Professional Documents
Culture Documents
122 - Anlud Metal vs. Ang
122 - Anlud Metal vs. Ang
Ang
GR 182157
(August 17, 2015)
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.
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.
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.”