Case Digest (G.R. No. 161083)
Facts:
People of the Philippines, represented by Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuno, State Prosecutor Geronimo Sy and Prosecution Attorney Irwin Maraya, v. Hon. Basilio R. Gabo, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch II, and Wilson Cua Ting, Edward Ngo Yao, Willy So Tan and Carol Fernan Ortega, G.R. No. 161083, August 03, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.On May 14, 2001, a fire destroyed Sanyoware Plastic Products Manufacturing Corporation’s Warehouse 2 (Sanyoware 2) at Bocaue, Bulacan. The building housed Sanyoware on the west half and New Unitedware Marketing Corporation (Unitedware) on the east half, separated by a concrete firewall and steel gate. Investigations by the CIDG and the Inter-Agency Anti-Arson Task Force (IATF), and reports from the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), led prosecutors to charge respondents Wilson Cua Ting, Edward Ngo Yao, Willy So Tan, Carol Fernan Ortega, and others with destructive arson based on sworn statements by several employees and witnesses (e.g., Richard Madrideo, Jaime Kalaw, Raymond Dy, SPO1 Valeriano Dizon, Inspector Allan Barredo).
The prosecution submitted witness affidavits alleging simultaneous fires in two parts of the plant, suspicious movements of goods before the fire, threats to witnesses, and conduct by respondents suggesting deliberate ignition. Respondents filed counter-affidavits denying the accusations, alleging fabrication and bribery of witnesses, and pointing to investigative lapses by the CIDG and IATF. The Bocaue Fire Station and Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory produced a chemistry report (No. C-054-2001) finding no flammable substances and fire investigation reports attributing the fire to faulty wiring.
State Prosecutor Carlos Pormento recommended filing an information for destructive arson against four respondents; an information was filed and raffled to Branch XI, RTC Malolos as Criminal Case No. 300-47M 2002. Before arraignment, respondents moved for a hearing to determine probable cause and to withhold issuance of arrest warrants. On February 27, 2002 the RTC dismissed the information for lack of probable cause under Section 6, Rule 112, applying the equipoise rule because of contradictions in the affidavits; the RTC denied reconsideration.
Petitioner prosecuted a certiorari petition under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 71985). The CA (Associate Justice B.A. Adefuin-de la Cruz, with Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Hakim S. Abdulwahid concurring) denied the petition on July 24, 2003, affirming the RTC’s dismissal; its d...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Procedural: Does certiorari under Rule 65 lie to review the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the RTC dismissal when an appeal under Rule 45 was available but not filed?
- Substantive: Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the information for lack of probable cause (including by applying the equipoise rule immediately after...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)