SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 108946. January 28, 1999.]

FRANCISCO G. JOAQUIN, JR., and BJ PRODUCTIONS, INC.,

petitioners, vs. HONORABLE FRANKLIN DRILON, GABRIEL
ZOSA, WILLIAM ESPOSO, FELIPE MEDINA, JR., and CASEY
FRANCISCO, respondents.

Medel Macam del Rosario Collado and Polines for petitioners.

Angelo Medina for F. Medina, Jr.
Atienza, Tabora, del Rosario & Salvador for W. Esposo.
Francisco L. Rosario, Jr. for Casey Francisco.
De Borja Medialdea Ata Bello Guevarra & Serapio for G. Zosa.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the holder/grantee of Certificate of

Copyright No. M922 dated January 28, 1971 of Rhoda and Me, a dating game
show aired from 1970 to 1977. In 1973, petitioner BJPI submitted to the
National Library an addendum to its certificate of copyright specifying the
show's format and style presentation. In 1991, petitioner Francisco Joaquin, Jr.,
president of BJPI, saw on RPN 9 an episode of It's a Date. He immediately
protested the airing of the show through a letter sent to Grabriel M. Zosa,
president and general manager of IXL Productions, Inc., the producer of It's a
Date. Petitioner Joaquin informed respondent, Zosa of a copyright to Rhoda and
Me and demanded that IXL discontinue airing It's a Date. Respondent Zosa
apologized to Joaquin, but continued airing the show. Zosa also sought to
register IXL's copyright to the first episode of It's a Date for which a certificate
of copyright was issued by the National Library on August 14, 1991. With these
developments, petitioners herein filed a complaint against Zosa and other RPN
Channel 9 officers as a result of which an information for violation of P.D. No.
49 was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Zosa appealed to
the Department of Justice. The Secretary of Justice reversed the prosecutor's
findings and directed the dismissal of the case. Petitioner Joaquin filed a motion
for reconsideration, but it was denied by the Secretary of Justice. Hence, this
petition. Both public and private respondents maintained that petitioners failed
to establish the existence of probable cause due to their failure to present the
copyrighted master videotape of Rhoda and Me. They contended that BJPl's
copyright covers only a specific episode of Rhosa and Me and that the formats
or concepts of dating game shows were not covered by the copyright
protection under P.D. No. 49.
The Supreme Court ruled that BJPI's copyright covered audio-visual
recordings of every episode of Rhoda and Me, as falling within the class of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 works mentioned in P.D. No. 49. The copyright, however, does not extend to
the general concept or format of its dating game show. Accordingly, by the
very nature of the subject of petitioner BJPI's copyright, the investigating
prosecutor should have been given the opportunity to compare the videotapes
of the two shows. Mere description by words of the general format of the two
dating game shows is insufficient; the presentation of the master videotape in
evidence was indispensable to the determination of the existence of probable
cause. The petition was therefore dismissed. SEIDAC

