G.R. No. 193105; May 30, 2011
CLAY & FEATHER INTERNATIONAL, INC., RAUL O. ARAMBULO, and ADAM E. JIMENEZ III (for themselves and for Clay and Feather Intl., Inc.), Petitioners, vs. ALEXANDER T. LICHAYTOO and CLIFFORD T. LICHAYTOO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Raul Arambulo and Adam E. Jimenez III and respondents Alexander T. Lichaytoo and Clifford Lichaytoo are stockholders and incorporators of Clay & Feather International, Inc. (CFII), each owning 50% of the shares. Petitioners charged respondents before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati with five counts of Qualified Theft. They alleged that from February 2006 to November 2007, respondents, by virtue of their positions (Alexander as Corporate Secretary and Clifford as Chief Finance Officer/Treasurer) and with grave abuse of confidence, took several firearms owned by CFII without the corporation’s knowledge and consent. The firearms, with a total value of €25,218.00 (approximately ₱1,639,170.00), were specifically listed in the complaint.
In their defense, respondents claimed the firearms were purchased and paid for by them. They explained that CFII had no Euro bank account, so payments for corporate purchases were made through respondents’ personal Euro accounts, a practice allegedly known to and used by petitioner Arambulo as well. They further claimed that two of the firearms were paid for by offsetting advances made by respondent Alexander for CFII’s importation of pistols, transactions they asserted were fully accounted for and disclosed to an auditor chosen by petitioners.
The City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. Petitioners filed a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice, who reversed the Prosecutor and ordered the filing of informations against respondents. Respondents then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition, annulled the Secretary of Justice’s resolutions, and reinstated the Prosecutor’s dismissal order. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ordering the dismissal of the informations for five counts of Qualified Theft against respondents, which hinges on the determination of the existence of probable cause.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The CA committed reversible error.
Probable cause for filing a criminal information is defined as such facts sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty. It requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence justifying conviction. The determination rests on common sense and does not require a finding of sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
The elements of theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking is done with intent to gain; (4) the taking is done without the owner’s consent; and (5) the taking is accomplished without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. Qualified Theft under Article 310 is committed when the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence.
Based on the allegations and evidence presented during the preliminary investigation, probable cause exists. Petitioners alleged the taking of specific corporate property (firearms) without consent. Respondents, by virtue of their key positions in CFII, had responsibility over corporate assets, giving rise to a relation of confidence. Their defense of ownership/payment, while potentially a matter for trial, does not negate the existence of probable cause at the preliminary stage. The claim that corporate funds were used to purchase foreign currency deposited into personal accounts, if true, could indicate a taking of corporate property. The issue of whether respondents’ payments were made with personal or corporate funds is a factual matter best determined in a full-blown trial. Therefore, the Secretary of Justice correctly found probable cause to indict respondents for Qualified Theft. The CA erred in substituting its own judgment for that of the prosecuting officer and ordering the dismissal of the case.