Suspension of Arraignment, DOJ Review, and the Right to Speedy Trial in Copyright Cases

The Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in ABS-CBN Corporation v. Gozon clarifies two important points for criminal litigation in the Philippines: first, the strict limits on suspending arraignment while a petition for review is pending before the Department of Justice (DOJ); and second, the proper remedy when the DOJ Secretary’s resolution is challenged. The case also touches on the copyrightability of news footage, but its procedural rulings have lasting significance for accused persons and their counsel.

The Facts of the Case

The controversy arose from GMA-7’s broadcast of a live newsfeed of overseas Filipino worker Angelo dela Cruz’s homecoming on July 22, 2004. ABS-CBN had its own live coverage of the event and had entered into a special embargo agreement with Reuters Television Service, restricting use of its footage in the Philippines. GMA-7, a Reuters subscriber, received and aired the live feed in its “Flash Report” program without knowing of the embargo in favor of ABS-CBN.

ABS-CBN filed a complaint for copyright infringement under Sections 177 and 211 of the Intellectual Property Code (Republic Act No. 8293). The city prosecutor found probable cause against two GMA-7 officers, and an Information was filed in court. The accused then filed a petition for review with the DOJ and moved to suspend the proceedings. The trial court granted the suspension and cancelled arraignment for 60 days.

The DOJ Secretary initially dismissed the case, citing good faith. On reconsideration, the Acting Secretary reversed and ordered the filing of an Information against more officers. GMA-7 went directly to the Court of Appeals via certiorari, which reinstated the dismissal. ABS-CBN appealed to the Supreme Court.

Suspension of Arraignment Is Strictly Limited

The Supreme Court emphasized that under Rule 116, Section 11(c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, arraignment may be suspended when a petition for review of the prosecutor’s resolution is pending at the DOJ or the Office of the President. However, the suspension shall not exceed 60 days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office.

In this case, the trial court suspended arraignment for 60 days from January 5, 2005. After that period expired on March 8, 2005, the court was bound to proceed with arraignment. Instead, the case languished until September 2010—more than five years—when the Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order.

Citing Samson v. Daway and Crespo v. Judge Mogul, the Court reminded trial courts that once an Information is filed, the court has control and direction of the case. The prosecutor’s recommendation, even from the DOJ Secretary, is not binding on the court. Failure to proceed with arraignment after the 60-day period disregards due process and erodes judicial independence.

Certiorari Was the Proper Remedy

The Court also addressed whether GMA-7 should have filed a motion for reconsideration before going to the Court of Appeals. Generally, a motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent to certiorari. However, exceptions apply—including when a motion would be useless or when the assailed order is a patent nullity.

Here, the DOJ’s own rules (Department Circular No. 70, series of 2000) prohibit a second motion for reconsideration. Since the Acting Secretary’s resolution already resolved the parties’ motions for reconsideration, filing another would have been futile. The Court of Appeals correctly took cognizance of the petition.

Probable Cause and the Executive’s Discretion

The Court reiterated that the determination of probable cause rests primarily with the prosecutor and the DOJ. Courts will not interfere absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion—that is, a capricious, whimsical, or arbitrary exercise of judgment amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

An error of judgment, as opposed to an error of jurisdiction, is not correctible by certiorari. In this case, the Court found that the DOJ Secretary’s reversal was not shown to be tainted with grave abuse. The Court of Appeals had substituted its own judgment on the existence of probable cause, which it should not have done.

Copyrightability of News Footage

On the substantive issue, the Court clarified that while “news of the day” and mere items of press information are unprotected under Section 175 of the Intellectual Property Code, the expression of that news—such as a video footage—can be copyrightable. The idea/expression dichotomy distinguishes the event itself from the creative recording of it. ABS-CBN’s footage, being an intellectual creation, was entitled to copyright protection.

Practical Takeaways

• Arraignment suspension is time-bound. A court may suspend arraignment for only 60 days while a DOJ petition for review is pending. After that, the court must proceed.
• Courts control the case after filing. Once an Information is filed, the trial court—not the prosecutor or the DOJ—has direction and control. A prosecutor’s motion to dismiss is merely a recommendation.
• Exhaust remedies before certiorari. A motion for reconsideration is generally required before filing a petition for certiorari, unless an exception applies—such as when it would be futile or when the DOJ rules bar a second motion.
• Grave abuse is the threshold. Courts will not reverse a DOJ finding on probable cause merely because they disagree with it. The petitioner must show arbitrary or capricious action.
• Copyright protects expression, not facts. News events are public domain, but the creative recording of those events may be protected under the Intellectual Property Code.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.