Case Summary (G.R. No. 82362)
Petitioner and Respondents
Petitioners are prosecutors representing the People of the Philippines. Respondents are the presiding RTC judge (in his official capacity) and the four private individuals against whom an Information for destructive arson was filed.
Key Dates and Procedural History
Material events and procedural milestones include: fire on May 14, 2001; investigative letters and endorsements by CIDG (Aug. 1, 2001), IATF (Oct. 25, 2001) and BFP (Oct. 8, 2001); preliminary investigation culminating in a prosecutor’s Resolution recommending filing of Information; Information filed and docketed as RTC Criminal Case No. 300-47M 2002; RTC dismissal for lack of probable cause (Order dated Feb. 27, 2002) and denial of reconsideration (Mar. 25, 2002); petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA), which denied relief (Decision July 24, 2003; Resolution Oct. 3, 2003); thereafter petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court (challenging CA’s affirmation).
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
The 1987 Philippine Constitution applies. Relevant procedural provisions and doctrines: Rule 65 (certiorari) of the Rules of Court; Section 6, Rule 112 (judge’s duty to determine existence of probable cause upon filing of complaint or information); Rule 45 (appeal by petition for review). Substantive and evidentiary doctrines invoked include the standards for probable cause, the equipoise rule, and presumption of regularity of official reports.
Facts Surrounding the Fire and Warehouse Layout
On May 14, 2001 at about 12:15 a.m. a fire devastated Sanyoware 2/Warehouse 2. The plant consisted of four single-storey buildings; the burned building was split between Sanyoware (west/right) and New Unitedware Marketing Corporation (east/left), separated by a tall concrete firewall with a steel gate. Allegations included simultaneous separate fires in Sanyoware and Unitedware portions and large movement of inventories in the days before the fire.
Evidence Submitted by the Prosecution
Prosecution relied on sworn statements and affidavits from multiple employees and witnesses: Richard Madrideo (supervisor), Jaime Kalaw (former head of Maintenance), Raymond Dy (warehouse supervisor), Chit Chua and Jennifer Chua Reyes (accounting/secretarial staff), Shanda Amistad (former stay-in worker), SPO1 Valeriano Dizon and Inspector Allan N. Barredo (fire officers). Testimony included claims of simultaneous fires, alleged instructions to conceal simultaneity and fabricate causes, transfers of inventories before the fire, unusual pre-fire visits by respondents, and alleged threats or coercion of witnesses.
Defense Evidence and Counter-Affidavits
Respondents submitted detailed counter-affidavits denying culpability and contesting prosecution allegations. They asserted the existence of alternative explanations (faulty wiring), disputed witness credibility (claims of payments, coercion, hearsay), presented explanations for their presence at the premises before the fire, and challenged the thoroughness and conduct of some investigative actions by CIDG and IATF.
Official Fire Investigation Reports and Physical Evidence
Multiple official fire investigation reports by the Bocaue Fire Station, the Provincial Fire Marshall and the Regional Fire Marshall indicated faulty electrical wiring as the origin/cause of the conflagration. Chemistry Report No. C-054-2001 from the Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory (submitted by Bocaue Fire Station) found the submitted specimen negative for flammable/accelerant substances. These official investigative findings and the chemistry report were relied upon by the courts as significant physical evidence.
Prosecutor’s Resolution and Filing of Information
After preliminary investigation, State Prosecutor Carlos C. Pormento issued a Resolution recommending filing of an Information for Destructive Arson against Wilson Cua Ting, Edward Ngo Yao, Willy So Tan and Carol F. Ortega (with Samson Ting dismissed for insufficient evidence). An Information alleging conspiracy to maliciously burn the warehouses for purposes such as concealing bankruptcy and defrauding creditors was thereafter filed in the RTC.
RTC Action Under Section 6, Rule 112 — Dismissal for Lack of Probable Cause
Upon the filing of the Information the presiding RTC judge evaluated the prosecutor’s resolution and the supporting evidence as required by Section 6, Rule 112, and dismissed the case for lack of probable cause under the court’s authority to act within ten days. The RTC applied the equipoise rule in reaching dismissal due to contradictions among sworn statements and apparent insufficiency of inculpatory evidence to establish probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants.
