THIRD DIVISION[G.R. No. 156804.March 14, 2005]SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT (!I"S.#, INC. a$% I&I (SOUT!EAST ASIA#, "T'., petitioners, vs. !ON. (U'GE 'O"ORES ". ESAN.O" O& T!E REGIONA" TRIA" COURT, )RANC! *0, 'ASMARI+AS, CA,ITE, E"ENA S. "IM, SUSAN ". TAN, 'A,I' S. "IM, (AMES !. UY, -I"SON A"E(AN'RO, (R., (OSE! 'E "UNA, MARIA A. ,E"A CRU., 'A,I' C!UNG, (AMES UY, (O!N 'OES AN' (ANE 'OES, AN' SO"I' "AGUNA CORORATION, respondents.' E C I S I O NGARCIA, J./Assailed and sought to be nullified in this petition for certiorari with application for injunctive relief arethe orders issued by the respondent judge on June 25, 2002[1] and January 6, 2003,[2]the firstquashing Search Warrant No. 219-00, and the second, denying reconsideration of the first.Fro the petition, the coent thereon of private respondents, their respective anne!es, and otherpleadings filed by the parties, the "ourt gathers the following relevant facts#$n a criinal coplaint filed with the %epartent of &ustice '%(&), the *ideogra +egulatory ,oard'*+,)[-] chargedhereinprivaterespondents JamesUy, Davi!hun", #$ena%imandanother officer ofrespondent So$i%a"una!or&oration './") withviolationof 0residential %ecree'0%) 1o. 1234.[5] Asallegedinthecoplaint, doc6etedas '.S. No. 2000-15(6, thefour '5) wereengagedinthereplication,reproduction and distribution of videogras without license and authority fro *+,. (n account of this andpetitioners7owncoplaintsforcopyright infringeent, the1ational ,ureauof $nvestigation'1,$), throughAgent Ferdinand8. /avin, appliedon.epteber13,2999, withthe+egional :rial "ourt at%asari;as,"avite,,ranch39, presided bythe respondentjudge,for theissuance ofsearchwarrantsagainstprivaterespondents Davi!hun", JamesUy,John and JaneDoes, doingbusinessunder thenaeandstyle insidethefactoryandproductionfacilityof ./"at .olidcorner "aado.ts., /aguna$nternational $ndustrial 0ar6, ,i;an, /aguna.[?]%uring the proceedings on the application, Agent /avin presented, as witnesses, +odolfo 0edralve@, adeputi@ed agentof*+,,and +ene ".,alta@ar, aninvestigator retained bythe lawfir ).*. Domin"o +,ssociates, petitioners7 attorneyAinAfact. $n their sworn stateents, the three stated that petitioners soughttheir assistance, coplaining about the anufacture, sale and distribution of various titles of copact discs'"%s) in violation of petitioners7 right as copyright ownersB that acting on the coplaint, Agent /avin and thewitnesses conducted an investigation, in the course of which unnaed persons infored the that allegedlyinfringing or pirated discs were being anufactured soewhere in an industrial par6 in /agunaB that in theprocess of their operation, they were able to enter, accopanied by another unnaed source, the preises of./" and to see various replicating equipent and stac6s of "%sB and that they were told by their anonyoussourcethat thediscs werebeinganufacturedinthesaepreises.

:heyalsotestifiedthat privaterespondents were '1) engaged in the reproduction or replication of audio and video copacts discs without therequisite authori@ation fro *+,, in violation of .ection C of 0% 1o. 1234, presenting a *+, certification tosuch effectB and '2) per petitioners7 certification and a listing of .ony usic titles, infringing on petitioners7copyrights in violation of .ection 293 of +epublic Act '+A) 1o. 322-, otherwise 6nown as $ntellectual 0roperty"ode.[C](nthebasis of the foregoing sworn stateents,therespondentjudge issued SearchWarrant No.219-00[4] for violationof .ection293of +.A. 1o. 322-and SearchWarrant No. 220-00[3] for violationof.ection C of 0% 1o. 1234.:hefollowingday,eleentsof the0hilippine1ational 0olice"riinal $nvestigationand%etection=roup, led by 0(2 +eggie "oandante, enforced both warrants and brought the sei@ed ites to a privatewarehouse of "arepa6 8oving and .torage at 12-5 *illonco +oad, .ucat, 0aranaque "ity and their custodyturned over to *+,.[2] An inventory of sei@ed ites,[19] as well as a were later filedwith the respondent court.8eanwhile, the respondents in $... 1o. 2999A1?4C belabored to prove before the %(& 0rosecutorial.ervice that, since 1223 and up to the tie of the search, they were licensed by *+, to operate as replicatorand duplicator of videogras.(n the stated finding that [29]%uring the preliinary investigation conducted on February 2C, 2992 in $... 1o. 2991A11?3, however,petitioners7 counsel objected to any further e!aination, claiing that such e!ercise was a ere subterfuge todelay proceedings.[21]1(n April11, 2992, individual private respondents, through counsel, filed a ,otion 'o /uash SearchWarrant (0nd 'o 1elease Seized 2roperties)> grounded on lac6 of probable cause to justify issuance of searchwarrant, it being inter alia alleged that the applicant and his witnesses lac6ed the requisite personal 6nowledgeto justify the valid issuance of a search warrantB that the warrant did not sufficiently describe the ites to besei@edB and that the warrant was iproperly enforced.[22] :o this otion to quash, petitioners interposed anopposition dated 8ay 4, 2992 predicated on four '5) grounds.