Case Summary (G.R. No. 206958)
Allegations and Initial Proceedings
Personal Collection filed a complaint for estafa (Article 315(1)(b) RPC) alleging that Carandang, an employee, received cash advances totaling P161,902.80 in trust for company expenses and failed to liquidate or return them, misappropriating the funds to her personal use. After preliminary investigation, the Office of the City Prosecutor (Assistant City Prosecutor Mangente) filed an Information before the RTC. The RTC, after evaluating the prosecutor’s resolution and attached documents, found prima facie evidence and ordered the issuance of an arrest warrant on September 20, 2007.
Reinvestigation and Prosecutor’s Reversal
Carandang moved for reinvestigation, asserting she missed the preliminary investigation due to lack of subpoena service; the RTC granted reinvestigation. During reinvestigation, Carandang submitted a counter-affidavit explaining that failure to fully liquidate resulted from sudden termination of employment and that she had used advances to pay operational expenses of the Iloilo branch and made partial liquidations. The Office of the City Prosecutor, after reinvestigation, issued a January 29, 2010 Resolution recommending dismissal for lack of probable cause, reasoning that absence of a demand undermined an estafa charge and that the acts might give rise only to a civil action for sum of money.
Motion to Withdraw Information and RTC’s Ruling
State Prosecutor Aquiatan-Morales filed a Motion to Withdraw Information on June 15, 2010, based on the prosecutor’s finding of lack of probable cause. The RTC granted the Motion to Withdraw Information on November 19, 2010, concluding that Carandang satisfactorily explained the failure to account (use of funds for branch operations; termination prevented full liquidation) and that the prosecution’s reassessment warranted withdrawal. The RTC noted the general policy of noninterference with preliminary investigations but also reviewed the reinvestigation material and the parties’ pleadings in making its assessment.
Release of Cash Bond
Following dismissal, Carandang moved for release of the cash bond; the RTC ordered release in an Order dated November 16, 2011. The RTC found no objection from the prosecution and that the Information had been withdrawn; accordingly, it ordered the Clerk of Court to deliver the cash bond to the accused or her authorized representative.
Court of Appeals Proceedings and Ruling
Personal Collection filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in granting the Motion to Withdraw Information and in releasing the cash bond. The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit (Decision November 7, 2012; Resolution denying reconsideration April 22, 2013), holding that the RTC conducted an independent assessment based on pleadings then of record, that the earlier probable-cause determination for issuance of an arrest warrant was distinct from the subsequent reassessment after reinvestigation, and that the private offended party’s interest in criminal proceedings is limited to the civil aspect (and, as to reinstatement of criminal charges, the State is the proper party to appeal).
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
Personal Collection sought review by the Supreme Court, presenting principally: (1) whether the RTC properly allowed withdrawal of the Information for lack of probable cause; (2) whether Personal Collection was deprived of due process by lack of notice or opportunity to be heard on the Motion to Release Cash Bond; and (3) whether the CA erred in holding that the private offended party’s capacity to seek review is limited and that reinstatement of criminal charges is a matter for the State.
Supreme Court — Appropriate Procedural Remedy and Appealability
The Supreme Court held that the procedural vehicle used by petitioner in the CA (a Rule 65 certiorari petition) was improper because an order granting dismissal of a criminal case upon withdrawal of information is final and appealable under Rule 122 §1. The Court reiterated that certiorari under Rule 65 cannot substitute for an ordinary appeal when an appeal is available. The Court nevertheless proceeded to decide the merits for judicial economy.
Supreme Court — Standards for Withdrawal of Information and Judicial Duty
The Court reiterated settled principles: once an information is filed the court acquires jurisdiction and may dismiss only after an independent evaluation; judges must exercise cautious discernment in dismissing criminal cases for lack of probable cause; the judge must not rely solely on the prosecutor’s conclusions but must independently evaluate the evidence and the merits and state the assessment in the order. An earlier judicial finding of probable cause (as for an arrest warrant) may be reversed upon reassessment if the judge independently studies additional evidence and explains why the earlier assessment was erroneous. Failure to make such independent assessment and to state reasons constitutes grave abuse of discretion and renders the order void.
Application of Standards to the Case — RTC’s Independent Assessment
The Supreme Court found that the RTC had conducted an independent assessment of the prosecution’s evidence as reflected in the reinvestigation materials and the parties’ pleadings. The Court observed that the prior finding of probable cause that led to issuance of the arrest warrant was based on the prosecutor’s initial resolution and supporting documents; after reinvestigation, additional evidence and Carandang’s counter-affidavit were presented and formed the basis for the prosecutor’s reversal and motion to withdraw. The RTC’s November 19, 2010 Order set forth reasons why the elements of estafa were not sufficiently established (noting explanations that funds were used for operational expenses, partial liquidations were made, and termination prevented full liquidation), and thus the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in granting withdrawal.
Application to Bail — Automatic Cancellation and Release
Relying on the Rules of Court (Rule 114 §22 and Rule 114 §14 concerning deposit of cash bail), the Supreme Court held that cancellation of bail is automatic upon dismissal of the case and that no no
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 206958)
Title, Citation and Panel
- Supreme Court decision reported at 820 Phil. 706, Third Division, G.R. No. 206958, dated November 08, 2017 (Decision penned by Justice Leonen).
- Case caption as presented: Personal Collection Direct Selling, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Teresita L. Carandang, Respondent.
