ANTHONY T. REYES vs. PEARLBANK SECURITIES, INC.

,
G.R. No. 171435 July 30, 2008 Masayuki Hasegawa vs. Leila F. Giron
FACTS: G.R. No. 184536 August 14, 2013
 Reyes is the VP of Wincorp, a corporation that arranges and brokers loans of its FACTS:
clients, one of whom is Pearlbank Securities. On 16 September 2006, respondent (GIRON) filed a Complaint Affidavit for
 Sometime before this case, investors or lenders made demands on Pearlbank to pay Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention against petitioner and several John Does.
several loans that were brokered by Wincorp. The investors alleged that they weren’t Respondent alleged that sometime on December 2005, she and her officemate, Leonarda
able to collect on their outstanding credits with Wincorp because Pearlbank didn’t Marcos (Marcos) filed a complaint against their employer Pacific Consultants International,
pay. Apparently, Pearlbank alleges that it did not have any outstanding loans that J.F. Cancio & Associates, Jaime F. Cancio, Tesa Tagalo and petitioner for illegal salary
WINCORP brokered. Thus, Pearlbank investigated on these alleged debts. deductions, non-payment of 13th month pay, and non-remittance of SSS contributions.
 Pearlbank demanded from Wincorp a full and accurate accounting of the identities Respondent averred that since the filing of said complaint, they have been subjected to threats
and investments of the lenders and the alleged debts of Pearlbank with supporting and verbal abuse by petitioner to pressure them to withdraw the complaint.
records and documents. Wincorp did not respond to this demand. Petitioner, in his Counter-Affidavit, denied the accusation of kidnapping and serious
 Pearlbank instituted a case with the SEC, now pending with the RTC (bec. of the illegal detention against him. Petitioner categorically stated that he had nothing to do with the
law which transferred jd with the RTCs) kidnapping; that he was neither the "brains" nor a "participant" in the alleged crimes.
 Pearlbank, through its treasurer, also filed complaints with the DOJ against officers Petitioner also pointed out several supposed inconsistencies and improbabilities in the
of Wincorp, one of them was Reyes, for falsification of commercial and private complaint.
documents.
In a Resolution dated 5 January 2007, Senior State Prosecutor Emilie Fe M. De Los
 The DOJ filed the criminal case with the MTC. Later, however, DOJ USec
Santos dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause. Respondent filed an appeal from
Merciditas Gutierrez ordered the withdrawal of the Informations. This decision was
the Resolution of the prosecutor dismissing her complaint. In her Petition for Review before
reversed by the DOJ Sec, thus the case proceeded.
the DOJ, respondent claimed that the Investigating Prosecutor gravely erred when she
 Reyes filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, where he raised, among others, that recommended the dismissal of the case against petitioner despite overwhelming evidence
the SEC case is a prejudicial question to the criminal case for falsification. CA showing the existence of probable cause. She thus prayed for the reversal of the Resolution of
denied certiorari thus criminal case proceeds. the Investigating Prosecutor. Finding no basis to overturn the findings of the Investigating
Prosecutor, then Secretary of Justice Raul M. Gonzales dismissed the petition on 11 April
ISSUE: WON the SEC case is a prejudicial question that has to be resolved before the 2007. Respondent’s motion for reconsideration having been denied by the DOJ, she filed a
criminal case for falsification may proceed- NO petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. On 30 June 2008, the Court of Appeals
granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Resolutions of the DOJ and ordered the filing
RULING: of an Information for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention against petitioner.
 A prejudicial question is defined as one which arises in a case, the resolution of
which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of The Court of Appeals found that "the Secretary of Justice arrogated upon himself the
which pertains to another tribunal. functions of the judge by demanding more than a sampling, but for pieces of evidence that
were understandably not there yet, being suited to a trial proper." The appellate court went on
 It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime, but so intimately
to state that the prosecutor usurped the duties belonging to the court when she "overstretched
connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.
her duties and applied the standards, not of ordinary prudence and cautiousness, nor of mere
 It comes into play generally in a situation in which a civil action and a criminal
‘reasonable belief’ and probability, but of a full-blown trial on the merits, where rules on
action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue which must be
admissibility of testimonies and other evidence strictly apply.
preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed, because howsoever
the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be a determinative presumption
of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. ISSUE: Whether or not the Prosecutor acted in grave abuse of discretion by dismissing the
 The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting complaint for lack of probable cause.
decisions. The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted
civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether RULING:
or not the criminal action may proceed. Yes, the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion. The elementary rule is that
 One of the issues taken in the SEC case is whether Pearlbank has outstanding loans the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to review the resolution issued by the DOJ through a
with Wincorp. However, a finding that Pearlbank indeed has outstanding debts will petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court on the ground that the Secretary of
not totally absolve Reyes of any criminal liability. In other words, it is not an Justice committed grave abuse of his discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
absolute defense, since what is determinative in the falsification case is whether The decision whether or not to dismiss the criminal complaint against the accused
there really were falsified documents. depends on the sound discretion of the prosecutor. Courts will not interfere with the conduct of
preliminary investigations, or reinvestigations, or in the determination of what constitutes
sufficient probable cause for the filing of the corresponding information against an offender. Marikina City, where a substantial number of alleged counterfeit Unilever shampoo products
In sum, the prosecutor’s findings on the existence of probable cause are not subject to review were found; and he did not violate R.A. No. 8293 because there is no prima facie evidence that
by the courts, unless these are patently shown to have been made with grave abuse of he committed the offense charged.
discretion. We find such reason for judicial review here present. We sustain the appellate On December 18, 2002, State Prosecutor Melvin J. Abad issued a Resolution
court’s reversal of the ruling of the Secretary of the DOJ. dismissing the criminal complaint on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. The State
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as Prosecutor found that the petitioner failed to show the respondent’s actual and direct
would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the participation in the offense charged. The petitioner thereafter sought, but failed, to secure a
prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. It is a reconsideration. On October 19, 2004, the petitioner filed with the CA a petition for certiorari
reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well-founded on such a state of under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the Acting
facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to Secretary of Justice.
believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so. The term does not mean The CA, in a decision dated June 18, 2007, dismissed the petition on the ground that
"actual or positive cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion the petitioner failed to establish facts and circumstances that would constitute acts of unfair
and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into competition under R.A. No. 8293. It also ruled that the Acting Secretary of Justice did not
whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that gravely abuse her discretion when she affirmed the State Prosecutor’s resolution dismissing
the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. the petitioner’s complaint for insufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause. The
The Investigating Prosecutor has set the parameters of probable cause too high. Her petitioner filed a case in the Supreme Court questioning the decision of the CA. The petitioner
findings dealt mostly with what respondent had done or failed to do after the alleged crime contends that the CA erred in dismissing its petition for certiorari and in affirming the DOJ’s
was committed. She delved into evidentiary matters that could only be passed upon in a full- rulings. It argues that while it may be possible that the respondent is not the owner of the
blown trial where testimonies and documents could be fairly evaluated in according with the warehouse, the overwhelming pieces of evidence nonetheless prove that he is the owner of the
rules of evidence. The issues upon which the charges are built pertain to factual matters that counterfeit shampoo products found therein. The petitioner also maintains that the voluminous
cannot be threshed out conclusively during the preliminary stage of the case. Precisely, there is counterfeit shampoo products seized from the respondent are more than sufficient evidence to
a trial for the presentation of prosecution's evidence in support of the charge. The validity and indict him for unfair competition.
merits of a party’s defense or accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence,
are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level. By taking
into consideration the defenses raised by petitioner, the Investigating Prosecutor already went ISSUE: Whether or not there is probable cause in this case in order to indict the respondent of
into the strict merits of the case. unfair competition.

