Case Digest (G.R. No. 204479)
Facts:
Rudy Chua and Cai Changcheng v. The Hon. Secretary of Justice and Presidential Anti‑Smuggling Group‑Task Force Subic (PASG‑TFS), G.R. No. 204479, January 11, 2023, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, SAJ., writing for the Court.At around 8:35 p.m. on May 25, 2008, a security guard at Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, Wilfredo Agnazata, stopped a Mitsubishi Outlander driven by Anthony “Anton” Ang, part‑owner of Hualong International, Inc. (Hualong). After Ang failed to produce documents for several boxes unloaded from the Chinese cargo vessel F/B Shun Fa Xing and after one passenger disappeared from the vehicle, the boxes were later opened and found to contain 40 transport plastic packs of a white crystalline substance that tested positive for shabu (81.95 kg). On May 28, 2008 divers recovered two green leatherette bags with additional shabu (20.49 kg) and Task Force operatives later seized 60 boxes containing shabu (612.22 kg) from a warehouse owned by Anglo Asia Commodity Corporation.
Investigators learned that Enrique Ong, Anglo Asia’s manager, allowed the van into the warehouse at the instruction of Ang and his wife Estrella Ang, and that Estrella had notified Subic authorities of the vessel’s arrival. On June 13, 2008 the Presidential Anti‑Smuggling Group‑Task Force Subic filed an Amended Joint Complaint of Arrest before the Olongapo City Prosecutor against, among others, the incorporators and officers of Hualong including petitioners Chua and Changcheng for violations of Sections 4 and 5 in relation to Section 26 of Republic Act No. 9165.
In their counter‑affidavits petitioners denied knowledge of the illegal importation and claimed they had assigned their shares in Hualong to Robert Lee by a Deed of Assignment dated August 30, 2007. The City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, and the Regional State Prosecutor sustained that dismissal. The case was then elevated to the Secretary of Justice for review pursuant to Department Circular No. 46 (s. 2003), which mandated automatic review of dismissals in certain R.A. No. 9165 cases.
The Secretary of Justice reversed the City Prosecutor, found probable cause to indict petitioners and others for violations of R.A. No. 9165, and directed the filing of informations; a motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which in a July 17, 2012 Decision (and in a November 14, 2012 Resolution denying reconsideration) dismissed the petition and held that the Secretary did not commit grave abuse of discr...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Whether petitioners may properly raise questions of fact under a petition for review under Rule 45, and whether any exception to that rule was alleged and proved here.
- Substantive: Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Olongapo City Prosecutor’s dismissal and finding probable cause to file informations against petitioners for violations of Sections 4 and 5 in relation to Sectio...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)