ABS-CBN CORPORATION v. FELIPE GOZON et al. (G.R. No.
195956, once a petition for review is filed with the Department of Justice, a
March 11, 2015)
FACTS On August 13, 2004, petitioner ABS-CBN filed a criminal
complaint against respondent GMA for (alleged) act of copyright
infringement under the Intellectual Property Code because the GMA
aired footage of the arrival and homecoming of OFW Angelo dela
Cruz at NAIA from Iraq without the petitioner's consent. ABS-CBN
stated that it has an agreement with Reuter's that the petition will
contribute news and content that it owns and makes to Reuters in
exchange of the latter's news and video material, and Reuters will
ensure that ABS-CBN's materials cannot be aired in the country.
The respondent was a subscriber of Reuter's and CNN live feeds.
After it received the live feed of Angelo Dela Cruz's arrival and
homecoming from Reuter's, it immediately aired the video from
that news feed. The respondent alleged that its news staff was not
aware that there was (a news embargo) agreement between
ABSCBN and Reuters. Respondent alleged that it was not also aware
that it aired petitioner's footage.
On December 3, 2004, Prosecutor Venturanza issued resolution
which found probable cause to indict Dela Pena-Reyes and
Manalastas. The respondents appealed the Prosecutor’s resolution
before the DOJ. DOJ Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez ruled in favor of
GMAin his resolution dated 1 August 2005 and held that good faith
may be raised as a defense in the case.
Dela Peña-Reyes and Manalastas motioned to suspend proceedings.
The trial court granted the Motion to Suspend Proceedings filed by
Dela Peña-Reyes and Manalastas on January 19, 2005 saying that
Under Section 11 (c), Rule 116 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure,
suspension of the criminal proceedings may be allowed by the
court.
Meanwhile, DOJ Acting Secretary Alberto C. Agra issued a resolution
on which reversed Sec. Gonzalez's resolution and found probable
cause to charge Dela Pena-Reyes, Manalast,aass well as to indict
Gozon, Duavit, Jr., Flores, and Soho for violation of the Intellectual
Property Code (due to copyright infringement).
The Court of Appeals rendered a decision reversing and setting
aside DOJ Sec. Agra's resolution.
The appellate court stated that the ABSCBN has copyright of its
news coverage, but GMA’s act of airing five (5) seconds of the
homecoming footage without notice of the “No Access Philippines”
restriction of the live Reuter's video feed, was undeniably attended
by good faith and thus, serves to exculpate from criminal liability
under the Intellectual Property Code.
ISSUE ON MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDING W/N the granting of
the trial court on the motion to suspend proceedings was proper.
HELD The trial court granted respondents' Motion to Suspend
Proceedings and deferred respondents Dela Peña-Reyes and
Manalastas' arraignment for 60 days in view of the Petition for
Review filed before the Department of Justice.
Rule 116, Section 11 (c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure allows
the suspension of the accused's arraignment in certain
circumstances only:
SEC. 11. Suspension of arraignment. -Upon motion by the proper
party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases:
 (a) The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound
mental condition which effectively renders him unable to
fully understand the charge against him and to plead
intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his
mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for
such purpose;
(b) There exists a prejudicial question; and
(c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is
pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of
the President; provided, that the period of suspension shall
not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the
petition with the reviewing office.

The trial court should have proceeded with respondents Dela Peña-
Reyes and Manalastas' arraignment after the 60-day period from
the filing of the Petition for Review before the Department of
Justice on March 8, 2005. It was only on September 13, 2010 that
the temporary restraining order was issued by the Court of Appeals.
The trial court erred when it did not act on the criminal case during
the interim period. It had full control and direction of the case. As
Judge Mogul reasoned in denying the motion to dismiss in Crespo,
failure to proceed with the arraignment "disregards the
requirements of due process [and] erodes the Court's independence
and integrity."