G.R. No. 113930 - Roberts, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 113930)

Key Dates and Applicable Law

Key Dates: Joint Resolution by investigating prosecutor (March 23, 1993); filing of information (April 12, 1993); RTC order denying suspension of proceedings and ordering warrants (May 17, 1993); Court of Appeals decisions (September 28, 1993; February 9, 1994); DOJ dismissals (July 23, 1993; February 3, 1994); Supreme Court en banc decision (March 5, 1996).
Applicable Law: 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article III, Section 2 on issuance of warrants and probable cause), Revised Penal Code (Art. 318 on estafa), Consumer Act of the Philippines, and relevant administrative issuances regarding preliminary investigations and appeals.

Summary of Case Background and Proceedings

Several thousand private complainants who held "349" Pepsi crowns filed complaints against the petitioners, high-level Pepsi officials, alleging estafa and violations of consumer protection laws rooted in the "Number Fever Promotion." The complaints asserted that despite winning numbers being announced (specifically "349"), Pepsi refused to pay prizes, alleging irregularities involving security codes on crowns.

After preliminary investigation, Assistant City Prosecutor Ramon M. Gerona recommended the filing of an information charging the petitioners with estafa under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code, while dismissing other complaints for insufficient evidence. The City Prosecutor approved this recommendation with minor modifications, and the information was filed with the RTC, leading to Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration and filed a Petition for Review with the DOJ, challenging the findings of probable cause and alleging intimidation affecting prosecutorial independence. They also sought to suspend RTC proceedings and defer issuance of warrants and arraignment, relying on the pendency of the DOJ review.

Issues Presented for Supreme Court Resolution

The Supreme Court identified five main issues:

Whether RTC Judge Asuncion gravely abused discretion by denying motions to suspend proceedings and defer issuance of warrants pending DOJ review.
Whether Judge Asuncion abused discretion in ordering warrants of arrest without personally examining the records of preliminary investigation.
Whether the DOJ "349" Committee gravely abused discretion in dismissing the petition for review based on the court orders.
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused discretion in denying preliminary injunction and dismissing the petition as moot due to DOJ dismissal.
Whether the Supreme Court may determine probable cause in this proceeding.

Summary of Supreme Court's Findings and Rulings — Majority Opinion (Ponente)

Authority of DOJ Review and RTC Discretion (Issues 1 and 3)

The Court clarified that while the DOJ should "as far as practicable" refrain from reviewing prosecutorial resolutions after filing of information in court (per Crespo v. Mogul), the DOJ retains authority to review findings of probable cause especially when no arraignment has yet occurred and grave abuse is alleged. The DOJ improperly dismissed the petition for review without a proper adjudication on the merits, constituting grave abuse of discretion.

Judge Asuncion erred in denying suspension motions solely on the basis of preserving judicial independence by refusing to consider the DOJ's pending review. The Court reiterated that the trial court has the authority to decide on dismissal motions, but should not prematurely reject executive review absent a formal decision.

Probable Cause and Judge's Duty (Issues 2 and 4)

Under Article III, Section 2, of the 1987 Constitution, a warrant of arrest cannot issue except upon probable cause personally determined by a judge after examination of the complainant and witnesses or evaluation of supporting documents. The Court emphasized jurisprudence from Soliven v. Makasiar, People v. Inting, Lim v. Felix, Allado v. Diokno, and Webb v. De Leon requiring judges to personally evaluate not just the fiscal’s certification but also the supporting evidence including affidavits and transcripts.

In this case, Judge Asuncion issued orders for issuance of warrants based only on the information, amended information, and Joint Resolution, without having before him the complete records or evidence supporting the prosecutor's finding of probable cause. The Joint Resolution itself was not sufficient basis for personal determination of probable cause. The judge also failed to make an explicit finding of probable cause or any rationale beyond ordering warrants to issue after a delay, which was constitutionally infirm.

The Court of Appeals likewise erred in presuming the judge had properly evaluated the prosecution records despite absence of any indication that this was done. Its dismissal of the CA petition as moot due to DOJ dismissal of their review petition was premature.

Whether the Supreme Court May Determine Probable Cause (Issue 5)

The Court held that it is generally not the function of the Supreme Court to determine the existence of probable cause except in exceptional cases where constitutional rights require protection or the orderly administration of justice demands it. Given the magnitude of complainants and potential for hundreds of similar cases if probable cause is found, such exceptions were appropriate to avoid multiplicity of actions and oppression.

However, this case was not suitable for the Supreme Court to determine probable cause on the merits because the trial court had not properly done so and the records of preliminary investigation were not before the Court. The matter should be returned to the DOJ and trial court for appropriate determination.

