82. FREDRIK FELIX P. NOGALES, GIANCARLO P. NOGALES, ROGELIO P. NOGALES, MELINDA P. NOGALES, PRISCILA B. CABRERA, PHIL-PACIFIC OUTSOURCING SERVICES CORPORATION and 3 X 8 INTERNET, represented by its proprietor MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER A. NOGALES, Petitioners,- versus -PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES and PRESIDING JUDGE TITA BUGHAO ALISUAG, Branch 1, Regional Trial Court, Manila, Respondents.

G.R. No. 191080, Nov. 21, 2011Mendoza, J.

Topic: Chain of Custody Doctrine; Confiscation of seized items despite acquittal under PD 969

Doctrine: P.D. No. 969 mandates the forfeiture and destruction of pornographic materials involved in the violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, even if the accused was acquitted.

Background of the Case:1. Nogales et al. are alleged to have engaged in the creation and selling of pornographic internet website.2. Special Investigator Garry Meez of the NBI applied for a search warrant before the RTC Manila to authorize him and his fellow agents to search the premises of petitioner Phil-Pacific Corporation (located in San Sebastian, University Belt, Manila) and to seize and confiscate the objects enumerated in the application. 3. A search warrant was validly issued:a. RTC Judge conducted a hearing; personally examined the two witnesses in form of searching questions and their answers recorded by the court. b. Supporting evidence (affidavits of the witnesses) was submitted and marked.c. The search warrant was to confiscate the following: Computer Sets, TV sets, Internet Servers, Web Cam, Pornographic films and materials, list of clients, telephone and fax machines4. SI Meez submitted the return of the search warrant. RTC issued an order granting the prayer of Meez to keep the seized items in the NBI and under his custody. 5. Nogales filed a Motion to Quash essentially assailing that they dont own the items seized, NBI raided the wrong establishment and that the element of publicity is absent. 6. RTC denied the MTQ.7. Nogales filed an MR. RTC denied. 8. Nogales filed a Motion to Release Seized Properties. RTC partially granted. a. They allege that the criminal case filed against them for violation of Art 201 of the RPC was dismissed and so therefore, the court must order the return of the seized items. b. RTC granted to return the computer sets. The softwares containing pornography will be retained. 9. On appeal to the CA, CA affirmed RTC with modifications.a. CA ruled that the CPUs AND softwares will be returned on the condition that the hard disk be removed from the CPU and be destroyed.

Petitioners Argument Petitioners argue that: There is no evidence showing that they were the source of pornographic printouts presented by the NBI to the RTC or to the City Prosecutor of Manila. Since the hard disks in their computers are not illegal per se unlike illegal drugs, said merchandise are lawful as they are being used in the ordinary course of business, the destruction of which would violate not only procedural, but substantive due process. The decision of the CA violates the constitutional proscription against confiscation of property without due process of law.

Respondents Argument: The obscene materials or pornographic files can be deleted by formatting or removing the hard disk from the CPUs without destroying the entire CPU; and that The petitioners did not dispute that the files found in the seized items were obscene or pornographic but the said devices are not obscene or illegal per se. Hence, where the purpose of presenting as evidence the articles seized is no longer served, there is no justification for severely curtailing the rights of a person to his property. Respondent further argue that the confiscated softwares if found to be pirated or unlicensed will be retained by the NBI.

Issue

Was the CA correct in ordering the removal and destruction of the hard disks containing the pornographic and obscene materials?

Ruling: YES.

While it is true that the criminal case for violation of Art 201 of the RPC was dismissed, it cannot, however, be used as basis to recover the confiscated hard disks.

The CA is correct in stating that the removal of the hard disk from the CPU is a reliable way of permanently removing the obscene or pornographic files. Significantly, Presidential Decree (PD) No. 969 is explicit. Thus:Sec. 2. Disposition of the Prohibited Articles. The disposition of the literature, films, prints, engravings, sculptures, paintings, or other materials involved in the violation referred to in Section 1 hereof shall be governed by the following rules:a.Upon conviction of the offender, to be forfeited in favorof the government to be destroyed.b.Where the criminal case against any violator of this decree results in an acquittal, the obscene/immoral literature, films, prints, engravings, sculpture, paintings orother materials and other articles involved in the violationreferred to in Section 1hereof shall nevertheless beforfeitedin favor of the government to bedestroyed,after forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Chief of Constabulary. [Emphasis and underscoring supplied]Clearly, the provision directs the forfeiture ofallmaterials involved in violation of the subject law. The CA was lenient with petitioners in modifying the ruling of the RTC in that the CPUs and softwares, which were initially ordered to be retained by the NBI, should be released in their favor with onlythe hard disk removed from the CPUs and destroyed. If the softwares are determined to be violative of Article 201 of the RPC, unlicensed or pirated, they should also be forfeited and destroyed in the manner allowed by law.The law is clear. Only licensed softwares that can be used for legitimate purposes should be returned to petitioners.To stress, P.D. No. 969 mandates the forfeiture and destruction of pornographic materials involved in the violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code,even if the accused was acquitted.Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, the Court holds that the destruction of the hard disks and the softwares usedin any wayin the violation of the subject law addresses the purpose of minimizing if not totally eradicating pornography.

Petition Denied. CA affirmed with modification: ordering the return of the CPU and softwares which are licensed and used for legitimate purposes. 1