Case Digest (G.R. No. 206958)
Facts:
Personal Collection Direct Selling, Inc. v. Teresita L. Carandang, G.R. No. 206958, November 08, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.
The private offended party, Personal Collection Direct Selling, Inc. (Petitioner), filed a Complaint‑Affidavit for estafa (Art. 315(1)(b), Revised Penal Code) against its former employee, Teresa L. Carandang (Respondent), with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. After preliminary investigation, Assistant City Prosecutor Job M. Mangente filed an Information in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City (Criminal Case No. Q‑07‑148858), and Branch 221 issued an arrest warrant on September 20, 2007 upon finding prima facie evidence.
Respondent moved for reinvestigation in July 2009, alleging lack of notice of the initial preliminary investigation; the RTC granted the reinvestigation. During the reinvestigation before the City Prosecutor, Carandang submitted a counter‑affidavit and evidence explaining that the cash advances she received (P161,902.80) were used for branch operational expenses and that her abrupt termination prevented full liquidation. On January 29, 2010, State Prosecutor Liezel Aquiatan‑Morales issued a Resolution recommending dismissal for lack of probable cause, concluding that absence of demand and the evidence tended to show a civil obligation rather than estafa. On June 15, 2010, the prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw Information with the RTC.
On November 19, 2010, Branch 221 granted the Motion to Withdraw Information and dismissed the case, explaining that upon reassessment of the reinvestigation papers the elements of estafa were not sufficiently established and that the prosecution’s reversal was entitled to weight; the RTC later granted respondent’s Motion to Release Cash Bond and returned her posted bond. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration before the RTC was denied.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC for allegedly relying solely on the prosecutor’s conclusions and for reversing its earlier finding of probable cause (the warrant issuance). On November 7, 2012 the CA (Sixth Division) dismissed the petition for lack of merit, holding that the RTC made an independent assessment in view of the reinvestigation and that an order granting withdrawal of information is reviewable by appeal; the CA also concluded the private offended party’s remedies were limited as to the criminal aspect. The CA denied reconsideration on April 22, 2013.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 the proper remedy to assail the RTC’s order granting withdrawal of the information and dismissing the criminal case, or was appeal under Rule 122, Section 1 the proper remedy?
- Did the RTC correctly allow withdrawal of the Information against Teresa L. Carandang (i.e., was there grave abuse of discretion in reversing its earlier finding of probable cause)?
- Was Personal Collection Direct Selling, Inc. deprived of due process when it allegedly was not given notice or opportunity to be heard on respondent’s Motion to Release Cash Bond?
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly rule that the petition for certiorari was improper because only the State may pray for reinstatement of the crimi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)