Case Digest (G.R. No. 189533)
Facts:
Ma. Imelda Pineda-Ng v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 189533, November 15, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.
The case arose from an Information for Qualified Theft filed on December 19, 2007 against Richard Francisco (branch manager of Philippine Business Bank, Dolores, City of San Fernando, Pampanga), Mailada Marilag‑Aquino, and Ma. Imelda Pineda‑Ng (petitioner). The City Prosecutor's resolution alleged that Aquino drew seven checks in favor of petitioner totaling P8,735,000.00; petitioner allegedly presented these seven checks for payment through her Bill Purchase Accommodation facility via Francisco, who, purportedly in excess of his authority, approved payment despite (a) each check having a face value in excess of P100,000.00 and (b) the checks being drawn on closed accounts and/or against insufficient funds.
Petitioner initially sought reconsideration of the City Prosecutor's resolution. The matter was already pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 42, San Fernando, Pampanga, presided over by Judge Maria Amifaith Fider‑Reyes. In an Order dated January 11, 2008, Judge Reyes found probable cause only against Francisco, fixed his bail at P400,000.00, and dismissed the case against Aquino and petitioner for absence of probable cause. The private complainant (the bank) moved for reconsideration; petitioner filed a comment and opposition.
On April 30, 2008, Judge Reyes granted the bank's motion for reconsideration and reversed her earlier Order: she then found probable cause against Aquino and petitioner as well, cancelled Francisco's bail, and ordered the issuance of arrest warrants against all accused without recommending bail. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
In a Decision dated July 10, 2009 (penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar‑Fernando, with Associate Justices Magdangal M. de Leon and Ramon R. Garcia concurring), the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s certiorari petition for lack of merit. The CA concluded that Judge Reyes did review the records and did not merely adopt the City Prosecutor's recommendation; it also observed that the Information charged consummated Qualified Theft and that Aquino and petitioner were charged as principals by direct participation. The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in a September 8, 2009 Resolution.
Petitioner then filed this Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, asserting grave abuse of discretion by the CA and seeking reversal of the CA Decision and Resolution. Petitioner contended she was a bank client (not a bank employee) and could not be liable for Qualified Theft, and she argued the absence of the crime of "Conspiracy to Commit Qualified Theft" and that Judge Reyes had acted on the City Prosecutor’s findin...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner’s certiorari petition and upholding the RTC’s finding of probable cause?
- Was there probable cause to charge petitioner with Qualified Theft?
- Can petitioner, as a bank client (not an employee), be charged as a principal in the alleged Qualified Theft, and does the existence or characterization of "conspiracy to commit Qualified Theft...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)