G.R. No. 130399; September 20, 2001
PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, OLONGAPO CITY, petitioner, vs. HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., Secretary of the Department of Justice, and CONRADO L. TIU, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner, Public Utilities Department (PUD) of Olongapo City, supplied electricity to private respondent Conrado L. Tiu’s establishments. Under a Power Loss Reduction Program, PUD discovered significant discrepancies. At Conti’s Plaza, a load logger test revealed the KWH meter registered only 10.71% of actual consumption due to reversed polarity markings on a current transformer, causing an 89.29% power loss. The unregistered consumption from 1988 to 1993 was valued at over P9 million. At another Tiu property on Fendler Street, an inspection found a KWH meter registering zero consumption because its potential link was disengaged. Despite demands, Tiu refused payment.
PUD filed a complaint for theft of electricity under P.D. 401. After preliminary investigation, the State Prosecutor dismissed the complaint. The Acting Secretary of Justice initially found probable cause but, upon Tiu’s motion for reconsideration, respondent Secretary Teofisto Guingona, Jr., reversed this and directed the withdrawal of any information filed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Secretary’s resolution, prompting PUD’s petition to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding no probable cause to prosecute Tiu for theft of electricity.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion, defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The determination of probable cause is an executive function primarily vested in the prosecutor. Judicial review is limited to checking for arbitrariness.
The Court examined the Secretary’s reasoning. For the Conti’s Plaza incident, the Secretary found the circumstantial evidence insufficient to establish Tiu’s deliberate intent to tamper. The reversed polarity could have resulted from an initial erroneous installation by technicians, not a subsequent malicious act by Tiu. For the Fendler Street meter, the Secretary noted the meter seal was intact, suggesting an initial installation error in failing to connect the potential link. Crucially, Tiu himself reported the zero reading to PUD, negating any fraudulent intent. The Secretary validly concluded that the evidence did not engender a well-founded belief that Tiu committed theft of electricity.
The Court reiterated that a prosecutor cannot be compelled to file an information if unconvinced by the evidence, as doing so would be a dereliction of duty. Since the Secretary’s finding was based on a logical assessment of the evidence and the absence of criminal intent, no grave abuse of discretion attended his resolution. Therefore, the appellate court correctly refused to overturn it.