Roberts Jr. v. CA

Murao, Jose Pepito G.
III Topic: Personal Determination of Probable

Cause to Issue Warrants of Arrest by Judge
Pual Roberts Jr. et al. v. CA

G.R. No. 113930, March 5, 1996
Davide Jr, J:
FACTS:
 In 1992, Pepsi held its Number Fever Promotion enticing consumers to purchase Pepsi,
Mirinda, Mountain Dew, and Seven Up to win the full amount of the prize on the crowns.
 In May 25, 1992, Pepsi announched that the winning number for the next day was ‘349’
but after such TV announcement, in violation of its own mechanics, Pepsi refused to pay
the holder of ‘349’ crowns.
 Thus, thousands of holders of ‘349’ Pepsi crowns sued petitioner Roberts and his co-
accused, in their capacities as high-ranking officials of Pepsi for Estafa, violation of the
Consumer Act, violation of Act Relative to Untrue, Deceptive, and Misleading
Advertisments, and violation of E) 913 or Strengthening the Rule-Making Powers of the
Minister of Trade and Industry.
 Investigating prosecutor Ramon Gerona recommended, through a Joint Resolution, the
filing of an information against petitioners and many others for Estafa and the dismissal
of the complaints for other alleged crimes.
 The Chief of the Prosecution Division, upon authority of the City Prosecutor of QC, filed
an Information for Estafa against petitioners.
 In turn, petitioners filed three motions/petitions:
1) A motion for reconsideration of the Information charged, alleging that there was no
fraud in their promotion with the Office of the City Prosecutor, that the complainants
made no specific allegation of acts or ommissions, compromise agreement entered
by Pepsi was not an admission of guilt, and that the promo was carried with utmost
goods faith.
2) A Petition for Review with the DOJ under the same grounds and that the approval
by the City Prosecutor was the result of grave threats, intimidation, and actual
violence the complainants inflicted on him and his assistant prosecutors.
3) Lastly, a Motion to Suspend Proceedings and Hold in Abeyance Issuance of
Warrants of Arrest with the RTC.
 Despite the Motion to Suspend Proceedings and Hold in Abeyance Issuance of
Warrants of Arrest and the cognizance of the DOJ of petitioners’ petition for Review,
private prosecutor filed an Ex-Parte Motion for the Issuance of Warrants of Arrest.
 RTC of QC Judge Asuncion issued an order advising parties that his court would be
guided by Crespo v. Mogul and not by the resolution of DOJ.
 Counsel for different accused and private complainants issued motions to Defer
Arraignment and objections and oppositions to Suspend Proceedings with even the Trial
Prosecutor Tirso Gavero filing a Motion to Defer Arraignment vis-à-vis the review of
DOJ.
 Respondent RTC Judge Asuncion then issued the challenged order denying Motion to
Suspend Proceedings and to Hold In Abeyance Issuance of Warrants of Arrest and
Motions to Defer Arraignment while directing issuance of warrants.
 Petitioners filed a special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition with application for a
TRO and a petition for preliminary injunction alleging that no copy of the Joint Resolution
Murao, Jose Pepito G. III Topic: Personal Determination of Probable
recommending the filing of the Information was forwarded to RTC Judge Asuncion, thus,
he had no basis to determine probable cause.
 The CA, however, found that a copy of the Joint Resolution was indeed forwarded to
Judge Asuncion and reliance by the Judge in said Joint Resolution was sufficient to
determine probable cause, hence CA denied application for preliminary injunction.
 DOJ, on the other hand, dismissed the petition for review filed by Pepsi officers with the
CA also dismissing the special civil action for Certiorari and Prohibition by Pepsi officers
with both the DOJ and CA denying Motions for Reconsideration.
ISSUE:
1. W/N RTC Judge Asuncion committed grave abuse of discretion in denying motions to
suspend proceedings, hold in abeyance issuance of warrants of arrest, and defer
arraignment , until DOJ resolves petition for review of the Joint Resolution issued by the
City Prosecutor?
2. W/N RTC Judge Asuncion committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering issuance of
warrants of arrest without examining the records of the preliminary investigation?
3. W/N the SC may determine existence of probable cause either for issuance of warrants
of arrest or for prosecution of Estafa?
HELD
1. YES. Crespo v. Mogul merely advised DOJ to refrain from entertaining a petition for
review or appeal from action of fiscal when the complaint or information has already
been filed in Court. Crespo v. Mogul cannot repeal Rule 112, Sec. 4 recognizing
authority of the Secretary of Justice to reverse resolution of the provincial or city
prosecutor or chief state prosecutor. Ultimate test of independence and integrity of the
courts is not the filing of dilatory motions or motions to review but the filing of a motion to
dismiss or withdraw the information which was not the case herein.
2. YES. Jurisprudence dictates that the Judge cannot solely rely on the report or resolution
of the fiscal/prosecutor finding that probable cause exists and they must evaluate other
supporting documents to make their own ‘personal’ determination. This requirment of
personal determination of supporting documents from jurisprudence ‘in a sense’
modified the Constitutional guideliness under Article III, Sec. 2 that the judge may rely
upon the fiscal’s certification of the existence of probable cause. In this case, the
Information for Estafa was just accompanied by the Joint Resolution of the Investigating
Prosecutor. As certified by the Clerk of Court, no supporting documents such as
affidavits, transcripts of preliminary investigation, or other supporting documents.
Clearly, Judge Asuncion solely relied on the certification by the investigating prosecutor
in issuing the warrants in violation of the Constitutional mandate of personal
determination by the judge.
3. NO. Determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrants rests in the Judge
while determination of probable cause for trial is a function of the prosecutor. SC only
determines whether there was grave abuse of discretion in the abovementioned
determinations. In this case, the finding of probable cause to hold trial would lead to filing
of thousands of cases, expose petitioners to harrasments of warrants of arrests, and
clog dockets of the Judiciary. However, this Court will not determine existence of
probable cause as respondent Judge Asuncion has not even found such, or at least not
in accordance with the Constitutional mandate of personal determination. Petition
Murao, Jose Pepito G. III Topic: Personal Determination of Probable
GRANTED. CA decision, Resolution of DOJ, and Order of Issuance of Warrants of

Arrest by RTC Judge Asuncion are SET ASIDE. DOJ is DIRECTED to resolve the merits
of petitioners petition for the review of the Joint Resolution and file appropriate motion or
pleading. Judge Asuncion is DIRECTED to cease and desist from further proceeding
with Criminal Case and defer issuance of warrants.

Roberts Jr. v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roberts Jr. v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Murao, Jose Pepito G.

III Topic: Personal Determination of Probable

Pual Roberts Jr. et al. v. CA

GRANTED. CA decision, Resolution of DOJ, and Order of Issuance of Warrants of

You might also like