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PRELIMINARY

INVESTIGATION; AUTHORITY OF THE STATE PROSECUTOR, SUBJECT TO THE
CONTROL OF THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE. — A preliminary investigation falls
under the authority of the state prosecutor who is given by law the power to
direct and control criminal actions. He is, however, subject to the control of the
Secretary of Justice. Thus, Rule 112, Sec. 4 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, provides: SEC. 4. Duty of investigating fiscal. — If the investigating
fiscal finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the resolution
and corresponding information. He shall certify under oath that he, or as shown
by the record, an authorized officer, has personally examined the complainant
and his witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has
been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, that the
accused was informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against
him and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting evidence.
Otherwise, he shall recommend dismissal of the complaint. In either case, he
shall forward the records of the case to the provincial or city fiscal or chief state
prosecutor within five (5) days from his resolution. The latter shall take
appropriate action thereon within ten (10) days from receipt thereof,
immediately informing the parties of said action. No complaint or information
may be filed or dismissed by an investigating fiscal without the prior written
authority approval of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor.
Where the investigating assistant fiscal recommends the dismissal of the case
but his findings are reversed by the provincial or city fiscal or chief state
prosecutor on the ground that a probable cause exists, the latter may, by
himself, file the corresponding information against the respondent or direct any
other assistant fiscal or state prosecutor to do so, without conducting another
preliminary investigation. If upon petition by a proper party, the Secretary of
Justice reverses the resolution of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state
prosecutor, he shall direct the fiscal concerned to file the corresponding
information without conducting another preliminary investigation or to dismiss
or move for dismissal of the complaint or information. In reviewing resolutions
of prosecutors, the Secretary of Justice is not precluded from considering errors,
although unassigned, for the purpose of determining whether there is probable
cause for filing cases in court. He must make his own finding of probable cause
and is not confined to the issues raised by the parties during preliminary
investigation. Moreover, his findings are not subject to review unless shown to
have been made with grave abuse.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 2. COMMERCIAL LAW; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW; COPYRIGHT;
CONSTRUED. — Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory
right. It is a new or independent right granted by the statute, and not simply a
pre-existing right regulated by the statute. Being a statutory grant, the rights
are only such as the statute confers, and may be obtained and enjoyed only
with respect to the subjects and by the persons, and on terms and conditions
specified in the statute. Since . . . copyright in published works is purely a
statutory creation, a copyright may be obtained only for a work falling within
the statutory enumeration or description. Regardless of the historical viewpoint,
it is authoritatively settled in the United States that there is no copyright except
that which is both created and secured by act of Congress. . . . P.D. No. 49,
Section 2, in enumerating what are subject to copyright, refers to finished
works and not to concepts. The copyright does not extend to an idea,
procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or
discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated,
or embodied in such work. Thus, the new INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF
THE PHILIPPINES provides: SEC. 175. Unprotected Subject Matter. —
Notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 172 and 173, no protection shall
extend, under this law, to any idea, procedure, system, method or operation,
concept, principle, discovery or mere data as such, even if they are expressed,
explained, illustrated or embodied in a work; news of the day and other
miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press information; or
any official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any
official translation thereof.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; FORMAT OR MECHANICS OF A TELEVISION SHOW IS
NOT INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF PROTECTED WORKS. — To begin with, the
format of a show is not copyrightable. Section 2 of P.D. No. 49, otherwise
known as the DECREE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, enumerates the classes of
work entitled to copyright protection, to wit: Section 2. The rights granted by
this Decree shall, from the moment of creation, subsist with respect to any of
the following classes of works: (A) Books, including composite and cyclopedic
works, manuscripts, directories, and gazetteers; (B) Periodicals, including
pamphlets and newspaper. (C) Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations
prepared for oral delivery; (D) Letters; (E) Dramatic or dramatico-musical
compositions; choreographic works and entertainments in dumb shows, the
acting form of which is fixed in writing or otherwise; (F) Musical compositions,
with or without words; (G) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture,
engraving, lithography, and other works of art; models or designs for works of
art; (H) Reproductions of work of art; (I) Original ornamental designs or models
for articles of manufacture, whether or not patentable, and other works of
applied art; (J) Maps, plans, sketches, and charts; (K) Drawings or plastic works
of a scientific or technical character; (L) Photographic works and works
produced by a process analogous to photography; lantern slides; (M)
Cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to
cinematography or any process for making audio-visual recordings; (N)
Computer programs; (O) Prints, pictorial illustrations advertising copies, labels,
tags, and box wraps; (P) Dramatizations, translations, adaptions, abridgements,
arrangements and other alterations of literary, musical or artistic works or of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 works of the Philippine government as herein defined, which shall be protected
as provided in Section 8 of this Decree; (Q) Collections of literary, scholarly, or
artistic works or of works referred to in Section 9 of this Decree which by reason
of the selection and arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual
creations, the same to be protected as such in accordance with Section 8 of
this Decree; (R) Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works. This
provision is substantially the same as Section 172 of the INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293). The format or mechanics
of a television show is not included in the list of protected works in Section 2 of
P.D. No. 49. For this reason, the protection afforded by the law cannot be
extended to cover them. ETDAaC

DECISION

MENDOZA, J : p

This is a petition for certiorari. Petitioners seek to annul the resolution of

the Department of Justice, dated August 12, 1992, in Criminal Case No. Q-92-
27854, entitled "Gabriel Zosa, et al. v. City Prosecutor of Quezon City and
Francisco Joaquin, Jr .," and its resolution, dated December 3, 1992, denying
petitioner Joaquin's motion for reconsideration. LLphil

Petitioner BJ Productions, Inc. (BJPI) is the holder/grantee of Certificate of

Copyright No. M922, dated January 28, 1971, of Rhoda and Me, a dating game
show aired from 1970 to 1977.

