GR 189533; (November, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 189533 ; November 15, 2010
MA. IMELDA PINEDA-NG, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
An Information for Qualified Theft was filed against Richard Francisco (a bank manager), Mailada Marilag-Aquino, and petitioner Ma. Imelda Pineda-Ng. The prosecution alleged that Aquino issued several checks, totaling ₱8,735,000.00, drawn from closed accounts or against insufficient funds, in favor of petitioner. Petitioner then presented these checks for payment at the Philippine Business Bank under her Bill Purchase Accommodation facility, which were approved by Francisco in excess of his authority. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the case against Aquino and petitioner for lack of probable cause but later, upon the bank’s motion for reconsideration, reversed itself and found probable cause to issue warrants of arrest against all accused.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that as a bank client and not an employee, she could not be liable for Qualified Theft, and that the judge merely relied on the prosecutor’s findings without independent evaluation. The CA dismissed the petition, holding that the RTC judge had reviewed the records and that the Information charged consummated Qualified Theft, not merely conspiracy. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the RTC’s finding of probable cause against petitioner for Qualified Theft.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision. The Court emphasized that probable cause merely requires such facts and circumstances as would lead a person of ordinary caution to entertain a strong suspicion that the person charged is guilty. It does not demand clear and convincing evidence sufficient for conviction. The general rule is that factual findings of the trial court on the existence of probable cause are not reviewable, except in exceptional circumstances not present here.
The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the CA. It held that the RTC judge did not solely rely on the prosecutor’s findings but conducted an independent evaluation, as evidenced by her citation and underscoring of relevant jurisprudence in her order. The Court also respected the factual determinations of the prosecutor and the CA that petitioner encashed the anomalous checks. The issue of whether petitioner, as a client, could be held liable for Qualified Theft involves evidentiary matters best resolved in a full trial, not at the preliminary investigation stage where only probability of guilt is assessed. Thus, the CA correctly dismissed the certiorari petition.