
• Pearl & Dean (Phil.), Incorporated v. Shoemart, Incorporated — Cited for the distinction between copyright and patents, and the principle that only the expression of an idea is protected by copyright, not the idea itself.
• Crespo v. Judge Mogul — Cited to establish that once an information is filed in court, the trial court has full control of the case and the prosecutor cannot impose his opinion on the court; the Secretary of Justice should refrain from entertaining petitions for review when the case is already pending with the court.
• Samson v. Daway — Cited to acknowledge the applicability of Rule 116, Section 11(c) allowing suspension of arraignment for 60 days pending DOJ review, but emphasizing that the deferment is limited to that period.
• Webb v. De Leon and Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities, Inc. — Cited to define probable cause as facts sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, requiring only likelihood or probability, not moral certainty or proof beyond reasonable doubt.

• Republic Act No. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code), Section 172 — Defines the classes of works protected by copyright, including audio-visual works and cinematographic works.
• Republic Act No. 8293, Section 175 — Enumerates unprotected subject matter, including news of the day and miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information, but clarifying that the expression of these facts is protected.
• Republic Act No. 8293, Sections 177 and 211 — Sections allegedly violated; Section 177 enumerates copyright or economic rights (reproduction, communication to the public, etc.), while Section 211 grants broadcasting organizations the exclusive right to authorize or prevent rebroadcasting of their broadcasts.
• Republic Act No. 8293, Section 185 — Defines fair use of a copyrighted work and enumerates the four factors to be considered in determining whether use is fair use.
• Republic Act No. 8293, Section 212 — Provides limitations on the rights of broadcasting organizations, including the use of short excerpts for reporting current events and fair use subject to Section 185.
• Republic Act No. 8293, Section 217 — Prescribes criminal penalties for infringement, stating that "any person infringing any right secured by provisions of Part IV of this Act or aiding or abetting such infringement shall be guilty of a crime."
• Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 116, Section 11(c) — Allows suspension of arraignment for a period not exceeding sixty days when a petition for review is pending with the Department of Justice or the Office of the President.
• Rules of Court, Rule 65 — Governs petitions for certiorari, requiring that there be no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and that the tribunal acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.
• Revised Penal Code, Articles 8 and 17 — Define conspiracy and the principals in the commission of crimes, applied to determine the liability of corporate officers for the acts of the corporation.