Court of Appeals Review and Denial of Relief
The petition to the CA contesting the RTC order was denied. The CA found no grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in its dismissal and affirmed the RTC’s application of Section 6, Rule 112 and its evaluation of the totality of evidence.
Supreme Court Procedural Issue: Certiorari vs. Appeal
The Supreme Court first addressed a procedural infirmity: certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for an appeal and lies only where no plain, speedy and adequate remedy exists. Petitioners had 15 days from receipt of the CA resolution to file a petition for review under Rule 45 but allowed the appeal period to lapse; accordingly the certiorari petition was procedurally deficient as an attempt to substitute for a lost appeal. This procedural deficiency alone warranted dismissal of the petition.
Standard for Probable Cause and Judicial Duty
The Court reiterated the legal standard for probable cause: facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the accused. Probable cause requires more than suspicion but less than evidence to justify conviction. The judge’s duty under Section 6, Rule 112 is to personally evaluate the prosecutor’s resolution and supporting evidence and to either dismiss for lack of probable cause, issue warrant of arrest, or, in case of doubt, order additional evidence.
Equipoise Rule and Petitioner’s Argument
Petitioner argued that the RTC improperly applied the equipoise rule at the pre-arraignment stage (i.e., immediately after filing of the Information) and that the equipoise rule should apply only after parties complete presentation of evidence at trial. The equipoise rule generally dictates that where evidence on an issue is evenly balanced, the party with the burden of proof loses; it is typically applied after evidentiary presentations.
Supreme Court’s Analysis of Equipoise Application and Merits
The Supreme Court agreed that employing the equipoise rule immediately after the filing of the Information was not the proper posture for the doctrine, which is normally applied after full presentation of evidence. However, the Court concluded that the RTC’s mistaken application of the equipoise rule amounted at
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 82362)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed with the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the July 24, 2003 Decision and October 3, 2003 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 71985.
- The petition challenges the affirmation by the Court of Appeals of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan Branch XI orders dismissing Criminal Case No. 300-47M 2002 for lack of probable cause pursuant to Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
- The principal ground raised by petitioner before the Supreme Court: that the Court of Appeals “patently and grossly abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in adopting the equipoise rule in the case at bar.”
Facts — Fire Incident and Physical Setting
- On May 14, 2001, at around 12:15 a.m., a fire broke out inside Sanyoware Plastic Products Manufacturing Corporation (Sanyoware) plant located at Km. 8, McArthur Highway, Lolomboy, Bocaue, Bulacan.
- The Sanyoware plant comprised four single-storey buildings, enclosed in concrete walls with steel trusses and galvanized iron sheet roofing.
- The building destroyed, Sanyoware 2, Warehouse 2, was at the right innermost portion of the plant facing north, divided at the center by a tall concrete firewall with a steel gate.
- Sanyoware occupied the right/western portion of the burned building; New Unitedware Marketing Corporation (Unitedware) rented the left/eastern portion.
Investigative Agencies and Formal Accusation
- Investigations were conducted by the Philippine 3rd Regional Criminal Investigation and Detention Group (CIDG) and the Inter Agency Anti-Arson Task Force (IATF) of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).
- Pursuant to communications from CIDG Regional Officer P/Supt. Christopher A. Laxa (August 1, 2001), the IATF Indorsement (October 25, 2001), and a letter from Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) Chief Sr. Supt. Victoriano C. Remedio (October 8, 2001), the following were accused of destructive arson before the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor: Samson Cua Ting (alias Ding Jian Zhi, External Vice-President), Wilson Cua Ting (Plant Manager), Edward Ngo Yao (President of New Unitedware Marketing Corporation), Willy So Tan (alias Chen Yi Ming, Vice-President for Operations), Carol Fernan Ortega (Assistant to the External Vice-President), and John Doe and Peter Doe.
Prosecution Evidence Submitted (Sworn Statements and Reports)
- Petitioner submitted sworn statements of a number of witnesses: Richard Madrideo, Jaime Kalaw, Raymund Dy, Chit Chua, Jennifer Chua Reyes, Shanda Amistad, SPO1 Valeriano Dizon, and Inspector Allan N. Barredo.
