Respondents claim that intheir parents acquired a real property in Cebu which was first registered in the name of their aunt as their parents was still Chinese citizens this time. In May,their aunt executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject property in favor of their father. In turn, on Octoberrespondents father executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the petitioner, Maria Ching, his common-law wife.
The copyright registrations were issued in violation of the Intellectual Property Code on the ground that: Hence, they are not original. They aver that the models are not original, and as such are the proper subject of a patent, not copyright.
Citing the ruling of the Court in Malaloan v. Court of Appeals,11 the petitioner stated that a search warrant is merely a judicial process designed by the Rules of Court in anticipation of a criminal case.
On January 3,the trial court issued an Order12 granting the motion, and quashed the search warrant on its finding that there was no probable cause for its issuance.
The court ruled that the Ching vs salinas case digest covered by the certificates issued to the petitioner pertained to solutions to technical problems, not literary and artistic as provided in Article of the Intellectual Property Code.
He insisted that his works are covered by Sections The petitioner averred that the copyright certificates are prima facie evidence of its validity, citing Ching vs salinas case digest ruling of the United States Court of Appeals in Wildlife Express Corporation v.
Carol Wright Sales, Inc. The petitioner noted that respondent William Salinas, Jr. On September 26,the CA rendered judgment dismissing the petition on its finding that the RTC did not commit any grave abuse of its discretion in issuing the assailed order, to wit: It is settled that preliminarily, there must be a finding that a specific offense must have been committed to justify the issuance of a search warrant.
In a number of cases decided by the Supreme Court, the same is explicitly provided, thus: It is worthy to state that the works protected under the Law on Copyright are: Accordingly, if, in the first place, the item subject of the petition is not entitled to be protected by the law on copyright, how can there be any violation?
The petitioner forthwith filed the present petition for review on certiorari, contending that the revocation of his copyright certificates should be raised in a direct action and not in a search warrant proceeding. The petitioner posits that even assuming ex argumenti that the trial court may resolve the validity of his copyright in a proceeding to quash a search warrant for allegedly infringing items, the RTC committed a grave abuse of its discretion when it declared that his works are not copyrightable in the first place.
He claims that R. The petitioner also maintains that the law does not provide that the intended use or use in industry of an article eligible for patent bars or invalidates its registration under the Law on Copyright.
The test of protection for the aesthetic is not beauty and utility, but art for the copyright and invention of original and ornamental design for design patents. The petitioner adds that a finding of probable cause to justify the issuance of a search warrant means merely a reasonable suspicion of the commission of the offense.
It is not equivalent to absolute certainty or a finding of actual and positive cause. He maintains that to justify a finding of probable cause in the issuance of a search warrant, it is enough that there exists a reasonable suspicion of the commission of the offense.
The petitioner contends that he has in his favor the benefit of the presumption that his copyright is valid; hence, the burden of overturning this presumption is on the alleged infringers, the respondents herein.
But this burden cannot be carried in a hearing on a proceeding to quash the search warrants, as the issue therein is whether there was probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant.
The petitioner concludes that the issue of probable cause should be resolved without invalidating his copyright. In their comment on the petition, the respondents aver that the work of the petitioner is essentially a technical solution to the problem of wear and tear in automobiles, the substitution of materials, i.
Such work, the respondents assert, is the subject of copyright under Section The respondents posit that a technical solution in any field of human activity which is novel may be the subject of a patent, and not of a copyright.
They insist that the certificates issued by the National Library are only certifications that, at a point in time, a certain work was deposited in the said office. Furthermore, the registration of copyrights does not provide for automatic protection.
The respondents maintain that a copyright exists only when the work is covered by the protection of R. The petition has no merit. It bears stressing that upon the filing of the application for search warrant, the RTC was duty-bound to determine whether probable cause existed, in accordance with Section 4, Rule of the Rules of Criminal Procedure: Requisite for issuing search warrant.
In Solid Triangle Sales Corporation v. Indeed, probable cause is deemed to exist only where facts and circumstances exist which could lead a reasonably cautious and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed or is being committed.
Besides, in Section 3, Rule of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of personal property a subject of the offense; b stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense; or c used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.
The court cannot abdicate its constitutional obligation by refusing to determine whether an offense has been committed. Thus, the ownership of a valid copyright is essential.
By originality is meant that the material was not copied, and evidences at least minimal creativity; that it was independently created by the author and that it possesses at least same minimal degree of creativity.
To discharge his burden, the applicant may present the certificate of registration covering the work or, in its absence, other evidence. It constitutes prima facie evidence of both validity and ownership27 and the validity of the facts stated in the certificate.
The applicant should not ordinarily be forced, in the first instance, to prove all the multiple facts that underline the validity of the copyright unless the respondent, effectively challenging them, shifts the burden of doing so to the applicant.CASE TITLE: Jessie Ching v.
William Salinas, Sr., William Salinas, Jr., Josephine Salinas, Jennifer Salinas, Alonto Solaiman Salle, John Eric Salinas, Noel Yabut (Board of Directors and Officers of WILAWARE PROUDCT CORPORATION) PETITIONER’S CLAIMS: Petitioner’s insisted that his works are covered by Sections and of the Intellectual Property Code and that.
crim case digest. Federal Prosecutors Filing in Child Porn Case of Democrat Operative. Viduya vs.
Berdiago Case. Alvarez v CFI. People v. Crippen. case. Crim Pro Digest. Documents Similar To Ching vs Salinas. 14D G.R. No. L December 26, Burgos Sr vs Chief of Staff.
Uploaded by. rodolfoverdidajr. Aniag vs Comelec Digest. Uploaded. Jessie G. Ching v. William rutadeltambor.coms GR 29 June Facts: 1. Petitioner is the owner and general manager of Jeshicris.
Kho vs CA et al Digest - Free download as Word Doc .doc /.docx), PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) or read online for free. Ching v Salinas. Brandir v CPLC. FILSCAP V rutadeltambor.com The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution 9/2/ Case Digest: DOROTHEO v.
CA Dorotheo v. CA GR No. , December 8, FACTS: Aniceta Reyes died in without her estate being settled. Pascual Godines Petitioner vs. the Honorable Court of Appeals Special Fourth Division and Sv Agro Enterprises Inc. Respondents.