No search warrant if complaint only for violation of goodwill
Anent petitioners contention that the search warrants were issued in relation to no particular offense, they rely on the holding of the Supreme Court in Savage v. Judge Taypin, where it was held that
There is evidently no mention of any crime of unfair competition involving design patents in the controlling provisions on Unfair Competition. It is therefore unclear whether the crime exists at all, for the enactment of RA 8293 did not result in the reenactment of Art. 189 of the Revised Penal Code. In the face of this ambiguity, the Supreme Court must strictly construe the statute against the State and liberally in favor of the accused, for penal statutes cannot be enlarged or extended by intendment, implication or any equitable consideration.
To be sure, the search warrant in Savage was issued in the face of possible violation of Republic Act No. 8293. The acts complained of in said case were the alleged manufacture and fabrication of wrought iron furniture similar to that patented by private respondent therein sans any license or patent for the same, for the purpose of deceiving or defrauding private respondent and the buying public.
In making the above-quoted declaration in said case, the Supreme Court recognized that paragraph 3 of Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code stating that "3. Any person who, by means of false or fraudulent representations or declarations, orally or in writing, or by other fraudulent means shall procure from the patent office or from any other office which may hereafter be established by law for the purposes, the registration of a tradename, trademark, or service mark, or of himself as the owner of such tradename, trademark, or service mark or an entry respecting a tradename, trademark, or servicemark." was not included in the enactment of Section 168 of Republic Act No. 8293.
On the other hand, in the Application for Search Warrant filed by NBI SI Lacaran, it is clearly stated that what respondents are complaining about was the alleged violation of the goodwill they have established with respect to their motorcycle models WAVE 110 S and WAVE 125 S and which goodwill is entitled to protection in the same manner as other property rights. It is quite obvious then that their cause of action arose out of the intrusion into their established goodwill involving the two motorcycle models and not patent infringement, as what existed in Savage. (G.R. No. 172775; December 19, 2007)
There is evidently no mention of any crime of unfair competition involving design patents in the controlling provisions on Unfair Competition. It is therefore unclear whether the crime exists at all, for the enactment of RA 8293 did not result in the reenactment of Art. 189 of the Revised Penal Code. In the face of this ambiguity, the Supreme Court must strictly construe the statute against the State and liberally in favor of the accused, for penal statutes cannot be enlarged or extended by intendment, implication or any equitable consideration.
To be sure, the search warrant in Savage was issued in the face of possible violation of Republic Act No. 8293. The acts complained of in said case were the alleged manufacture and fabrication of wrought iron furniture similar to that patented by private respondent therein sans any license or patent for the same, for the purpose of deceiving or defrauding private respondent and the buying public.In making the above-quoted declaration in said case, the Supreme Court recognized that paragraph 3 of Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code stating that "3. Any person who, by means of false or fraudulent representations or declarations, orally or in writing, or by other fraudulent means shall procure from the patent office or from any other office which may hereafter be established by law for the purposes, the registration of a tradename, trademark, or service mark, or of himself as the owner of such tradename, trademark, or service mark or an entry respecting a tradename, trademark, or servicemark." was not included in the enactment of Section 168 of Republic Act No. 8293.
On the other hand, in the Application for Search Warrant filed by NBI SI Lacaran, it is clearly stated that what respondents are complaining about was the alleged violation of the goodwill they have established with respect to their motorcycle models WAVE 110 S and WAVE 125 S and which goodwill is entitled to protection in the same manner as other property rights. It is quite obvious then that their cause of action arose out of the intrusion into their established goodwill involving the two motorcycle models and not patent infringement, as what existed in Savage. (G.R. No. 172775; December 19, 2007)