Final Disposition and Directives

The Supreme Court en banc granted the petition and:

Set aside the orders of the RTC Judge denying motions to suspend proceedings, DOJ resolutions dismissing petitioners’ review petition, and the Court of Appeals’ dismissal.
Directed the DOJ to decide the merits of the petitioners’ petition for review of the Joint Resolution within 60 days.
Ordered the DOJ to file the proper pleading in court in Criminal Cas

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 113930)

Background and Parties Involved

The petitioners are corporate officials of Pepsi Cola Products Philippines, Inc. (PEPSI), including presidents, chairmen, vice-chairmen, and directors, charged due to complaints filed by thousands of holders of "349" Pepsi crowns.
Respondents include the Court of Appeals, respondent Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion of RTC Branch 104, members of the Department of Justice ("349" Committee), and the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.
Private complainants – several thousand individuals represented by multiple counsels – alleged criminal violations related to PEPSI’s "Number Fever Promotion."
The core complaint concerns refusal by PEPSI to honor prizes for winning "349" Pepsi crowns and related allegations of estafa and violations of consumer protection and anti-deceptive advertising laws.

Procedural History

Complaints filed with the City Prosecutor led to an investigating prosecutor recommending the filing of estafa charges under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code against the petitioners.
The City Prosecutor approved the recommendation with some exclusions owing to insufficiency of evidence.
The information for estafa was filed with the RTC Quezon City as Criminal Case No. Q-93-43198.
Petitioners filed motions for reconsideration and for suspension of proceedings based on their Petition for Review to the DOJ of the Joint Resolution.
The RTC Judge denied the motions to suspend proceedings and to hold issuance of warrants of arrest in abeyance, relying on Supreme Court precedent (Crespo vs. Mogul) emphasizing court authority over prosecutorial review.
Petitioners filed a special civil action with the Court of Appeals, which denied relief upon finding the Joint Resolution sufficient and due process carried out.
The DOJ initially gave due course to the petitioners’ petition for review but later dismissed it, stating the matter was moot given the judicial proceedings.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition due to DOJ dismissal.
The Supreme Court initially denied then reinstated the petition and en banc took cognizance for final resolution on procedural and substantive grounds.

Issues Presented for Resolution

Whether Judge Asuncion committed grave abuse of discretion in denying motions to suspend proceedings and hold in abeyance the issuance of warrants of arrest pending DOJ review.
Whether accompanying Judge Asuncion’s order directing issuance of warrants of arrest without examining the complete record of preliminary investigation constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Whether the DOJ "349" Committee acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for review.
Whether the Court of Appeals abused discretion in denying a writ of preliminary injunction and dismissing the petition as moot.
Whether the Supreme Court may resolve in this petition the existence or absence of probable cause for arrest and prosecution of petitioners.

Facts and Evidence Summary

The PEPSI "Number Fever Promotion" ran from February to June 1992, involving crowned bottle caps claiming big cash prizes for matching winning three-digit numbers and unique security codes.
Complaints arose when the winning number "349" surfaced with both winning and non-winning security codes, contrary to the mechanics previously approved by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).
DTI’s Task Force found deviations and modifications by PEPSI in the mechanics without proper approval, especially deleterious to holders of "349" crowns.
The prosecutors’ Joint Resolution found prima facie probable cause for estafa based on:
1. Deviation from the DTI-approved mechanics;
2. The substitution attempt of number "123" for "349";
3. Fraudulent and deceitful acts causing damage and prejudice to complainants.
Petitioners disputed these findings on grounds of compliance, absence of fraud, lack of specific overt criminal acts attributed to them, and claimed good faith.

Constitutional and Legal Principles on Preliminary Investigation and Probable Cause

Probable cause for arrest must be personally determined by a judge upon examination of the complainant and witnesses or the reports and documents submitted by the prosecutor.
The judicial determination of probable cause obliges a judge to evaluate not only the prosecutor’s certification but also the supporting evidence in the preliminary investigation; however, judges are not required to personally examine complainants or witnesses in all cases.
The judge’s evaluation process may vary in degree but must be based on substantial evidence and cannot rest solely on the prosecutor’s bare certification of probable cause.
Existing rules (Circular No. 7, Department Order No. 223) allow review of resolutions finding probable cause by the Secretary of Justice before arraignment, but the judiciary retains exclusive jurisdiction to act after filing of information.
The Court emphasized that the judge’s mere reliance on a petitioner's information or the Joint Resolution is in