View full case

MELBAROSE R. SASOT v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

The case involves a criminal prosecution against petitioners for unfair competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted an investigation following a complaint by NBA Properties, Inc., a foreign corporation registered in the United States. The complaint alleged that petitioners were engaged in the manufacture, printing, sale, and distribution of counterfeit "NBA" garment products. NBA Properties, Inc. is the registered owner of NBA trademarks and names of NBA basketball teams. The NBI recommended the prosecution of petitioners for unfair competition. NBA Properties, Inc. executed a Special Power of Attorney authorizing a law firm to act on its behalf.

The law firm filed a complaint-affidavit before a notary public in New York. Based on the recommendation of the Prosecution Attorney, an Information was filed against petitioners for violation of Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioners filed a Motion to Quash the Information, arguing that the complaint should have been dismissed as it was not personally sworn by the complainant before the prosecutor and that NBA Properties, Inc. is a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines.

The trial court denied the motion to quash, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for certiorari. Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising various issues.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the complaint filed by Rick Welts of the NBA Properties, Inc. should have been dismissed for not being personally sworn to by the complainant before the investigating prosecutor.

  2. Whether Welts failed to show any board resolution showing his authority to institute any action in behalf of the company.

  3. Whether the NBA's trademarks are not being actually used in the Philippines and therefore considered of public dominion.

  4. Whether the trial court should respect the determination made by the public prosecutor to file the information against the petitioners.

  5. Whether the complainant’s capacity to sue is material in a case of unfair competition.

  6. Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection under Philippine patent laws.

RULING:

  1. The petition is denied. The Court held that a special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information. The proper procedure is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial, and present the special defenses invoked in their motion to quash. The Court found no special or exceptional circumstances justifying the immediate resort to a filing of a petition for certiorari. The Court also determined that there was no justification for the quashal of the Information filed against the accused.

  2. The trial court should respect the determination made by the public prosecutor to file the information against the petitioners, as long as the information is valid on its face and there is no showing of manifest error, grave abuse of discretion, and prejudice on the part of the public prosecutor.

  3. The capacity of the complainant to sue is immaterial in cases of unfair competition since it is a public crime and the State is the injured party.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Special civil action for certiorari is not the proper remedy to assail the denial of a motion to quash an information.

  • Proper procedure when a motion to quash is denied is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial, and present the special defenses invoked in the motion to quash.

  • The grounds for quashing an information are enumerated in Section 3, Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure.

  • Defect in the complaint filed before the fiscal and the complainant's capacity to sue are not grounds for a motion to quash.

  • Want of oath in a complaint is a mere defect of form that does not affect the substantial rights of the defendant on the merits.

  • The prosecutor enjoys the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of his duties and functions, giving his report the presumption of accuracy.

  • Supporting documents can be used as a basis for the prosecutor's recommendation.

  • The determination made by the public prosecutor in filing an information should be respected by the trial court, as long as the information is valid on its face and there is no showing of manifest error, grave abuse of discretion, and prejudice.

  • The capacity of the complainant to sue is immaterial in cases of unfair competition since it is a public crime and the State is the injured party.

  • The determination of whether the petitioner is entitled to protection under Philippine patent laws is a matter to be resolved during trial.