GR 156337; (September 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 156337 ; September 28, 2007
UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, Petitioner, vs. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO and JIMMY T. GO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) filed a criminal complaint for Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to the Trust Receipts Law (P.D. No. 115) against respondents Alberto T. Looyuko and Jimmy T. Go. After the Makati City Prosecutor initially recommended dismissal but later, upon reconsideration, filed an Information, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary, upon petition by Looyuko, reversed the prosecutor and directed the withdrawal of the Information. The DOJ Secretary found no probable cause, crediting Looyuko’s defenses that he had offered to return the goods and that a new loan had extinguished the trust receipt obligation.
UCPB challenged the DOJ Secretary’s Resolutions via a Petition for Certiorari in the Court of Appeals, alleging grave abuse of discretion for disregarding evidence and basing conclusions on unproven allegations. The CA dismissed the petition, upholding the DOJ Secretary’s discretion in evaluating probable cause and finding no capricious disregard of evidence that would constitute grave abuse. UCPB elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that the DOJ Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the finding of probable cause against the respondents.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA Decision, and reinstated the Information. The Court held that the DOJ Secretary indeed committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The determination of probable cause requires an inquiry into whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty. While this evaluation is generally an executive function, it is subject to judicial review when exercised with grave abuse, such as when the findings are not supported by the evidence on record.
Here, the DOJ Secretary capriciously disregarded UCPB’s evidence, which included the trust receipt agreement and demand letters, and instead relied solely on the unsubstantiated allegations and defenses of respondent Looyuko regarding an offer to return the goods and the existence of a novating loan. These defenses, requiring proof, are matters for trial and should not have been used to negate probable cause at the preliminary investigation stage. By ignoring the evidence presented by the complainant and accepting the respondent’s bare allegations as truth without requiring corroboration, the DOJ Secretary acted arbitrarily. Consequently, the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the DOJ Resolutions. The prosecutor’s finding of probable cause was reinstated as it was based on evidence sufficient to warrant a trial on the merits.