View full case

GEMMA ONG v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Gemma Ong, also known as Maria Teresa Gemma Catacutan, was charged before the RTC for Infringement under the Intellectual Property Code. The charge was for engaging in the distribution, sale, and offering for sale of counterfeit Marlboro cigarettes in September 1998. Gemma pleaded not guilty to the charge and the trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented witnesses, including a product/brand security expert from Philip Morris Philippines, Inc., an investigator from the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB), and representatives from the law firm engaged by Philip Morris. Senior Investigator Jesse Lara received information that counterfeit Marlboro cigarettes were being sold by Chinese nationals in Manila. A surveillance operation was conducted, and samples of the counterfeit cigarettes were obtained from sari-sari stores in Quiapo, Tondo, Sta. Cruz, and Blumentritt. During the surveillance, a container van delivering the counterfeit cigarettes was seen parked at a specific address owned by Mr. Jackson Ong. With the endorsement of the EIIB, Senior Investigator Lara obtained a search warrant, and the search was conducted on September 25, 1998.

The case involves Gemma Catacutan who was accused of violating Sections 155 and 168 in relation to Section 170 of Republic Act No. 8293 for the unauthorized manufacture and sale of Marlboro cigarettes. The accused allegedly entertained law enforcement officers who were conducting a search in a premises owned by Jackson Ong, who was not present at the time. The search resulted in the discovery of Marlboro cigarettes stocked in several boxes. The seized goods were later transferred from the law enforcement agency to Philip Morris Products, Inc. (PMPI) for laboratory analysis. Based on the examination of the samples, PMPI confirmed that the cigarettes were unauthorized products. The RTC convicted Gemma Catacutan of the crime, finding her defense of mistaken identity as untenable. She was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine and indemnify PMPI for actual damages. The case against Jackson Ong was ordered archived pending his arrest.

The accused, Maria Teresa Gemma Catacutan, was charged and convicted of trademark infringement for the sale and distribution of counterfeit Marlboro cigarettes. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found her guilty based on the positive identification of prosecution witnesses who claimed that Gemma was the woman who entertained them during the search of the premises where the counterfeit cigarettes were found. The RTC also noted that Gemma failed to disclose her true identity when arrested, during the posting of her bail, and even during her arraignment. The RTC further pointed out that Gemma's business address, registered under the name "Fascinate Trading," was the same property raided by the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) that contained the counterfeit cigarettes. Dissatisfied with the RTC's decision, Gemma appealed to the Court of Appeals, but her appeal was deemed meritless. The Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction, agreeing that she was positively identified by the prosecution witnesses and that the evidence, including the seized counterfeit goods, proved her commission of the offense. Gemma now seeks recourse before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not accused-appellant's petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is fatally defective as it raises questions of fact.

  2. Whether or not Gemma's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt in light of her alleged mistaken identity.

  3. Whether the discrepancies in the affidavits discredit the witness testimonies.

  4. Whether Gemma had the opportunity to correct the mistake regarding her identity.

  5. Whether the prosecution witnesses falsely testified and committed perjury.

  6. Whether the positive identification of the accused was sufficient to prove her guilt.

  7. Whether the defense of mistaken identity, denial, and lack of control over the premises were established.

RULING:

  1. Procedural Issue:

  2. The Court has taken cognizance of this case in the interest of proper administration of justice, despite the general rule that factual questions are beyond the province of the Court in a petition for review under Rule 45.

  3. Gemma is guilty of violating Section 155 in relation to Section 170 of Republic Act No. 8293:

  4. Gemma was found guilty of violating Section 155 in relation to Section 170 of the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines. The Court held that the prosecution was able to establish the validity and ownership of the trademark "Marlboro" and the element of likelihood of confusion, as seen in the counterfeit cigarettes seized from Gemma's possession.

  5. Regarding the Claim of Mistaken Identity:

  6. The Court held that the discrepancies between the original affidavits and the testimony in court do not outrightly justify the acquittal of the accused. The testimony given in open court prevails over the affidavit executed outside the court.

  7. The discrepancies in the affidavits do not necessarily discredit the witness testimonies as ex parte affidavits are often incomplete and considered inferior to in-court testimony.

  8. Gemma had multiple opportunities to correct the mistake regarding her identity, such as during the preliminary investigation, posting of bail, and arraignment. Her failure to do so supports the likelihood that she was present and should be held responsible.

  9. Gemma's allegations that the prosecution witnesses committed perjury and falsely testified are not supported by concrete and convincing evidence. Allegations of bad faith must be proven, and there is a presumption of good faith.

  10. The positive identification of the accused, Gemma Ong, holds great weight in determining her guilt. The defense of denial is weak and cannot take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party. Gemma's claim of mistaken identity is insufficient to prove her innocence.

  11. Gemma's defense of mistaken identity, denial, and lack of control over the premises were deemed weak and unproven. She failed to provide evidence that she had relinquished control of the building and did not sign the search documents. Her claim that the signatures in the search documents did not match her signature on her identification card was unsupported.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In exceptional cases, the Court may take cognizance of questions of fact in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

  • To establish trademark infringement, the elements of the validity of the mark, ownership of the mark, and likelihood of confusion must be shown.

  • An affidavit executed outside the court does not outweigh the testimony given in open court.

  • Discrepancies between a sworn statement and testimony in court do not necessarily discredit the witness.

  • Ex parte affidavits are often incomplete and considered inferior to in-court testimony.

  • Discrepancies in affidavits do not necessarily discredit witness testimonies.

  • The accused has the opportunity to correct any mistake regarding their identity or presence during the preliminary investigation, posting of bail, and arraignment.

  • Allegations of perjury and false testimony require concrete and convincing evidence. There is a presumption of good faith.

  • Positive identification of the accused is of great weight in determining guilt or innocence.

  • The defense of denial is weak and can be easily fabricated.

  • The defense of mistaken identity requires strong evidence to support it.

  • Lack of control over premises and failure to sign search documents can weaken the defense of an accused.