Nogales vs. People

Under Presidential Decree No. 969, all obscene or immoral materials involved in a violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code shall be forfeited and destroyed, even if the accused is acquitted; consequently, a court may order the removal and destruction of hard disk drives containing pornographic files after the criminal case has been dismissed, without violating due process or property rights, because the owner has no cognizable property interest in contraband.

The National Bureau of Investigation applied for and obtained a search warrant from Branch 1 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila to search the premises of Phil-Pacific Outsourcing Services Corporation, suspected of using computer equipment to create and sell pornographic internet websites in violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 8792 (the Electronic Commerce Act). The warrant was implemented, and ten computer sets were seized. After the Office of the City Prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint for insufficiency of evidence, petitioners moved for the return of the seized property, contending that the hard disks were not contraband per se and that their destruction would amount to confiscation of property without due process of law.

The Search Warrant: On July 30, 2007, NBI Special Investigator Garry Meñez applied for a search warrant before the RTC of Manila, Branch 1, alleging that Phil-Pacific Outsourcing Services Corporation and several named individuals, including the Nogales petitioners, had in their possession computer equipment and materials used in creating and selling pornographic internet websites. After a hearing on August 3, 2007, where the judge personally examined the applicant and two witnesses under oath, the RTC issued Search Warrant No. 07-11685 authorizing the seizure of computer sets, television sets, internet servers, fax machines, pornographic films, web cameras, telephone sets, photocopying machines, client lists, and other tools and materials used in the commission of the crime.

Seizure and Custody: On August 7, 2007, NBI operatives implemented the warrant at the premises located at the Mezzanine Floor, Glorietta De Manila Building, 776 San Sebastian Street, Manila. The search was conducted in the presence of the occupants and yielded ten units each of CPUs, monitors, keyboards, mice, and AVRs. The return of the search warrant was filed on August 8, 2007, and the RTC granted the NBI’s request to retain the seized items in its evidence room for safekeeping.

Motion to Quash: Petitioners moved to quash the search warrant and for the return of the seized properties. They argued, among other things, that they did not own or operate the pornographic websites, that the websites were hosted abroad by foreign entities, that the element of publicity was absent, and that the NBI had withheld information and raided the wrong establishment. The RTC denied the motion on December 26, 2007, ruling that sufficient probable cause existed; that publicity was present through the company’s advertising of pornographic sites; that the recovery of fewer items than those listed did not negate the commission of a crime; and that the search warrant was issued in accordance with Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.

Dismissal of Criminal Complaint: In a resolution dated February 21, 2008, the 3rd Assistant City Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the complaint for violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code against petitioners for insufficiency of evidence. The recommendation was approved by the City Prosecutor. Petitioners then filed a supplemental motion to release the seized properties, claiming the State no longer had any use for them.

RTC’s Partial Reconsideration: On August 6, 2008, the RTC denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the earlier order, holding that the dismissal by the City Prosecutor was a separate proceeding and did not automatically warrant the release of items seized under a validly issued search warrant. The court partially granted the motion for release: it ordered the return of the computer sets but directed that the CPUs and the softwares containing obscene materials be retained in the custody of the NBI through SI Meñez.

Court of Appeals Ruling: Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the CA, asserting that Judge Alisuag acted with grave abuse of discretion in retaining the CPUs and softwares. The CA affirmed with modification. The appellate court observed as undisputed that the seized computer units contained obscene materials or pornographic files. It held that because the obscene files could be deleted by simply removing and formatting the hard disk, the entire CPU need not be retained. The CA ordered the release of the CPUs and softwares to petitioners, with the condition that the hard disk be removed from the CPUs and destroyed; if the softwares were determined to be unlicensed or pirated, they too were to be destroyed.

• Due Process and Property Rights: Petitioners argued that there was no evidence they were the source of the pornographic printouts presented by the NBI, and that computer hard disks are not illegal per se—unlike shabu, opium, counterfeit money, or pornographic magazines—but are lawful merchandise used in the ordinary course of business. The destruction of the hard disks, they maintained, would violate procedural and substantive due process and constituted an unconstitutional confiscation of property.

• Effect of Dismissal: Petitioners contended that the dismissal of the criminal complaint for violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code by the City Prosecutor removed any legal basis for the retention or destruction of the seized items, and that the CA’s order to destroy the hard disks despite such dismissal amounted to grave abuse of discretion.

• Nature of the Seized Items: Petitioners stressed that the hard disks and computer units were not contraband per se and that any obscene files stored on them could be deleted without destroying the hardware. They asserted that their property rights over the computer equipment should prevail in the absence of a criminal conviction.

• Mandatory Forfeiture Under P.D. No. 969: Respondents maintained that the hard disk drives contained obscene and pornographic materials, making them contraband subject to forfeiture and destruction under Presidential Decree No. 969. The provision mandates the forfeiture of all materials involved in a violation of Article 201 even if the accused is acquitted; thus, the dismissal of the criminal complaint did not affect the court’s authority to order the destruction of the illicit content.