- Court en banc notation in the judgment section: concurrence by Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Martires, and Gesmundo, JJ.; Division Clerk of Court received original on January 10, 2018.
Nature of the Case and Relief Sought
- A Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals’ November 7, 2012 Decision and April 22, 2013 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 122696.
- The petitioner, Personal Collection Direct Selling, Inc. (hereafter "Personal Collection"), sought annulment of trial court orders granting (a) the prosecutor’s Motion to Withdraw Information in Criminal Case No. Q-07-148858 (People v. Teresita L. Carandang) and dismissing the criminal case, and (b) the accused’s Motion to Release Cash Bond.
- Petitioner alleged grave abuse of discretion by Branch 221, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, in granting the Motion to Withdraw Information and in releasing the cash bond.
Factual Background (as alleged and as developed in the record)
- Personal Collection filed a Complaint-Affidavit for estafa with unfaithfulness/abuse of confidence against respondent Carandang on March 30, 2007, before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.
- Assistant City Prosecutor Job M. Mangente filed an Information charging Carandang with estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code, docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-07-148858.
- The Information alleged that between July 11, 2005 and August 30, 2006 in Quezon City, Carandang, an employee of Personal Collection, received in trust cash advances totaling P161,902.80 for company expenses but failed and refused to liquidate or return said amounts and converted them for her personal use, to the damage and prejudice of Personal Collection.
- On September 20, 2007, Presiding Judge Jocelyn A. Solis-Reyes of RTC Branch 221 ordered the issuance of an arrest warrant, finding prima facie evidence existed to support the charge.
- Carandang filed a Motion for Reinvestigation on July 10, 2009, claiming nonreceipt of a subpoena during the preliminary investigation and seeking reinvestigation to avoid deprivation of due process. The RTC granted the Motion for Reinvestigation on August 14, 2009.
- During reinvestigation, Carandang filed a Counter Affidavit claiming that failure to liquidate was due to sudden termination of employment and absence of demand or settlement offer from Personal Collection. Personal Collection filed Reply Affidavit and Compliance, reiterating that cash advances were received and not liquidated and asserting demand was unnecessary.
- On January 29, 2010, State Prosecutor Liezel Aquiatan-Morales issued a Resolution recommending dismissal for lack of probable cause, concluding that absence of demand undermined an estafa theory and that the acts could be subject only to a civil action for sum of money.
- Prosecutor Aquiatan-Morales filed a Motion to Withdraw Information with the RTC (filed June 15, 2010, per the record references), stating lack of probable cause.
- RTC, in an Order dated November 19, 2010, granted the Motion to Withdraw Information and dismissed the case, explaining that Carandang had satisfactorily accounted for use of the cash advances (funds used for operational expenses of Personal Collection’s Iloilo City branch) and that her abrupt termination prevented full liquidation; RTC stated it was not inclined to interfere with investigating officers’ discretion but articulated an independent assessment based on reinvestigation records and parties’ pleadings.
- Personal Collection’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC in an Order dated October 12, 2011.
- On November 16, 2011, RTC ordered release of the cash bond posted for Carandang’s bail; Petitioner claimed it did not receive notice of that motion.
- Personal Collection filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s orders to withdraw the information and release the bond.
- Court of Appeals Decision dated November 7, 2012 dismissed Personal Collection’s petition for certiorari for lack of merit; CA found the RTC conducted an independent assessment, explained distinctions between probable cause for issuance of warrant and for withdrawal, and found petitioner was not deprived of opportunity to oppose the bond release; CA also stated private offended party’s relief as to reinstatement of criminal prosecutions is limited and belongs to the State.
- Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in its April 22, 2013 Resolution.
- Personal Collection filed Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court on June 17, 2013. The Supreme Court required respondent to comment (Sept. 2, 2013); Carandang filed Comment Nov. 5, 2013; Petitioner filed Reply March 17, 2014. Supreme Court proceeded to resolve issues on judicial economy despite procedural impropriety asserted by the Court.
Procedural Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the RTC correctly allowed withdrawal of the Information upon a finding of lack of probable cause.
- Whether Personal Collection was deprived of due process when it allegedly did not receive notice or opportunity to be heard on Carandang’s Motion to Release Cash Bond.
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the Petition for Certiorari was improper because reinstatement of the criminal case is within the State’s prerogative (i.e., whether a private offended party may seek reinstatement of the criminal case).
Parties’ Principal Arguments (as reflected in the record)
- Petitioner’s arguments:
- RTC gravely abused its discretion by reversing its earlier finding of probable cause despite Carandang’s admissions and evidence showing all elements of estafa were present.
- Trial court merely adopted the prosecutor’s resolution rather than independently determining probable cause.
- Prosecutor’s finding that Carandang was willing to fully liquidate advances relied on unsubstantiated, self-serving statements by Carandang.
- Grant of Motion to Release Cash Bond violated Rules 15 Sections 2, 5 and 6 (motions must be written, set for hearing, and show proof of service); petitioner was denied notice and opportunity to be heard, amounting to deprivation of due process.
- Court of Appeals erred in limiting petitioner’s capacity to seek judicial review based on previous cases (asserting Rodriguez v. Gadiane was erroneously relied upon).
- Petitioner invoked its interest in the civil aspect as basis of standing to file its petition.
- Respondent Carandang’s arguments:
- RTC did