G.R. No. 122827 - Millares vs. National Labor Relations Commission

The case arises from a criminal complaint filed by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) against three private respondents: Fidel C. Cu, Carmelita B. Zate, and Mary Lou S. Apelo.
The complaint was based on a Joint-Affidavit submitted on June 18, 2010 by PDIC’s duly authorized officers, Alexander N. Dojillo and Israel A. Bandoy.
The offenses charged include Direct Bribery, Corruption of Public Officials (under Articles 210 and 212 of the Revised Penal Code, respectively), and violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).

PDIC acted as statutory receiver after the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Monetary Board ordered the closure of Bicol Development Bank, Inc. (BDBI) on December 22, 2008.
Cu, together with his family, owned 85.99% of BDBI.
Zate held the position of Chairman/President of BDBI.
Apelo, a former employee of the BSP, served as Bank Officer-In-Charge in examining BDBI’s books and records on specified dates and was implicated in alleged irregular transactions.

The affidavit of Arsenia T. Gomez (a former Cashier, Service Officer, and Treasurer of BDBI) detailed a scheme allegedly perpetrated by the private respondents:

On November 16, 2006, Cu allegedly instructed Gomez to withdraw P30,000.00 from BDBI’s vault and deposit it into Apelo’s bank account at Philippine National Bank – Legazpi City Branch.
On subsequent dates (April 20, 2007 and October 3, 2007), additional amounts of P60,000.00 and P50,000.00 were deposited into Apelo’s account.

Gomez explained that these deposits were labeled as "professional fees" and later disguised within BDBI's books by recording them under “Other Cash Items”, with subsequent adjustments so that these disbursements did not appear as irregularities.
Supporting evidence included copies of deposit slips and official receipts, aimed at corroborating the claim that the funds were transferred into Apelo’s account.
Gomez further alleged that Cu would alert personnel of impeding BSP examinations, followed by efforts to mask discrepancies in the bank’s records.

Fidel C. Cu denied the allegations, arguing there was no evidence that Apelo received or was aware of such deposits.
Carmelita B. Zate similarly refuted the charges, describing Gomez’s statements as unfounded without corroborative evidence.
Mary Lou S. Apelo did not submit a counter-affidavit despite directives from the Ombudsman.

In a Resolution dated January 24, 2012, the Ombudsman dismissed the criminal complaint on the ground of lack of probable cause.
A subsequent Order dated October 29, 2012, reaffirmed the dismissal, holding that Gomez’s affidavit was inadmissible as it was considered hearsay.
PDIC, aggrieved by these decisions, filed the petition for certiorari challenging the dismissal.

Whether the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion by dismissing the criminal complaint against the private respondents for lack of probable cause.

Whether the omission of a counter-affidavit by Apelo and the mere denials by Cu and Zate were sufficient to nullify PDIC’s allegations.
The admittance and weight of hearsay evidence in preliminary investigations, particularly concerning Gomez’s affidavit.

Whether the technical evidentiary rules applicable in trial proceedings should strictly bind the preliminary investigation phase, given its inquisitorial and initial nature.