SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 205800, September 10, 2014
MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, Petitioners, v. SAMIR FARAJALLAH, VIRGILIO D.C. HERCE, RACHEL P. FOLLOSCO, JESUSITO G. MORALLOS, AND MA. GERALDINE S. GARCIA (DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF NEW FIELDS (ASIA PACIFIC), INC.), Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, ACTING C.J.:
Installed Software | Product I.D./Serial Number |
Microsoft Windows XP Pro V2002 SP2 | 55274-640-1582543-23775 |
Microsoft Office Word 2007 Enterprise Edition 2007 | 89388-707-0358973-65509 |
Adobe Acrobat 8 Pro (1) | 1118-1061-0904-4874-2027 |
Installed Software | Product I.D./Serial Number |
Microsoft Windows XP Pro V2002 SP2 | 55274-640-1582543-23442 |
Microsoft Office Word 2007 Enterprise Edition 2007 | 89388-707-0358973-65709 |
Adobe Acrobat 8 Pro (1) | 1118-1061-0904-4874-2027 |
There are at least two (2) computers using common product identification and/or serial numbers of MICROSOFT and ADOBE software. This is one indication that the software being used is unlicensed or was illegally reproduced or copied. Based on the training we attended, all ADOBE and MICROSOFT software should only be installed in one computer, unless they avail of an Open Licese Agreement from the software developer, which is not the case in NEW FIELDS. In this case, the first three sets of numbers of the Product I.D. Nos. of the MICROSOFT Windows XP Pro operating System software program installed in the two (2) computer units we used, i.e., “55274-640-1582543-xxxxx”, were the same. We also observed that the first three sets of numbers of the Product I.D Nos. of the MICROSOFT Office 2007 (Word) software in the two (2) computers we used, i.e., “89388-707-0358973-xxxxx”, were also the same. Ostensibly, this means that NEW FIELDS only used one (1) installer of the MICROSOFT Windows XP operating system software and one (1) installer of the MICROSOFT Office software program on two (2) computers. Based on our training, if the first three sets of numbers of the Product I.D. Nos. of the MICROSOFT software installed are the same, it signifies that it came from one installer. It does not matter [if] the last 5 digits of the Product I.D. Nos. are different because this is computer-generated and therefore varies with every installation. Apart from the MICROSOFT software, the serial numbers of the ADOBE software installed in the computer units we used were also the same, signifying that NEW FIELDS only used one (1) installer of the ADOBE software program on two (2) computers.8 (Emphasis supplied)
The Motion [to Quash] failed to comply with the mandatory 3-day notice rule under the Rules of Court. Hence it is nothing but a worthless piece of paper.
x x x x
In this case, the Motion of Respondents was scheduled for hearing on 11 June 2010. However, Respondents only furnished [petitioners] a copy of the Motion on 10 June 2010, or just 1 day before the scheduled hearing, which was in clear violation of the 3-day notice rule.14
In the instant case, when the court a quo ordered petitioners to submit their comment on the motion to quash, it was, in effect, giving petitioners their day in court. Thus, while the [three]-day notice rule was not strictly observed, its purpose was still satisfied when respondent judge did not immediately rule on the motion giving petitioners x x x the opportunity to study and oppose the arguments stated in the motion.27
The Honorable Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Judge Amor Reyes of Branch 21, Regional Trial Court of Manila did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its Orders dated 29 June 2010 and 27 August 2010, quashing Search Warrant Nos. 10-15912 and 10-15913 and directing the immediate release of the items seized pursuant to the said warrants, despite the pendency of appellate proceedings.28
In the instant case, when the court a quo ordered petitioners to submit their comment on the motion to quash, it was, in effect, giving petitioners their day in court. Thus, while the [three]-day notice rule was not strictly observed, its purpose was still satisfied when respondent judge did not immediately rule on the motion giving petitioners x x x the opportunity to study and oppose the arguments stated in the motion.30
Probable cause is dependent largely on the opinion and findings of the judge who conducted the examination and who had the opportunity to question the applicant and his witnesses. For this reason, the findings of the judge deserve great weight. The reviewing court should overturn such findings only upon proof that the judge disregarded the facts before him or ignored the clear dictates of reason.34
(1) when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory;
(2) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;
(3) when the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
(4) when there is a grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;
(5) when the Appellate Court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(6) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts;
(7) when the Court of Appeals failed to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;
(8) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting;
(9) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and
(10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.36
Initial hearsay information or tips from confidential informants could very well serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant, if followed up personally by the recipient and validated.39Looking at the records, it is clear that Padilla and his companions were able to personally verify the tip of their informant. In his Affidavit submitted to Judge Amor Reyes prior to the issuance of the warrant, Padilla stated that:
At the time that I was inside the office premises of the NEW FIELDS, I saw the Product Keys or Product Identification Numbers of the ADOBE and MICROSOFT computer software programs installed in some of the computer units. Ms. Serrano and Mr. Moradoz were able to pull up these data since they were allowed to use some of the computers of the target companies in line with the pretext that we used to gain entry into NEW FIELDS. I actively read and attentively observed the information reflected from the monitor display unit of the computers that Ms. Serrano and Mr. Moradoz were able to use. x x x.40
x x x x
6. I suspect that the ADOBE and MICROSOFT computer software programs that are being used in the premises of NEW FIELDS are unauthorized, illegal or unlicensed copies because of the following reasons:6.1. At least two (2) computer units are using a common Product Identification Number of MICROSOFT and ADOBE software. This is one indication that the software being used is unlicensed or was illegally reproduced or copied. All ADOBE and MICROSOFT computer software programs should only be used in one computer unit, unless they avail of an Open License Agreement from the computer software developer, which [was not obtained by] NEW FIELDS. x x x.41
Endnotes:
* Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1767 dated 27 August 2014.