On June 28, 1973, petitioner BJPI submitted to the National Library an

addendum to its certificate of copyright specifying the show's format and style
of presentation.

On July 14, 1991, while watching television, petitioner Francisco Joaquin,

Jr., president of BJPI, saw on RPN Channel 9 an episode of It's a Date, which was
produced by IXL Productions, Inc. (IXL). On July 18, 1991, he wrote a letter to
private respondent Gabriel M. Zosa, president and general manager of IXL,
informing Zosa that BJPI had a copyright to Rhoda and Me and demanding that
IXL discontinue airing It's a Date.
In a letter, dated July 19, 1991, private respondent Zosa apologized to
petitioner Joaquin and requested a meeting to discuss a possible settlement.
IXL, however, continued airing It's a Date, prompting petitioner Joaquin to send
a second letter on July 25, 1991 in which he reiterated his demand and warned
that, if IXL did not comply, he would endorse the matter to his attorneys for
proper legal action.

Meanwhile, private respondent Zosa sought to register IXL's copyright to

the first episode of It's a Date for which it was issued by the National Library a
certificate of copyright on August 14, 1991.

Upon complaint by petitioners, an information for violation of P.D. No. 49

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 was filed against private respondent Zosa together with certain officers of RPN
Channel 9, namely, William Esposo, Felipe Medina, and Casey Francisco, in the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City where it was docketed as Criminal Case No.
92-27854 and assigned to Branch 104 thereof. However, private respondent
Zosa sought a review of the resolution of the Assistant City Prosecutor before
the Department of Justice.
On August 12, 1992, respondent Secretary of Justice Franklin M. Drilon
reversed the Assistant City Prosecutor's findings and directed him to move for
the dismissal of the case against private respondents. 1

Petitioner Joaquin filed a motion for reconsideration, but his motion was
denied by respondent Secretary of Justice on December 3, 1992. Hence, this
petition. Petitioners contend that:

1. The public respondent gravely abused his discretion

amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he invoked non-
presentation of the master tape as being fatal to the
existence of probable cause to prove infringement, despite
the fact that private respondents never raised the same as a
controverted issue.
2. The public respondent gravely abused his discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction when he arrogated unto
himself the determination of what is copyrightable — an
issue which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
regional trial court to assess in a proper proceeding.
Both public and private respondents maintain that petitioners failed to
establish the existence of probable cause due to their failure to present the
copyrighted master videotape of Rhoda and Me. They contend that petitioner
BJPI's copyright covers only a specific episode of Rhoda and Me and that the
formats or concepts of dating game shows are not covered by copyright
protection under P. D. No. 49.

Non-Assignment of Error
Petitioners claim that their failure to submit the copyrighted master
videotape of the television show Rhoda and Me was not raised in issue by
private respondents during the preliminary investigation and, therefore, it was
error for the Secretary of Justice to reverse the investigating prosecutor's
finding of probable cause on this ground.
A preliminary investigation falls under the authority of the state
prosecutor who is given by law the power to direct and control criminal
actions. 2 He is, however, subject to the control of the Secretary of Justice.
Thus, Rule 112, §4 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides:
SEC. 4. Duty of investigating fiscal. — If the investigating
fiscal finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall prepare the
resolution and corresponding information. He shall certify under oath
that he, or as shown by the record, an authorized officer, has
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 personally examined the complainant and his witnesses, that there is
reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and
that the accused is probably guilty thereof, that the accused was
informed of the complaint and of the evidence submitted against him
and that he was given an opportunity to submit controverting
evidence. Otherwise, he shall recommend dismissal of the complaint.

