GR 166924; (August, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 166924 August 17, 2006
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. KHALID MEHMOOD MALIK and MUHAMMAD ATEEQUE, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner GlaxoSmithKline Philippines, Inc., along with other pharmaceutical companies, filed complaints alleging that respondents Khalid Mehmood Malik and Muhammad Ateeque were illegally selling unregistered imported pharmaceutical drugs. Following a covert operation and a subsequent entrapment on June 9, 2002, respondent Malik was arrested after allegedly receiving marked money for parallel imported products. Criminal cases for violation of Republic Acts No. 3720 (Food, Drugs and Cosmetic Act) and No. 8203 (Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs) were filed against Malik, while a preliminary investigation was recommended for Ateeque.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) consolidated the preliminary investigations. Senior State Prosecutor Leah C. Tanodra-Armamento issued a resolution dismissing all charges against both respondents for lack of merit, finding the complainant’s affidavits insufficient and inconsistent. Glaxo’s motion for reconsideration and subsequent petition for review to the Secretary of Justice were denied. The Court of Appeals, upon a petition for certiorari, affirmed the DOJ’s dismissal, finding no grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the DOJ’s dismissal of the criminal complaints for lack of probable cause.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The legal logic rests on the well-settled doctrine that the determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is an executive function vested in the prosecutor. Courts will not interfere with or review the prosecutor’s findings on the sufficiency of evidence to establish probable cause, unless such determination is tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to an evasion of a positive duty.
In this case, the Court found no such abuse. The investigating prosecutor, after evaluating the evidence, concluded that the affidavits failed to sustain an indictment and were inconsistent with the truth. The prosecutor is under no obligation to file an information when not convinced that the quantum of evidence supports the averments. The duty includes not prosecuting when evidence is insufficient to establish a prima facie case. Absent a clear showing of arbitrariness, the Court defers to the authority and discretion of the prosecuting arm of the government. The Secretary of Justice’s affirmation and the CA’s subsequent dismissal were thus upheld.