Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 122 - Anlud Metal vs. Ang

    Uploaded by

    Donna Faith Reyes
    70 views2 pages
    This case discusses the requirements for search warrants under Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Specifically, it examines whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction to determine probable cause. The RTC initially found probable cause and issued an arrest warrant for the respondent. However, the City Prosecutor later absolved the respondent of the offense. The RTC then denied a motion to recall the arrest warrant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's jurisdiction to independently determine probable cause, not just rely on the prosecutor's determination. It found the RTC was within its rights to dismiss the charges against the respondent.

    Original Description:

    Consti case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case discusses the requirements for search warrants under Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Specifically, it examines whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction to determine probable cause. The RTC initially found probable cause and issued an arrest warrant for the respondent. However, the City Prosecutor later absolved the respondent of the offense. The RTC then denied a motion to recall the arrest warrant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's jurisdiction to independently determine probable cause, not just rely on the prosecutor's determination. It found the RTC was within its rights to dismiss the charges against the respondent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    70 views2 pages

    122 - Anlud Metal vs. Ang

    Uploaded by

    Donna Faith Reyes
    This case discusses the requirements for search warrants under Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Specifically, it examines whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) has jurisdiction to determine probable cause. The RTC initially found probable cause and issued an arrest warrant for the respondent. However, the City Prosecutor later absolved the respondent of the offense. The RTC then denied a motion to recall the arrest warrant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's jurisdiction to independently determine probable cause, not just rely on the prosecutor's determination. It found the RTC was within its rights to dismiss the charges against the respondent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    122 - Anlud Metal vs.

    Ang
    GR 182157
    (August 17, 2015)

    Topic: Requirements for search warrants:


    Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure

    Petitioner: ANLUD METAL RECYCLING CORPORATION, as represented by ALFREDO A. DY

    Respondent: JOAQUIN ANG

    Facts:
    San Miguel Packaging Products-Metal Closures Lithography Plant (SMC-MCLP) allegedly
    awarded petitioner an exclusive contract to purchase its aluminum-and tin-based scrap
    materials from 20 March 2003 to 31 January 2004. However, on 23 January 2004, the President
    of Anlud Metal Recycling Corporation Found that SMC-MCLP’s employee Conrado Alday had
    allowed Nenita B. Dela Cruz to load scrap materials in two trucks! owned by respondent Ang,
    which were then operated by his truck drivers Edjanel Jose Paniergo and Renato Bagauana.

    Based on the narration of petitioner, Dela Cruz pretended to be an agent of Anlud Metal
    Recycling Corporation when she arranged for the transport of the scrap materials. She had
    allegedly coordinated the hauling with Alday, who was then working for SMC-MCLP. Alday
    purportedly allowed the trucks driven by Paniergo and Bagaua to enter the plant and load the
    scrap materials in the cargoes based on a false representation that the transaction was
    authorized by petitioner. Fortunately, the two trucks was not able to leave the premises of
    SMC-MCLP.

    Petitioner lodged a Complaint for attempted estafa through falsification of


    commercial/private document against Alday, Dela Cruz, Paniergo, Bagaua, and respondent Ang.
    Subsequently, the Investigating Prosecutor caused the filing with the RTC of an Information for
    estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2( a) of the Revised Penal Code and the RTC issued a
    Warrant of Arrest.

    The RTC issued a Warrant of Arrest 6 on 26 October 2004 against Ang and his co-
    accused. Thereafter, respondent filed a Petition for Reinvestigation and a Motion for
    Preliminary Investigation before the City Prosecutor's Office. He also filed with the RTC an
    Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings Pending Reinvestigation and to Recall Order of Arrest
    Against Accused Movant Joaquin Ang.

    In its Order dated 20 January 2005, the RTC denied the motion filed by Ang. It ruled that
    his allegations were not supported by evidence; and that based on the facts of the case, there
    was a reasonable ground to engender a well-founded belief that he had committed estafa.
    In contrast, on 3 February 2005, the City Prosecutor's Office issued its Resolution on
    Reconsideration absolving respondent from the offense charged. It discussed that although he
    owned the trucks that carried the scrap materials, the theory of conspiracy had no foundation
    absent any proof that he had performed any overt act of estafa. It also highlighted the fact that
    he was not present at the time of the incident. As a result, the City Prosecutor's Office filed an
    Amended Information, which no longer included him as an accused.

    Unrelenting, petitioner questioned the dismissal of Ang's criminal case before the CA. In
    its Decision dated 4 December 2007, and subsequent Resolution dated 13 March 2008, the CA
    gave due course to the Petition for Certiorari 20 notwithstanding that Anlud Metal Recycling
    Corporation had appealed without the participation of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
    which was supposed to act on behalf of the People of the Philippines.

    Petitioner also failed to dispute the RTC's ruling to exclude Ang as an accused in the
    crime of estafa. According to the CA, since the trial court had conducted an independent
    evaluation, the fact alone that the latter reversed its earlier finding of probable cause did not
    amount to grave abuse of discretion; and any error of the RTC was an error of judgment not
    correctible by certiorari.

    Issue: Did the RTC have jurisdiction to determine probable cause?

    Ruling:

    YES. Petitioner explains that there are two determinations of probable cause: the first is for the
    purpose of filing criminal information in the court, and the second is for the issuance of a
    warrant of arrest. Petitioner submits that since the first kind is executive in nature, then the
    RTC had absolutely no jurisdiction to determine the existence of probable cause to hold
    respondent as an accused in the crime of estafa. Petitioner's interpretation of the rules on the
    determination of probable cause is inaccurate. Although courts must respect the executive
    determination of probable cause, the trial courts may still independently determine probable
    cause. They are not irrevocably bound to the determination of probable cause by the
    prosecutor and the DOJ.

    The trial court actually has the following options upon the filing of a criminal information: (1)
    immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable
    cause; (2) issue a warrant of arrest if it finds probable cause; and (3) order the prosecutor to
    present additional evidence within five days from notice in case of doubt as to the existence
    of probable cause. These options are provided in Rule 112, Section 6 (a) of the Rules of Court.

    Indeed, the RTC is allowed to dismiss the charge of estafa against Ang (one of those originally
    charged) notwithstanding the executive determination of probable cause by the prosecutor. If
    we were to construe otherwise, we would be contradicting the basic principle that "once
    information is filed in RTC, any disposition of the case rests already in the sound discretion of
    the court.”

    You might also like