G.R. No. 193105 - Clay and Feather International, Inc. vs. Lichaytoo

Petitioners charged respondents with five counts of Qualified Theft under Article 310, in connection with Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
The complaint-affidavit alleged that from February 2006 to November 2007, respondents, abusing their positions in CFII, unlawfully removed several firearms owned by the company without consent.
Details of the firearms allegedly taken include:

Item 1: C & F Shotgun Beretta DT10 Skeet 12ga (Serial No.: AG0222B, Date: February 2006, Amount: Euro 3,577.00)
Item 2: C & F Shotgun Beretta DT10 LTD Trap 12ga (Serial No.: AF9670B, Date: February 2006, Amount: Euro 3,894.00)
Item 3: C & F Shotgun Beretta DT10L Trap 12ga (Serial No.: AF6715B, Date: November 2007, Amount: Euro 5,091.00)
Item 4: C & F Shotgun Beretta 20ga (Serial Nos.: AA311917/AB315666, Date: June 2007, Amount: Euro 590)
Item 5: C & F Shotgun Beretta 12ga (Serial No.: C15987B, Date: November 2006, Amount: Euro 12,066.00)

Euro 25,218.00 (with a noted conversion to One Million Six Hundred Thirty Nine Thousand One Hundred Seventy Pesos at P65/Euro)

Respondents filed a counter-affidavit seeking the dismissal of the complaint, claiming it was an act of harassment and retaliation.
Their defenses included:

The firearms in question were purchased by them and fully paid for.
Payments for these firearms were deposited in their Euro bank accounts, which CFII used as there was no corporate Euro account.
Transactions, including those related to offsetting advances for CFII’s importation of additional firearms, were properly recorded and acknowledged by petitioners.
The absence of specific breakdowns and official receipts in the documents they submitted indicated that there was no proof linking the alleged offsetting to the firearms in dispute.

Petitioners, in a reply-affidavit, contested these defenses by emphasizing that:

The use of respondents’ Euro bank accounts did not confer personal ownership of funds.
The funds used were from CFII’s corporate resources generated by customer prepayments and orders.
There was inadequate proof that offsetting had indeed occurred in relation to the purchase of the firearms (items 3 and 4).

Initial investigation and Resolution by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City (dated July 7, 2008) recommended dismissal of the complaint against the respondents for lack of sufficient evidence.
Petitioners escalated the matter by filing a petition for review before the Secretary of Justice.

On June 2, 2009, the Secretary of Justice issued a resolution reversing the dismissal and ordering the filing of criminal information against the respondents.

Respondents’ subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied (Resolution dated August 20, 2009).
Respondents then petitioned for certiorari and a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA rendered a Decision on February 26, 2010, by:

Granting the petition for certiorari
Annulment of the Secretary of Justice’s resolutions dated June 2, 2009 and August 20, 2009
Reinstating the dismissal by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati
Ordering the Regional Trial Court to dismiss the information against the respondents

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA Resolution on July 21, 2010, prompting the present petition.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ordering the dismissal of the information charging the respondents with five counts of Qualified Theft.

Examination of whether the evidence on record suffices to establish probable cause for the filing of criminal information against the respondents.
Analysis of the procedural maneuvers involving conflicting resolutions from the Office of the City Prosecutor, the Secretary of Justice, and the Court of Appeals.
Assessment of the evidentiary disputes concerning the origin and use of funds deposited in respondents' Euro bank accounts, and whether these support the allegation of unlawful taking.
Consideration of whether the respondents’ defenses and counter-allegations undermine or negate the elements of Qualified Theft as alleged by the petitioners.