In either case, he shall forward the records of the case to the

provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor within five (5) days
from his resolution. The latter shall take appropriate action thereon
within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, immediately informing the
parties of said action.
No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an
investigating fiscal without the prior written authority or approval of
the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor.
Where the investigating assistant fiscal recommends the
dismissal of the case but his findings are reversed by the provincial or
city fiscal or chief state prosecutor on the ground that a probable
cause exists, the latter may, by himself, file the corresponding
information against the respondent or direct any other assistant fiscal
or state prosecutor to do so, without conducting another preliminary
investigation. cda

If upon petition by a proper party, the Secretary of Justice

reverses the resolution of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state
prosecutor, he shall direct the fiscal concerned to file the
corresponding information without conducting another preliminary
investigation or to dismiss or move for dismissal of the complaint or
information.

In reviewing resolutions of prosecutors, the Secretary of Justice is not

precluded from considering errors, although unassigned, for the purpose of
determining whether there is probable cause for filing cases in court. He must
make his own finding of probable cause and is not confined to the issues raised
by the parties during preliminary investigation. Moreover, his findings are not
subject to review unless shown to have been made with grave abuse.
Opinion of the Secretary of Justice
Petitioners contend, however, that the determination of the question
whether the format or mechanics of a show is entitled to copyright protection is
for the court, and not the Secretary of Justice, to make. They assail the
following portion of the resolution of the respondent Secretary of Justice:
[T]he essence of copyright infringement is the copying, in whole or in
part, of copyrightable materials as defined and enumerated in Section
2 of P.D. No. 49. Apart from the manner in which it is actually
expressed, however, the idea of a dating game show is, in the opinion
of this Office, a non-copyrightable material. Ideas, concepts, formats,
or schemes in their abstract form clearly do not fall within the class of
works or materials susceptible of copyright registration as provided in
PD. No. 49. 3 (Emphasis added.)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 It is indeed true that the question whether the format or mechanics of
petitioners' television show is entitled to copyright protection is a legal question
for the court to make. This does not, however, preclude respondent Secretary
of Justice from making a preliminary determination of this question in resolving
whether there is probable cause for filing the case in court. In doing so in this
case, he did not commit any grave error.

Presentation of Master Tape

Petitioners claim that respondent Secretary of Justice gravely abused his
discretion in ruling that the master videotape should have been presented in
order to determine whether there was probable cause for copyright
infringement. They contend that 20th Century Fox Film Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, 4 on which respondent Secretary of Justice relied in reversing the
resolution of the investigating prosecutor, is inapplicable to the case at bar
because in the present case, the parties presented sufficient evidence which
clearly establish "linkages between the copyrighted show 'Rhoda and Me' and
the infringing TV show 'It's a Date.'" 5

The case of 20th Century Fox Film Corporation involved raids conducted
on various videotape outlets allegedly selling or renting out "pirated"
videotapes. The trial court found that the affidavits of NBI agents, given in
support of the application for the search warrant, were insufficient without the
master tape. Accordingly, the trial court lifted the search warrants it had
previously issued against the defendants. On petition for review, this Court
sustained the action of the trial court and ruled: 6
The presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films
from which the pirated films were allegedly copied, was necessary for
the validity of search warrants against those who have in their
possession the pirated films. The petitioner's argument to the effect
that the presentation of the master tapes at the time of application
may not be necessary as these would be merely evidentiary in nature
and not determinative of whether or not a probable cause exists to
justify the issuance of the search warrants is not meritorious. The court
cannot presume that duplicate or copied tapes were necessarily
reproduced from master tapes that it owns.
The application for search warrants was directed against video
tape outlets which allegedly were engaged in the unauthorized sale
and renting out of copyrighted films belonging to the petitioner
pursuant to P.D. 49.
The essence of a copyright infringement is the similarity or at
least substantial similarity of the purported pirated works to the
copyrighted work. Hence, the applicant must present to the court the
copyrighted films to compare them with the purchased evidence of the
video tapes allegedly pirated to determine whether the latter is an
unauthorized reproduction of the former. This linkage of the
copyrighted films to the pirated films must be established to satisfy the
requirements of probable cause. Mere allegations as to the existence of
the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search
warrant.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 This ruling was qualified in the later case of Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court
of Appeals 7 in which it was held:
In fine, the supposed pronunciamento in said case regarding the
necessity for the presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted
films for the validity of search warrants should at most be understood
to merely serve as a guidepost in determining the existence of
probable cause in copyright infringement cases where there is doubt
as to the true nexus between the master tape and the pirated copies.
An objective and careful reading of the decision in said case could lead
to no other conclusion than that said directive was hardly intended to
be a sweeping and inflexible requirement in all or similar copyright
infringement cases. . . . 8