- Richard Madrideo (supervisor at Sanyoware) asserted two separate sets of fire within Sanyoware Warehouse distinct from but simultaneous with the fire at Unitedware; he alleged instructions from respondents Wilson Ting and Yao to misrepresent simultaneity and attribute cause to defective wiring, and later claimed threats and coercion to force a sworn statement.
- Jaime Kalaw (former head of Maintenance) disputed faulty wiring as cause — warehouse was relatively new, plant was not in operation that day, circuit breakers were allegedly shut down; he observed transfer of almost 300 unserviceable molds to the burned warehouse a week before the fire and movement of expensive finished products the day before; he alleged seeing respondent Yao a day before the fire remove a rectangular object from his vehicle inside Unitedware.
- Raymond Dy (warehouse supervisor) reported transfers of saleable finished products from the burned warehouse to the Sanyo City Warehouse and transfer of unusable components in the opposite direction, allegedly ordered by Charles Lee with a May 12 deadline.
- Chit Chua (Accounting employee) claimed Sanyoware’s indebtedness of P95,000,000.00 to P96,000,000.00; Jennifer Chua Reyes (secretary) alleged outstanding loans of P180,000,000.00 to various individuals.
- Shanda Amistad (former stay-in worker) reported seeing respondent Yao drive a Unitedware Canter truck loaded with goods on May 13, 2001 and observed Yao visit Sanyoware three times that day; she also noted Wilson Ting’s arrival around 2:00 p.m. that day.
- SPO1 Valeriano Dizon (Meycauayan Fire Station) described his examination of the fire and alleged that Sr. Supt. Enrique Linsangan took witness statements from him before he could prepare the Final Investigation Report (FIR); Linsangan then summoned Dizon, Inspector Barredo and C/Ins. Absalon Zipagan, showed them a copy of the FIR and made them sign it. Inspector Allan Barredo corroborated this account in his affidavit.
- Chemistry Report No. C-054-2001 of the Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office (Annex “E”) indicated that specimens submitted by the Bocaue Fire Station were found negative for any flammable substance.
- Fire Investigation Report prepared by the Bocaue Fire Station (Annex “D”), Certification by Provincial Fire Marshall Absalon Zipagan, and findings of the Office of the Regional Fire Marshall (Annexes “B” and “C”) pointed to faulty wiring as the cause/origin of the conflagration.
Respondents’ Defense (Counter-Affidavit) — Main Assertions and Rebuttals
- Respondents submitted a detailed Counter-Affidavit challenging prosecution affidavits and alleging that one claiming to represent CRM Adjustment Corporation offered money and jobs to persons to give perjured statements to fabricate arson and implicate respondents.
- Specific denials and alternative explanations included:
- Allegations that CIDG and IATF did not invite respondents to answer witness allegations nor performed ocular inspection; that investigators did not insist on conducting an inspection despite having no obstruction.
- Assertions that prosecution relied solely on the statements of Madrideo, Kalaw and Dy.
- Accusations that Madrideo received money (P1,000 and later P15,000), a cellphone and a job promise from Atty. Lugtu as inducements to execute a “Salaysay,” and that later additions by Madrideo claiming threats by respondents were false and fabricated.
- Denials by Wilson Ting that the fire started in Sanyoware simultaneously with Unitedware; claim that evidence established the fire started in Unitedware.
- Rebuttals to maintenance, lighting and transfer claims: Wilson Ting and guards testified to lights being on; keys were kept in main office, not by guard; stock piles in some instances reached lights; denials that saleable finished products were transferred out or that non-usable components were moved into burned warehouses; stock pile movement and padlocking of steel gate explained.
- Explanations for presence on premises: Wilson Ting asserted legitimate operational reasons for being at Sanyoware on May 13, 2001; Edward Yao explained transport of chairs and drawers to his mother-in-law and denied entering Unitedware warehouse or removing any rectangular object from his vehicle.
- Financial assertions that Sanyoware loans were fully secured by real estate mortgages and that Sanyoware and Unitedware were profitable prior to the fire.
- Claim that Bocaue Fire Station and OPFM Bulacan BFP Region 3 Intel and Investigation Section conducted a