G.R. No. 206958 - Personal Collection Direct Selling, Inc. vs. Carandang

Personal Collection Direct Selling, Inc. (Personal Collection), as the private offended party, initiated the criminal action by filing a complaint-affidavit for estafa with unfaithfulness and/or abuse of confidence against Teresita L. Carandang before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.
The complaint stemmed from allegations that Carandang, then an employee of Personal Collection, received cash advances totaling P161,902.80 for company projects under an obligation to liquidate or return unspent funds.
Following the filing, the Office of the City Prosecutor conducted a preliminary investigation and subsequently filed an information against Carandang before Branch 221 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, charging her with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.

On September 20, 2007, RTC Judge Jocelyn A. Solis-Reyes issued an arrest warrant for Carandang after determining prima facie evidence existed to support the charge of estafa.
The docketed criminal case was recorded as Criminal Case No. Q-07-148858.
Carandang later filed a Motion for Reinvestigation on July 10, 2009, citing non-receipt of a subpoena during the preliminary investigation, while Personal Collection opposed the motion by affirming that due process was not violated.

The RTC granted Carandang’s Motion for Reinvestigation on August 14, 2009.
Carandang submitted a Counter Affidavit, claiming that her inability to liquidate the cash advances was due to her sudden employment termination and asserted that she never received a demand letter from Personal Collection.
Personal Collection, through its representative, countered these assertions, insisting that Carandang had admitted receipt of the funds and had been repeatedly demanded to account for them.

On January 29, 2010, the Office of the City Prosecutor, represented by State Prosecutor Liezel Aquiatan-Morales, issued a Resolution recommending the dismissal of the complaint due to the lack of probable cause, emphasizing that the absence of a demand negated the claim for estafa.
On June 15, 2010, a Motion to Withdraw Information was filed by the prosecutor, arguing that evidence showed no probable cause existed to charge Carandang with estafa.
Personal Collection opposed the motion, contending that the element of demand was not essential to establishing estafa, while Carandang defended the prosecutor’s authority over the case.
On November 19, 2010, the RTC granted the Motion to Withdraw Information, dismissing the case based on the findings that the cash advances had been used to pay operational expenses and that Carandang’s termination explained her failure to fully liquidate the funds.
Subsequent motions were filed: Personal Collection’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied, and on November 16, 2011, the RTC released Carandang’s cash bond.

Personal Collection filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals arguing grave abuse of discretion by the RTC for relying solely on the prosecutor’s recommendation without independently evaluating the merits of the case.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Certiorari on November 7, 2012, affirming that the RTC had adequately exercised its discretion.
A subsequent Resolution on April 22, 2013, denied Personal Collection’s Motion for Reconsideration regarding the same issues.
On June 17, 2013, Personal Collection elevated its appeal by filing a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, contending that the RTC’s reversal of its earlier probable cause finding was improper and violated due process.
Carandang submitted a Comment defending the RTC’s actions, and Personal Collection filed a Reply reiterating its concerns over the inadequate independent assessment of evidence.
The issues to be resolved included the appropriateness of withdrawing the information, due process regarding the release of the cash bond, and the propriety of a private complainant filing a special civil action for certiorari.

Whether the Regional Trial Court correctly exercised its independent judicial discretion in withdrawing the information against Carandang after re-evaluating the evidence.
Whether the RTC improperly relied solely on the prosecutor’s resolution in reversing its prior finding of probable cause.

Whether Personal Collection was deprived of due process because it was not afforded notice or the opportunity to contest Carandang’s Motion to Release Cash Bond.
Whether the automatic cancellation of bail upon dismissal of the case negated the need for further notice or hearing.

Whether applicants, as a private offended party, had the standing to question the RTC’s orders via a special civil action for certiorari.
Whether, in cases of case dismissal, only the State (through the Office of the Solicitor General) may seek reinstatement of the criminal proceedings on appeal.