GR 158064; (June, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 158064; June 30, 2005
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HU RUEY CHUN a.k.a. RICHARD HU, respondent.
FACTS
Extra Excel International Philippines, Inc. (EEIPI) filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft against its former President and General Manager, Hu Ruey Chun (Richard Hu). The complaint alleged that Hu, while an authorized sole signatory, issued a corporate check for ₱762,076.35 payable to himself on July 10, 1998, without covering any legitimate business expense. An audit after his departure revealed the disbursement, and the check was deposited into his personal bank account. The corporation asserted this act constituted unlawful taking.
In his defense, Hu claimed the amount represented his 5% commission on the company’s gross sales. The Office of the City Prosecutor initially dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) reversed this, finding probable cause for qualified theft. The DOJ noted the lack of a board resolution or written contract authorizing such commissions, the absence of supporting documents for the disbursement, and affidavits from other company managers stating that general managers were not entitled to sales commissions.
ISSUE
Whether the DOJ Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to charge respondent Hu Ruey Chun with qualified theft.
RULING
No, the DOJ Secretary did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of probable cause for qualified theft. Probable cause merely requires a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty; it does not demand absolute certainty or evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The legal logic is grounded on the elements of theft: (1) taking of personal property; (2) belonging to another; (3) with intent to gain; (4) without the owner’s consent; and (5) accomplished without violence or intimidation. The evidence presented—the check payable to Hu, the lack of board authorization for the commission, and the absence of supporting documents—sufficiently supports a reasonable belief that all elements are present. The taking is evidenced by the issuance and encashment of the check. The claim of a lawful commission, being unsupported by corporate documentation, presents a factual dispute on the absence of owner’s consent and the presence of intent to gain. Such factual disputes are not resolved in a preliminary investigation but are proper for trial. The DOJ’s assessment of the evidence was not arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical; hence, no grave abuse of discretion attended its finding of probable cause to file the information in court.