• Valid Search and Custody: Respondents asserted that the search warrant was validly issued upon a finding of probable cause and that the court retained jurisdiction over the seized articles. The retention of the CPUs and softwares containing obscene materials was a proper exercise of the court’s custodial duty, and the CA’s modification to destroy only the hard disks was a lenient but legally sound measure.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ordered the removal and destruction of the hard disk drives containing pornographic and obscene materials, despite the dismissal of the criminal complaint and the argument that the computer units were not illegal per se.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: The petition was denied; the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The CA correctly found that the seized computer units contained obscene materials, a fact petitioners did not dispute. The removal and destruction of the hard disk was a reliable means of permanently eliminating the pornographic files, and such action was explicitly authorized by Presidential Decree No. 969. Under Section 2(b) of P.D. No. 969, all obscene/immoral literature, films, prints, engravings, sculptures, paintings, or other materials involved in a violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code shall be forfeited in favor of the Government and destroyed, even where the criminal case results in acquittal. Consequently, the dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency of evidence did not provide a ground to recover the contraband. Petitioners had no legitimate expectation of protection for their supposed property rights because the hard disks contained contraband. The Supreme Court further modified the CA’s ruling to emphasize that only CPUs and licensed software used for legitimate purposes would be returned; all hard disk drives containing pornographic materials and any unlicensed or pirated software used in any way in violation of Article 201 were to be forfeited and destroyed.

• Forfeiture of Obscene Materials Under Presidential Decree No. 969 — Section 2(b) of P.D. No. 969 mandates that whenever a criminal case for violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code results in an acquittal, the obscene/immoral literature, films, prints, engravings, sculptures, paintings, or other materials involved shall nevertheless be forfeited in favor of the Government and destroyed. The provision erects an absolute rule: obscene articles involved in the offense are subject to forfeiture regardless of the outcome of the criminal proceeding. The Court applied this doctrine by ordering the destruction of the hard disk drives containing pornographic files even though the criminal complaint against petitioners had been dismissed.

• No Property Right in Contraband — A person has no constitutionally protected property interest in items that constitute contraband or in devices that contain obscene materials. Where computer units are found to hold pornographic files, the owner cannot claim a legitimate expectation of protection for the contraband portion; thus, the destruction of hard disk drives containing such files does not offend due process. The Court weighed petitioners’ asserted property rights against the public welfare and concluded that the eradication of pornography justified the forfeiture and destruction of the hard disks.

• Custody and Disposition of Seized Articles — The magistrate’s responsibility over articles seized under a search warrant does not end with the issuance of the warrant; it extends to the custody and proper disposition of the seized items. Where the purpose of preserving the articles as evidence is no longer served because the criminal complaint has been dismissed, the court must balance the property rights of the owner against the social need to prevent the circulation of obscene materials. In this case, destruction of the contraband portion was deemed the appropriate measure.

• “Clearly, petitioners had no legitimate expectation of protection of their supposed property rights.”

• “Significantly, Presidential Decree (PD) No. 969 is explicit. … x x x. b. Where the criminal case against any violator of this decree results in an acquittal, the obscene/immoral literature, films, prints, engravings, sculpture, paintings or other materials and other articles involved in the violation referred to in Section 1 hereof shall nevertheless be forfeited in favor of the government to be destroyed, after forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Chief of Constabulary. Clearly, the provision directs the forfeiture of all materials involved in violation of the subject law.”

• “To stress, P.D. No. 969 mandates the forfeiture and destruction of pornographic materials involved in the violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, even if the accused was acquitted.”

• “Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, the Court holds that the destruction of the hard disks and the softwares used in any way in the violation of the subject law addresses the purpose of minimizing if not totally eradicating pornography.”

N/A — The decision did not cite any prior Supreme Court case as controlling or persuasive precedent.

• Section 2(b), Presidential Decree No. 969 — Mandates that even upon acquittal, all obscene/immoral materials and other articles involved in a violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code shall be forfeited in favor of the Government and destroyed. The Court relied on this provision to justify the destruction of the hard disk drives, despite the dismissal of the criminal complaint.

• Article 201, Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes the public exposition of immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows. The search warrant was applied for on the basis of an alleged violation of this provision.

• Republic Act No. 8792 (Electronic Commerce Act) — Cited in the search warrant application in relation to Article 201, indicating that the alleged obscenity involved the use of electronic means and the internet.

• Rule 126, Rules of Court — Governs the issuance and enforcement of search warrants; the RTC applied Sections 3 to 6 in finding that the search warrant was validly issued.

Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, Associate Justice Roberto A. Abad, and Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez (designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe) concurred.

None.