GR 196679; (December, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 196679 December 13, 2017
ROBERTSON S. CHIANG, NIKKI S. CHIANG, MARIA SY BE TY CHIANG, BEN C. JAVELLANA, and CARMELITA TUASON, Petitioners vs. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, Respondent
FACTS
Respondent PLDT requested police assistance to investigate alleged illegal toll bypass operations by petitioners’ company, Planet Internet. Search warrants were issued, equipment was seized, and employees were arrested. PLDT alleged that Planet Internet routed international calls to appear as local calls, bypassing PLDT’s International Gateway Facility (IGF), thereby depriving PLDT of access and hauling charges. Petitioners were recommended for prosecution for theft under the Revised Penal Code and for violating Presidential Decree No. 401 (unauthorized installation of telephone connections).
Petitioners countered that Planet Internet was a legitimate Value-Added Service provider and an authorized reseller of IGF services from other carriers, Eastern Telecom and Capwire. They argued the test calls, while bypassing PLDT’s IGF, passed through the IGFs of these other carriers, whose toll fees were paid. They contended that theft does not cover alleged loss of business revenue and that there was no violation of PD 401 as the PLDT lines were legally installed and rentals were paid.
ISSUE
Whether the Department of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to charge petitioners with theft and violation of PD No. 401.
RULING
No, the DOJ did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the determination of probable cause is an executive function. Judicial review is limited to assessing whether the executive or prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court found no such abuse. For the theft charge, the DOJ correctly appreciated PLDT’s allegations that the toll bypass operations diverted international calls, depriving PLDT of revenues—a form of personal property under the law. The DOJ was justified in not fully crediting petitioners’ defense of being a reseller at the preliminary investigation stage, as this defense involves evidentiary matters best threshed out in a full trial.
Regarding the charge under PD No. 401, the DOJ rationally found probable cause based on PLDT’s assertion that the telephone connections were used for an unauthorized purpose (illegal toll bypass), which falls under the decree’s prohibition against installing connections “without previous authority.” The DOJ’s finding was not baseless, as it relied on factual allegations that the lines, though legally installed, were allegedly utilized for an illicit scheme. The Court emphasized that in a petition for review, it does not evaluate the sufficiency of evidence but only checks for arbitrariness in the prosecutor’s finding. The DOJ’s resolutions were supported by substantial facts, and its decision to file the informations was within its discretionary authority.