UNILEVER PHILIPPINES, INC., vs. MICHAEL TAN a.k.a. PAUL D. TAN

G.R. No. 179367 January 29, 2014 RULING:
FACTS: Yes, there was a grave abuse of discretion. A careful analysis of the lower courts’
rulings and the records, however, reveals that substantial facts and circumstances that could
On January 17, 2002, agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) applied affect the result of the case have been overlooked. While the ownership of the warehouse on
for the issuance of search warrants for the search of a warehouse located on Camia Street, Camia Street, Marikina City, was not proven, sufficient evidence to prove the existence of
Marikina City, and of an office located on the 3rd floor of Probest International Trading probable cause nevertheless exists. These pieces of evidence consist of: (1) the number of
Building, Katipunan Street, Concepcion, Marikina City, allegedly owned by Michael Tan products seized, a total of 1,238 counterfeited assorted Unilever products, belie the
a.k.a. Paul D. Tan (respondent). The application alleged that the respondent had in his respondent’s claim of personal consumption. (2) The failure to prove that the respondent is the
possession counterfeit shampoo products which were being sold, retailed, distributed, dealt owner of the warehouse located on Camia St., Marikina City, does not automatically free him
with or intended to be disposed of, in violation of Section 168, in relation with Section 170, of from liability. (3) The result of the NBI search and the application for the search serves as
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the corroborating evidence. (4) There were also allegations that the respondent’s laborers and
Philippines. Armed with the search warrants, the NBI searched the premises and, in the course warehousemen who were present during the search had confirmed that the warehouse was
of the search, seized counterfeit shampoo products. being maintained and operated by Probest International Trading.
The NBI thereafter filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) a complaint against Guided by this ruling, we find that the CA gravely erred in sustaining the Acting
the respondent for violation of R.A. No. 8293, specifically Section 168 (unfair competition). Secretary of Justice’s finding that there was no probable cause to indict the respondent for
In his counter-affidavit, the respondent claimed that he is "Paul D. Tan," and not "Michael unfair competition. The dismissal of the complaint, despite ample evidence to support a
Tan" as alluded in the complaint; he is engaged in the business of selling leather goods and finding of probable cause, clearly constitutes grave error that warrants judicial intervention
raw materials for making leather products, and he conducts his business under the name and correction.
"Probest International Trading," registered with the Department of Trade and Industry; he is
not engaged in the sale of counterfeit Unilever shampoo products; the sachets of Unilever
shampoos seized from his office are genuine shampoo products which they use for personal Principles & Rationale:
consumption; he does not own and does not operate the warehouse located on Camia Street, Determination of Probable Cause Lies Within the Competence of the Public Prosecutor
 The determination of probable cause for purposes of filing of information in court is the arraignment of the accused until further orders of the Court. On May 15, 1978 a decision
essentially an executive function that is lodged, at the first instance, with the public prosecutor was rendered by the Court of Appeals granting the writ and perpetually restraining the judge
and, ultimately, to the Secretary of Justice.9 The prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice have from enforcing his threat to compel the arraignment of the accused in the case until the
wide latitude of discretion in the conduct of preliminary investigation;10and their findings Department of Justice shall have finally resolved the petition for review.
with respect to the existence or non-existence of probable cause are generally not subject to On March 22, 1978 then Undersecretary of Justice, Hon.Catalino Macaraig, Jr.,
review by the Court. Nevertheless, this policy of non-interference is not without exception. resolving the petition for review reversed the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal
The Constitution itself allows (and even directs) court action where executive discretion has and directed the fiscal to move for immediate dismissal of the information filed against the
been gravely abused.13 In other words, the court may intervene in the executive determination accused. A motion was filed to dismiss the case for insufficiency of evidence was filed by the
of probable cause, review the findings and conclusions, and ultimately resolve the existence or Provincial Prosecutor. The Judge denied the motion and set the arraignment stating: The
nonexistence of probable cause by examining the records of the preliminary investigation motion's thrust being to induce this Court to resolve the innocence of the accused on evidence
when necessary for the orderly administration of justice. not before it but on that adduced before the Undersecretary of Justice, a matter that not only
disregards the requirements of due process but also erodes the Court's independence and
Courts Cannot Reverse the Secretary of Justice’s Findings Except in Clear Cases of integrity, the motion is considered as without merit and therefore hereby DENIED.
Grave Abuse of Discretion The accused filed a petition with the CA. A restraining order was issued by the CA
The term "grave abuse of discretion" means such capricious or whimsical exercise of against the threatened act of arraignment of the accused until further order of the court. In its
judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. To justify judicial intervention, the abuse decision in October 1979, the CA dismissed the petition and lifted the restraining order.
of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a Hence, this petition for review.
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law or to act at all in contemplation of law, as
where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or ISSUE: Whether or not the case should be dismissed as directed and moved by the
hostility. Prosecution.

