Myline Cordial

Melbarose Sasot and Allandale Sasot v. People of the Philippines, The Honorable Court of Appeals, and Rebecca G. Salvador, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 1, Manila
G.R. No. 143193. June 29, 2005
462 SCRA 138

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court

FACTS:

The National Bureau of Investigation conducted an investigation pursuant to a complaint filed by the NBA Properties, Inc. against petitioners for possible violation of Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code on unfair competition. Based on the report from the NBI, they have conducted two investigations due to the petitioners’ alleged participation in the manufacture, printing, sale and distribution of counterfeit “NBA” garment products, which led to the search and seizure of several items from petitioner’s establishment.
Before arraignment, petitioners filed a Motion to Quash on the ground that, the facts charged do not constitute an offense and that the court did not have jurisdiction over the offense charged or the person of the accused. Petitioners contend that since the 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 complainants, and they do not use complainants logo or design.
In the Comment/Opposition filed by the trial prosecutor of Manila RTC Branch 1, it stated 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, as provided for in the Revised Penal Code.
The trial court sustained the prosecution’s arguments and denied petitioners’ motion to quash which lead to the filing of a special civil action for Certiorari with the CA. According to the CA, the petition is not the proper remedy in assailing the denial of the quashal motion, and that the grounds raised therein should be raised during the trial of the case on the merits.
Petitioners sought for the reconsideration of the Decision, but was denied by the CA, hence this petition.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the court trying the case has jurisdiction over the offense charged or the person of the accused because the 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.
2. Whether or not the complaint was valid because it was filed in the name of the People of the Philippines.

RULING:

The Court held that the crime of Unfair Competition punishable under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code is a public crime. It is essentially an act against the State and it is the latter which principally stands as the injured party although there is a private right violated. The complainants capacity to sue in such case becomes immaterial. Thus, 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. State is entitled to prosecute the offense even without the participation of the private offended party, as the crime charged is a public crime.
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 complainants, and they do not use complainants 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.
The petition was denied for lack of merit and was remanded to the RTC.

Full text Rule 110.2 Sasot v. People G.R. No. 143193 _ 462 SCRA 138, June 29, 2005