G.R. No. 182157 , August 17, 2015
ANLUD METAL RECYCLING CORPORATION, as represented by ALFREDO A. DY, Petitioner, vs. JOAQUIN ANG, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Anlud Metal Recycling Corporation had an exclusive contract with San Miguel Packaging Products-Metal Closures Lithography Plant (SMC-MCLP) to purchase scrap materials. On January 23, 2004, it was discovered that SMC-MCLP employee Conrado Alday allowed Nenita B. Dela Cruz to load scrap materials onto two trucks owned by respondent Joaquin Ang, driven by his employees, under the false pretense that Dela Cruz was an agent of petitioner. The trucks were intercepted on the premises. Petitioner filed a complaint for attempted estafa through falsification against Alday, Dela Cruz, the drivers, and respondent Ang. An Information for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code was filed with the RTC, naming all of them as accused. The RTC initially found probable cause and issued a warrant of arrest. The City Prosecutor’s Office, upon reinvestigation, absolved respondent Ang, citing lack of evidence of conspiracy, and filed an Amended Information dropping him as an accused. The Department of Justice (DOJ) reversed this, finding probable cause against Ang, leading to a Second Amended Information reinstating him. Respondent Ang filed an Omnibus Motion for judicial determination of probable cause with the RTC. The RTC, in a Decision dated September 18, 2006, dismissed the case against Ang for want of probable cause, ruling that mere ownership of the trucks used did not establish conspiracy. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed. The CA held that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in independently evaluating the evidence and finding no probable cause. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the Petition for Review filed by the private offended party, Anlud Metal Recycling Corporation, assailing the dismissal of the criminal case for estafa against respondent Joaquin Ang.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. The Court held that petitioner, as a private offended party, lacked the personality to appeal the dismissal of the criminal case. The real party in interest in a criminal case is the People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). While a private offended party retains an interest in the civil aspect of the case and may file a special civil action for certiorari (Rule 65) to question jurisdictional errors affecting that interest, a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45) directly assailing the dismissal of the criminal case based on the trial court’s finding of lack of probable cause is not permissible. The substance of petitioner’s appeal went beyond the civil liability and directly challenged the RTC’s finding on the absence of probable cause for the crime of estafa, which is a matter exclusively within the province of the State to appeal. Since the OSG did not join the appeal, petitioner had no standing. The Court also found that the RTC committed no grave abuse of discretion in its independent judicial determination of probable cause. The RTC correctly ruled that mere ownership of the trucks used in the alleged crime, without proof of Ang’s knowledge, consent, or any overt act constituting estafa or conspiracy, was insufficient to establish probable cause. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.