[2-] (n &une 2C, 2992, respondent ./" filed a8anifestation joining its coArespondents in, and adopting, their otion to quash.[25](n June25, 2002, therespondent judgeissuedtheherein .irst assai$eorer quashing.earchDarrant 1o. 212A99 principally on the ground thattheintegrityofthe sei@ed itesasevidencehad beencoproised, coingled as they were with other articles. Drote the respondent judge#Based on the report subitted, it appears that on !ebruar" #$, %&&%, an e'aination (as actuall" conducted)Unfortunatel", the alleged sei*ed ites (ere coingled (ith and not segregated fro thousands of other ites stored in the (arehouse)+nl" one bo' ) ) ) (ere ,sic- e'ained in the presence of both parties (ith the sheriff, such that another date (as set ) ) ) ) +n !ebruar" %%, %&&%, during the hearing before the Departent of .ustice ,D+.-, /petitioners0 counsel1 Att") Are2alo anifested their ob3ection to the further e'aination on the alleged ground that all of the ites sub3ect of the D+. coplaint ha2e been e'ained)Anal"*ing the report and the incidents relati2e thereto, it sho(s that the ites sub3ect of the 4uestioned Search Warrant (ere coingled (ith other ites in the (arehouse of 5arepa6 resulting in the failure to identif" the achines and otherites sub3ect of this Search Warrant, (hile the other ites enuerated in the said 7n2entor" of Sei*ed 7tes and 5ertification of 8egalit", +rderliness and 9egularit" in the E'ecution and enforceent of Search Warrants (ere not e'ained, hence, the charge iputed against the respondents could not be established as the e2idence to sho( such 2iolation fails to deterine the culpabilit" of said respondents, thus, 2iolating their constitutional rights)/%$1E!cepting, petitionersovedfor reconsideration, arguingontheainthat thequashal order waserroneously based on a ground outside the purviewof a otion to quash.[2C] :othis otion, privaterespondents interposed an opposition, against which petitioners countered with a reply.(n January 6, 2003, respondent judge issued the secon assai$e orer denying petitioners7 otionfor reconsideration on the strength of the following preises#5areful scrutin" of the records of the case re2eals that the application of the abo2e:entitled case steed fro the application for Search Warrant alleging that the respondent (as not licensed to duplicate or replicate 5Ds and ;5Ds) 1Fence, petitioners7 present recourse.$n a +esolution dated February 12, 299-,[23] the "ourt issued a teporary restraining order enjoiningthe respondents fro ipleenting and enforcing the respondent judge7s questioned orders.0etitioners ascribe on the respondent judge the coission of grave abuse of discretion aounting tolac6 or in e!cess of jurisdiction in issuing the first assailed order in that#1. $t was based on a ground that is not a basis for quashalof a search warrant,i.e.- privaterespondents7 failuretoe!ainethe sei@edites, whichgroundis e!traneous to thedeterination of the validity of the issuance of the search warrant.2.0ublic respondent, in effect, conducted a preliminary investigation> that absolved the privaterespondents fro any liability for copyright infringeent.-.0ublic respondent recogni@ed the otion to quash search warrant filed by persons who didnot have any standing to question the warrant.0etitioners also deplore the issuance of the second assailed order which they tag as predicated on aground iaterial to .earch Darrant 1o. 212A99.0rivate respondents filed their "oent on 8ay 1-, 299-, essentially reiterating their arguents inthe ,otion 'o /uash Search Warrant (0nd 'o 1elease Seized 2roperties)>. Apart therefro, they aver thatpetitionersviolatedtheruleonhierarchyof courtsbyfilingthepetitiondirectlywiththis"ourt.Astobee!pected, petitioners7 reply to coent traversed private respondents7 position.(wing to their inability to locate respondent %avid "hung, petitioners oved and the "ourtsubsequently approved the dropping, without prejudice, of said respondent fro the case.[22](n February 29, 2995, private respondents filed their +ejoinder, therein inviting attention to petitioner$F0$7s failure to e!ecute the certification on nonAforu shopping as required by +ule 4, .ection ? of the +ulesof "ourt and questioning the validity of the .pecial 0owers of Attorney of petitioners7 attorneyAinAfact to file thiscase.$n +esolution of 8arch -1, 2995, the "ourt gave due course to the petition and directed the subissionof eoranda which the parties, after each securing an e!tension, did subit.:he underlying issue before Gs revolves on the propriety of the quashal ofSearch Warrant No. 219-00 which, in turn, resolves itself into question of the propriety of the warrant7s issuance in the first place.$t has repeatedly been said that one7s house, however, huble is his castle where his person, papersand effects shall be secured and whence he shall enjoy undisturbed privacy e!cept, to borrow fro 3illanuevavs. /uerubin,[-9] in case of overriding social need and then only under the stringent procedural safeguards.>:he protection against illegal searches and sei@ure has found its way into our 12-? and 124- "onstitutionsand is now ebodied in Article $$$, .ection 2 of the 1234 "onstitution, thus A