In the case at bar, during the preliminary investigation, petitioners and

private respondents presented written descriptions of the formats of their
respective televisions shows, on the basis of which the investigating prosecutor
ruled:
As may [be] gleaned from the evidence on record, the substance
of the television productions complainant's "RHODA AND ME" and
Zosa's "IT'S A DATE" is that two matches are made between a male
and a female, both single, and the two couples are treated to a night or
two of dining and/or dancing at the expense of the show. The major
concepts of both shows is the same. Any difference appear mere
variations of the major concepts.
That there is an infringement on the copyright of the show
"RHODA AND ME" both in content and in the execution of the video
presentation are established because respondent's "IT'S A DATE" is
practically an exact copy of complainant's "RHODA AND ME" because of
substantial similarities as follows, to wit:

"RHODA AND ME" "IT'S A DATE"

Set 1 Set 1

a. Unmarried participant a. same

of one gender (searcher)
appears on one side of a
divider, while three (3)
unmarried participants
of the other gender are
on the other side of the
divider. This arrangement
is done to ensure
that the searcher does
not see the searchees.
b. Searcher asks a question b. same
to be answered by each of
the searchees. The purpose
is to determine who among
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the searchees is the most
compatible with the searcher.
c. Searcher speculates on the c. same
match to the searchee.
d. Selection is made by the d. Selection
is
use of compute (sic) based on
methods, the
or by the way questions are answer of
the
answered, or similar Searchees.
methods.

Set 2 Set 2

Same as above with the same

genders
of the searcher and
searchees
interchanged. 9

Petitioners assert that the format of Rhoda and Me is a product of

ingenuity and skill and is thus entitled to copyright protection. It is their position
that the presentation of a point-by-point comparison of the formats of the two
shows clearly demonstrates the nexus between the shows and hence
establishes the existence of probable cause for copyright infringement. Such
being the case, they did not have to produce the master tape.
To begin with, the format of a show is not copyrightable. Section 2 of P.D.
No. 49, 10 otherwise known as the DECREE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,
enumerates the classes of work entitled to copyright protection, to wit: LLphil

Section 2. The rights granted by this Decree shall, from the

moment of creation, subsist with respect to any of the following classes
of works:
(A) Books, including composite and cyclopedic works,
manuscripts, directories, and gazetteers;
(B) Periodicals, including pamphlets and newspapers;
(C) Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for
oral delivery;
(D) Letters;
(E) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions;
choreographic works and entertainments in dumb shows, the acting
form of which is fixed in writing or otherwise;
(F) Musical compositions, with or without words;
(G) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture,
engraving, lithography, and other works of art; models or designs for
works of art;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 (H) Reproductions of a work of art;
(I) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of
manufacture, whether or not patentable, and other works of applied
art;

(J) Maps, plans, sketches, and charts;

(K) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical
character;
(L) Photographic works and works produced by a process
analogous to photography; lantern slides;
(M) Cinematographic works and works produced by a process
analogous to cinematography or any process for making audio-visual
recordings;
(N) Computer programs;

(O) Prints, pictorial illustrations advertising copies, labels,

tags, and box wraps;

(P) Dramatizations, translations, adaptations, abridgements,

arrangements and other alterations of literary, musical or artistic works
or of works of the Philippine government as herein defined, which shall
be protected as provided in Section 8 of this Decree.
(Q) Collections of literary, scholarly, or artistic works or of
works referred to in Section 9 of this Decree which by reason of the
selection and arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual
creations, the same to be protected as such in accordance with Section
8 of this Decree.
(R) Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works.

