G.R. No. 156962; October 6, 2008
VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC., petitioner, vs. LUIS J. PADILLA, EMMANUEL S. DUTERTE, CARLOS TUPAS, JR., and ROLANDO C. RODRIGUEZ, respondents.

FACTS

The Chief of Police of Victorias filed a single complaint for falsification of private documents against respondents Luis J. Padilla, Emmanuel S. Duterte, Carlos Tupas, Jr., and Rolando C. Rodriguez. The complaint alleged that from January 21, 1992, to December 2, 1996, they conspired to execute, issue, and sign “sugarless” Refined Sugar Invoice/Delivery Orders (RSDOs) and false certifications without securing authority from the board of directors of Victorias Milling Co., Inc. (VMC), causing damage to VMC. The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) dismissed the initial complaint for duplicity of offenses. Subsequently, the City Prosecutor filed sixty-four (64) separate Informations for falsification against respondents, alleging conspiracy in using sugarless RSDOs as collateral for loans from banks.
The MTCC Judge issued warrants of arrest against each respondent only for the specific cases where their signatures appeared on the RSDOs, rejecting the prosecution’s theory of conspiracy for the issuance of warrants in all 64 cases against each respondent. The prosecution filed a Motion to Defer Arraignment and later an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to present evidence on conspiracy, which the MTCC Judge impliedly denied, proceeding with the arraignment of respondents (except Tupas) on July 3, 2000, only for the specific informations where their signatures appeared.
Victorias Milling Co., Inc. filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against the MTCC Judge, seeking to nullify the arraignment and compel an ex-parte hearing on conspiracy. The RTC denied the petition, citing petitioner’s lack of standing, incomplete narration of facts, and late filing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s dismissal, ruling that petitioner lacked personality to file the petition, failed to attach the assailed order, and filed the petition beyond the reglementary period.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the petition for certiorari was filed within the reglementary period.
2. Whether the petition for certiorari lacked the required vital documents.
3. Whether petitioner has a legal personality to file a petition for certiorari.
4. Whether the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the MTCC Judge to conduct an ex-parte hearing on the allegation of conspiracy is proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals.
1. On the procedural issues, the Court held that the petition for certiorari was filed on time. The 60-day period under Rule 65 should be counted from July 3, 2000, when the MTCC Judge impliedly denied the ex-parte motion and proceeded with the arraignment, not from the earlier orders. The amended petition filed on September 29, 2000, cured the initial omission of the November 24, 1999, Order.
2. On legal personality, the Court ruled that Victorias Milling Co., Inc., as the private offended party, has the legal standing to file the petition for certiorari. The civil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offense is deemed instituted with the criminal action for falsification of private documents, making the corporation an aggrieved party entitled to seek redress for the alleged damage caused by respondents’ acts.
3. On the propriety of mandamus, the Court held that the MTCC Judge committed grave abuse of discretion by refusing to conduct an ex-parte hearing to determine probable cause for conspiracy before issuing warrants of arrest. The judge’s reliance on the principle that conspiracy must be proved beyond reasonable doubt at trial was misplaced, as the determination at the preliminary investigation stage is only whether probable cause exists. The judge should have evaluated the prosecution’s evidence on conspiracy to decide whether to issue warrants against all respondents in all cases.
The Supreme Court set aside the arraignment of respondents, directed the MTCC Judge to conduct an ex-parte hearing to determine probable cause for conspiracy, and issue warrants of arrest accordingly if justified.