1Rollo, pp. 46-61. Penned by Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Francisco P. Acosta, concurring.
2 Id. at 64-66. Penned by Associate Justice Angelita A. Gacutan with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Francisco P. Acosta, concurring.
3 Microsoft software includes: “Microsoft Windows Vista,” “Microsoft Windows XP,” “Microsoft Windows 2000,” “Microsoft Windows Millenium Edition,” “Microsoft Windows 98,” “Microsoft Windows 95,” and “Microsoft Windows 97” containing “Microsoft Word,” “Microsoft Excel,” “Microsoft Access” and “Microsoft Powerpoint.”
4 Adobe software includes but is not limited to “Adobe Acrobat,” “Adobe Acrobat Capture,” “Adobe Acrobat Exchange,” “Adobe Acrobat Pro,” “Adobe Acrobat Reader,” “Adobe After Effects,” “Adobe After Effects Bundle,” “Adobe Art Explorer,” “Adobe Art Explorer Deluxe CD,” “Adobe ClassRoom in a Book,” “Adobe Design Collection,” “Adobe Dimensions,” “Adobe Distiller Server,” “Adobe Document Server,” “Adobe Dynamic Media Collection,” “Adobe Extreme,” “Adobe Font Folio,” “Adobe Frame Maker + SGML,” “Adobe Frame Viewer,” “Retrireview Tools,” “Adobe Gallery Effects,” “Adobe GoLive,” “Adobe Graphics Collection,” “Adobe Home Publisher Deluxe CD,” “Adobe Illustrator,” Adobe InCopy,” “Adobe Indesign,” “Adobe InProduction,” “Adobe Image Club Graphics,” “Adobe Image Library,” “Adobe ImageReady,” “Adobe LiveMotion,” “Adobe PageMaker,” “Adobe PageMill,” “Adobe Persuasion,” “Adobe PDF Merchant,” “Adobe PhotoDeluxe,” “Adobe PhotoDeluxe Business Edition,” “Adobe PhotoDeluxe Home Edition,” “Adobe Photoshop,” “Adobe Photoshop Limited Edition,” “Adobe PostScript,” “Adobe Premiere,” “Adobe Press,” “Adobe PressReady,” “Adobe Print Drivers,” “Adobe Publishing Collection,” “Adobe ScreenReady,” “Adobe SiteMill,” “Adobe Streamline,” “Adobe SuperATM,” “Adobe SuperPaint,” “Adobe SuperPaint Deluxe,” “Adobe TextureMaker,” “Adobe Type Basics,” “Adobe Type Library,” “Adobe Type Manager Deluxe,” “Adobe Type On Call,” “Adobe Type Reunion Deluxe,” “Adobe Type Set Value Pack,” “Adobe Type Twister,” “Adobe Wild Type” and “Adobe Web Type.”
5 Records, p. 29.
6Rollo, p. 8.
7 Affidavit of Police Senior Inspector Ernesto V. Padilla. Id. at 205.
8 Records, pp. 34-35.
9Rollo, p. 9.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 865.
12 Id. at 401.
13 Id. at 401-413.
14 Id. at 402.
15 Id. at 251.
16 Id. at 250.
17 Id. at 251.
18 Id. at 11.
19 Id.
20 Id. at 281-284.
21 Id. at 11.
22 Id. at 769.
23 Id. at 286-292.
24 Id. at 12.
25 Id. at 294.
26 Id. at 296-323.
27 Id. at 53-54.
28 Id. at 13.
29 G.R. No. 187021, 25 January 2012, 664 SCRA 293.
30Rollo, pp. 53-54.
31 Lacson v. MJ Lacson Development Company, Inc., G.R. No. 168840, 8 December 2010, 637 SCRA 505.
32 481 Phil. 550 (2004).
33 Id. at 562.
34 Id. at 568.
35Local Superior of the Servants of Charity, Inc. v. Jody King Construction and Development Corp., 509 Phil. 426 (2005).
36 Id. at 432.
37Rollo, p. 60.
38 Id. at 58.
39 Id. at 59.
40 Id. at 206.
41 Id. at 207.