G.R. No. 171659; December 13, 2007
MARIETTA K. ILUSORIO, Petitioner, vs. SYLVIA K. ILUSORIO, CRISTINA A. ILUSORIO, JOVITO CASTRO and FIVE (5) JOHN DOES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Marietta K. Ilusorio filed a criminal complaint for robbery, qualified trespass to dwelling, and violation of P.D. No. 1829 against respondents. She alleged that Penthouse Unit 43-C of the Pacific Plaza Condominium was owned by Lakeridge Corporation, wherein she and others held majority shares, and was lawfully occupied by Erlinda K. Ilusorio. Marietta claimed Erlinda, before leaving for the U.S., gave her authority to oversee the unit. She accused respondents Sylvia and Cristina Ilusorio, with security chief Jovito Castro’s consent, of forcibly entering the unit on two occasions in November 1999, breaking locks and causing loss of property.
Respondents countered that Lakeridge Corporation owned the unit, presenting SEC documents showing their own control and positions within the corporation. They asserted that Sylvia, as a legitimate officer and unit owner per condominium records, had authority to order maintenance work, including lock replacement, on the property. They argued the complaint arose from a family feud and that no crime was committed as they acted within their rights as corporate officers concerning corporate property.

ISSUE

Whether the investigating prosecutor and the Department of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaints for lack of probable cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the dismissal. The Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause is primarily an executive function vested in the prosecutor. Judicial review is limited to checking for grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment. The prosecutor found no probable cause because the evidence showed the unit was corporate-owned and respondents, as corporate officers with apparent authority per condominium records, had a right to access it for maintenance. The element of “dwelling” for trespass was negated as the unit was corporate property, not Erlinda’s exclusive residence. For robbery, there was insufficient evidence of unlawful taking with intent to gain. Given the absence of the main charges, the ancillary charge against Castro for violating P.D. No. 1829 also failed. The Court held that Marietta failed to present convincing evidence to overturn the prosecutor’s finding of no probable cause, and no grave abuse of discretion was committed by the public respondents in uniformly dismissing the complaints.