Determination of Probable Cause Merely Requires Probability of Guilt or Reasonable RULING:

Ground for Belief
The filing of a complaint or information in Court initiates a criminal action. The
The determination of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case, which is the authority to hear and determine
than not, a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was the case. When after the filing of the complaint or information a warrant for the arrest of the
committed by the accused.24 It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, accused is issued by the trial court and the accused either voluntarily submitted himself to the
neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt.25 What is merely required is Court or was duly arrested, the Court thereby acquired jurisdiction over the person of the
"probability of guilt." Its determination, too, does not call for the application of rules or accused. The preliminary investigation conducted by the fiscal for the purpose of
standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits.26 Thus, in determining whether a prima facie case exists warranting the prosecution of the accused
concluding that there is probable cause, it suffices that it is believed that the act or omission is terminated upon the filing of the information in the proper court. In turn, as above
complained of constitutes the very offense charged stated, the filing of said information sets in motion the criminal action against the accused in
Court. Should the fiscal find it proper to conduct a reinvestigation of the case, at such stage,
MARIO FL. CRESPO vs. HON. LEODEGARIO L. MOGUL, Presiding Judge, the permission of the Court must be secured. After such reinvestigation the finding and
CIRCUIT CRIMINAL COURT OF LUCENA CITY, 9th Judicial Dist., THE PEOPLE recommendations of the fiscal should be submitted to the Court for appropriate action.
OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the SOLICITOR GENERAL, RICARDO The rule therefore in this jurisdiction is that once a complaint or information is filed
BAUTISTA, ET AL in Court any disposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction or acquittal of the
G.R. No. L-53373 accused rests in the sound discretion of the Court. Although the fiscal retains the direction and
control of the prosecution of criminal cases even while the case is already in Court he cannot
impose his opinion on the trial court. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to do with
FACTS: the case before it. The determination of the case is within its exclusive jurisdiction and
On April 18, 1977 Assistant Fiscal Proceso K. de Gala with the approval of the competence. A motion to dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed to the Court
Provincial Fiscal filed an information for estafa against Mario Fl. Crespo in the Circuit who has the option to grant or deny the same. It does not matter if this is done before or after
Criminal Court of Lucena City. When the case was set for arraigment the accused filed a the arraignment of the accused or that the motion was filed after a reinvestigation or upon
motion to defer arraignment on the ground that there was a pending petition for review filed instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records of the investigation. In order
with the Secretary of Justice of the resolution of the Office of the Provincial Fiscal for the therefor to avoid such a situation whereby the opinion of the Secretary of Justice who
filing of the information. In an order of August 1, 1977, the presiding judge, His Honor, reviewed the action of the fiscal may be disregarded by the trial court, the Secretary of Justice
Leodegario L. Mogul, denied the motion. A petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer should, as far as practicable, refrain from entertaining a petition for review or appeal from the
for a preliminary writ of injunction was filed by the accused in the Court of Appeals. In an action of the fiscal, when the complaint or information has already been filed in Court. The
order of August 17, 1977, the Court of Appeals restrained Judge Mogul from proceeding with matter should be left entirely for the determination of the Court.
 of the proceedings. It could even be waived. Indeed, it is frequently waived. These
ATTY. MIGUEL P. PADERANGA vs. HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, HON. are matters to be inquired into by the trail court not an appellate court."
SILVESTRE H. BELLO III, ATTY. HENRICK F. GINGOYON, HELEN B. CANOY ISSUE: (B) that there exists no prima facie evidence or probable cause to justify his
and REBECCA B. TAN inclusion in the second amended information.
