Case Summary (G.R. No. 193105)
Factual Background of the Case
On April 4, 2008, petitioners filed a complaint-affidavit against respondents for five counts of Qualified Theft, as defined in Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. The allegations asserted that between February 2006 and November 2007, the respondents, by virtue of their corporate positions, unlawfully and intentionally took several firearms owned by CFII without the consent of the corporation or its stockholders. The total value of the taken firearms was stated to be approximately Euro 25,218.00, equivalent to P1,639,170.00.
Respondent’s Defense
In their counter-affidavit filed on May 5, 2008, respondents sought the dismissal of the complaint, claiming it was an act of harassment aimed at denying them their interests in CFII. They asserted that the firearms in question were purchased by them, paid in full, and that they had utilized their Euro bank accounts for transactions, which CFII did not maintain. They further contended that some transactions were offset against advances made for the corporation's importation of firearms, which petitioners had knowledge of.
Rejoinder by Petitioners
Petitioners filed a reply-affidavit on May 9, 2008, challenging the defense put forth by respondents. They acknowledged the absence of a CFII Euro bank account and confirmed using respondents' accounts for currency transactions. However, petitioners insisted that the funds used for the purchases were corporate funds and not personal contributions by the respondents, thereby reinforcing their claim of theft. They argued that the lack of detailed evidence on the offsetting claims made by respondents indicated their arguments lacked credibility.
Resolutions by the Office of the City Prosecutor
Following the preliminary investigation, on July 7, 2008, the Office of the City Prosecutor issued a resolution recommending the dismissal of the complaint due to insufficiency of evidence. This decision prompted petitioners to seek a review from the Office of the Secretary of Justice, which on June 2, 2009, reversed the prosecution's resolution, ordering the filing of information against the respondents.
Court of Appeals Decision
Respondents subsequently sought a remedy through a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). On February 26, 2010, the CA granted the petition, annulled the Secretary of Justice's resolutions, and reinstated the dismissal of the complaint, arguing that the evidence did not establish probable cause for the charges.
Legal Analysis on Probable Cause
The Supreme Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause, essential for filing criminal indictments, requires the establishment of sufficient facts to justify a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed. In analyzing the elements of theft—as defined under Articles 308 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code—the Court reaffirmed that the evidence presented by the petitioners indicated that respondents had t
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 193105)
Case Background
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
- Petitioners are stockholders and incorporators of Clay & Feather International, Inc. (CFII), which engages in marketing guns and ammunitions.
- Petitioners Raul O. Arambulo and Adam E. Jimenez III hold 50% of CFII's shares while respondents Alexander T. Lichaytoo and Clifford T. Lichaytoo hold the other 50%.
- Arambulo serves as the President, and Jimenez is a member of the Board of Directors, while Alexander is the Corporate Secretary and Clifford is the Chief Finance Officer/Treasurer of CFII.
Criminal Complaint
- On April 4, 2008, petitioners filed a complaint-affidavit against respondents for five counts of Qualified Theft under Articles 308 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Allegations include unlawful taking of firearms owned by CFII without consent from February 2006 to November 2007, amounting to Euro 25,218.00 (approximately P1,639,170.00).
Respondents' Defense
- In their counter-affidavit dated May 5, 2008, respondents sought dismissal of the complaint, claiming it was an act of harassment and retaliation due to a prior complaint filed against Arambulo.
- They asserted that the firearms were purchased by them, with payments made from their Euro bank accounts, not from CFII's funds.
- They argued that firearms described in items 3 and 4 were obtained through offsetting against advances made for CFII’s purchase of 2,000 Beretta 92s pistols, with all transactions disclosed to the auditor.
Petitioners' Rebuttal
- Petitioners replied on May 9, 2008, acknowledging that CFII does not maintain a Euro bank account but emphasizing that the funds used for purchasin