This provision is substantially the same as §172 of the INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (R.A. No. 8293). 11 The format or
mechanics of a television show is not included in the list of protected works
in §2 of P.D. No. 49. For this reason, the protection afforded by the law
cannot be extended to cover them.
Copyright, in the strict sense of the term, is purely a statutory
right. It is a new or independent right granted by the statute, and not
simply a pre-existing right regulated by the statute. Being a statutory
grant, the rights are only such as the statute confers, and may be
obtained and enjoyed only with respect to the subjects and by the
persons, and on terms and conditions specified in the statute. 12

Since . . . copyright in published works is purely a statutory

creation, a copyright may be obtained only for a work falling within the
statutory enumeration or description. 13
Regardless of the historical viewpoint, it is authoritatively settled
in the United States that there is no copyright except that which is
both created and secured by act of Congress . . . 14

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 P.D. No. 49, §2, in enumerating what are subject to copyright, refers to
finished works and not to concepts. The copyright does not extend to an idea,
procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or
discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated,
or embodied in such work. 15 Thus, the new INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE OF
THE PHILIPPINES provides:
SEC. 175. Unprotected Subject Matter . — Notwithstanding
the provisions of Sections 172 and 173, no protection shall extend,
under this law, to any idea, procedure, system, method or operation,
concept, principle, discovery or mere data as such, even if they are
expressed, explained, illustrated or embodied in a work; news of the
day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items
of press information; or any official text of a legislative, administrative
or legal nature, as well as any official translation thereof.

What then is the subject matter of petitioners' copyright? This Court is of

the opinion that petitioner BJPI's copyright covers audio-visual recordings of
each episode of Rhoda and Me, as falling within the class of works mentioned in
P.D. 49, §2(M), to wit:
Cinematographic works and works produced by a process
analogous to cinematography or any process for making audio-visual
recordings;

The copyright does not extend to the general concept or format of its dating
game show. Accordingly, by the very nature of the subject of petitioner BJPI's
copyright, the investigating prosecutor should have the opportunity to
compare the videotapes of the two shows.

Mere description by words of the general format of the two dating game
shows is insufficient; the presentation of the master videotape in evidence was
indispensable to the determination of the existence of probable cause. As aptly
observed by respondent Secretary of Justice:
A television show includes more than mere words can describe
because it involves a whole spectrum of visuals and effects, video and
audio, such that no similarity or dissimilarity may be found by merely
describing the general copyright/format of both dating game shows. 16

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., took no part. Related to one of parties.

Footnotes
1. Petition, Annex A, p. 4; Rollo , p. 27.

2. Sangguniang Bayan of Batac, Ilocos Norte v. Albano, 260 SCRA 561 (1996).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 3. Petition, Annex B, pp. 1-2; Rollo , pp. 28-29.

4. 164 SCRA 655 (1988).

5. Petition, p. 17; Rollo , p. 18.

6. Id., at 663-664.
7. 261 SCRA 144 (1996).
8. Id., 173.
9. Petition Annex "G"; Rollo , pp. 44-45.
10. Promulgated on November 14, 1972.

11. Effective on January 1, 1998.

SEC. 172. Literary and Artistic Works . — 172.1. Literary and

artistic works, hereinafter referred to as "works", are original intellectual
creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of
their creation and shall include in particular:

(a) Books, pamphlets, articles and other writings;

(b) Periodicals and newspapers;

(c) Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral

delivery whether or not reduced in writing or other material form;

(d) Letters;
(e) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions; choreographic
works or entertainment in dumb shows;

(f) Musical compositions, with or without words;

(g) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving,
lithography or other works of art; models or designs for works of art;

(h) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of

manufacture, whether or not registrable as an industrial design and other
works of applied art;

(i) Illustrations, maps, plans, sketches, charts and three-

dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or
science;
(j) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character;

(k) Photographic works including works produced by a process

analogous to photography; lantern slides;
(l) Audiovisual works and cinematographic works and works
produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for
making audio-visual recordings;

(m) Pictorial illustrations and advertisements;

(n) Computer programs; and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 (o) Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works.
12. 18 C.J.S. 161.

13. Id., at 165.

14. HORACE G. BALL, LAW OF COPYRIGHT AND LITERARY PROPERTY 45 (1944).

15. NEIL BOORSTYN, COPYRIGHT LAW 25 (1981).

16. Comment of Public Respondent, p. 9; Rollo , p. 152.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com