G.R. No. 96080 April 19, 1991 RULING:
FACTS: 1. Petitioner further submits that there is no prima facie evidence, or probable cause, or
On October 16, 1986, an information for multiple murder was filed in the Regional sufficient justification to hold him to a tedious and prolonged public trial, on the
Trial Court, Gingoog City, against Felipe Galarion, Manuel Sabit, Cesar Sabit, Julito Ampo, basis of the following grounds: the questioned resolution of respondent Gingoyon
Eddie Torion, John Doe, Peter Doe and Richard Doe, for the deaths on May 1, 1984 of Renato is full of factual misrepresentations or misapprehensions; respondent's reliance on
Bucag, his wife Melchora Bucag, and their son Renato Bucag II. Only Felipe Galarion was the decision of the Regional Trial Court against Felipe Galarion suffers from
tried and found guilty as charged. The rest of the accused remained at large. Felipe Galarion, constitutional and procedural infirmities considering that petitioner was not a party
however, escaped from detention and has not been apprehended since then. In an amended thereto, much less was he given any opportunity to comment on or rebut the
information filed on October 6, 1988, Felizardo Roxas, alias "Ely Roxas," "Fely Roxas" and prosecution evidence; reliance on Rogelio Hanopol's testimony is likewise
"Lolong Roxas," was included as a co-accused. Roxas retained petitioner Paderanga as his "contemptible," it being merely hearsay in addition to the fact that petitioner was
counsel. As counsel for Roxas, petitioner filed, among others, an Omnibus Motion to dismiss, never given the opportunity to cross-examine Hanopol at the time he testified in
to Quash the Warrant of Arrest and to Nullify the Arraignment on October 14, 1988. The trial court; and the affidavit of Roxas dated March 30, 1989, which is the only evidence
court in an order dated January 9, 1989, denied this omnibus motion but directed the City against petitioner, has been rendered nugatory by his affidavit of retraction dated
Prosecutor "to conduct another preliminary investigation or reinvestigation in order to grant June 20, 1990.
the accused all the opportunity to adduce whatever evidence he has in support of his defense.” 2. A preliminary investigation is defined as an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of
determining whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
In the course of the preliminary investigation, through a signed affidavit, Felizardo that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court has been committed and that the
Roxas implicated herein petitioner (Atty. Paderanga) in the commission of the crime charged. respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. The quantum of
In a resolution dated September 6, 1989, respondent State Prosecutor Henrick F. Gingoyon, evidence now required in preliminary investigation is such evidence sufficient to
directed the amendment of the previously amended information to include and implead herein "engender a well-founded belief as to the fact of the commission of a crime and the
petitioner as one of the accused therein. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, contending that respondent's probable guilt thereof. A preliminary investigation is not the occasion
the preliminary investigation was not yet completed when said resolution was promulgated, for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence; it is for the presentation
and that he was deprived of his right to present a corresponding counter-affidavit and of such evidence only as may engender a wen grounded belief that an offense has
additional evidence crucial to the determination of his alleged "linkage" to the crime charged. been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.
The motion was, however, denied by respondent Gingoyon in his order dated January 29, 3. It is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary investigation has no
1990. right to cross-examine the witnesses which the complainant may present. Thus, even
if petitioner was not given the opportunity to cross-examine Galarion and Hanopol
ISSUE: (A) That the preliminary investigation as to him was not complete; at the time they were presented to testify during the separate trial of the case against
Galarion and Roxas, he cannot assert any legal right to cross-examine them at the
RULING:
preliminary investigation precisely because such right was never available to him.
1. Petitioner avers that he was deprived of a full preliminary investigation by reason of The admissibility or inadmissibility of said testimonies should be ventilated before
the fact that at the time the resolution of September 6, 1989 was issued, there were the trial court during the trial proper and not in the preliminary investigation.
still several incidents pending resolution such as the clarificatory questions which Furthermore, the technical rules on evidence are not binding on the fiscal who has
were supposed to be propounded by petitioner's counsel to Roxas and Hanopol. jurisdiction and control over the conduct of a preliminary investigation. If by its very
2. The right of petitioner to ask clarificatory questions is not absolute. The fiscal has nature a preliminary investigation could be waived by the accused, we find no
the discretion to determine whether or not he will propound these questions to the compelling justification for a strict application of the evidentiary rules.
parties or witnesses concerned. As clearly provided for under Section 3(e), Rule 112
of the Rules of Court.: (e) If the investigating officer believes that there are matters
4.
to be clarified, he may set a hearing to propound clarificatory questions to the
parties or their witnesses, during which the parties shall be afforded an opportunity
to be present but without the right to examine or cross-examine. If the parties so
desire, they may submit questions to the to the investigating officer which the latter
may propound to the parties or witnesses concerned.
3. Lastly, it has been held that "the proper forum before which absence of preliminary
investigation should be ventilated is the Court of First Instance of a preliminary
investigation does not go to the jurisdiction of the court but merely to the regularity