G.R. No. 204479 , January 11, 2023
Rudy Chua and Cai Changcheng, Petitioners, vs. The Hon. Secretary of Justice and Presidential Anti-Smuggling Group-Task Force Subic (PASG-TFS), Respondents.

FACTS

On May 25, 2008, security guards at Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority flagged down a vehicle driven by Anthony “Anton” Ang, part-owner of Hualong International, Inc. (Hualong), which contained boxes later found to hold 81.95 kilograms of shabu. Subsequent operations led to the recovery of more shabu: 20.49 kilograms from Subic Dry Dock on May 28, 2008, and 612.22 kilograms from a van parked inside a warehouse owned by Anglo Asia Commodity Corporation. The warehouse manager stated he was instructed by Ang and his wife, Estrella Ang, Operations Manager of Hualong, to allow the van to park there. Estrella Ang had also notified authorities of the arrival of the cargo vessel F/B Shun Fa Xing, which carried the seized drugs. The Presidential Anti-Smuggling Group-Task Force Subic filed an Amended Joint Complaint against Rudy Chua, Cai Changcheng, Cai Wengcong (incorporators of Hualong), and others for illegal importation of dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165 . In their defense, Chua and Changcheng denied involvement, claiming they had assigned all their shares in Hualong to another person via a Deed of Assignment dated August 30, 2007. The City Prosecutor of Olongapo dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause. The Secretary of Justice reversed this dismissal and ordered the filing of an information against them. The Court of Appeals upheld the Secretary of Justice’s decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion. Chua and Changcheng filed the present petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding that respondent Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Olongapo City Prosecutor’s Resolution and ordering the filing of information against petitioners and Cai Wengcong.

RULING

The Petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err. The determination of probable cause for filing an information is an executive function lodged with the public prosecutor, and absent a finding of grave abuse of discretion, it is not reviewable by the courts. The Secretary of Justice, as head of the Department of Justice, has the power to alter, modify, or set aside the actions of a subordinate officer. The Secretary’s finding of probable cause—based on evidence that petitioners, as incorporators and directors of Hualong, the corporation implicated in the illegal importation, could be held criminally liable—was not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The claim of petitioners that they had assigned their shares was a matter of defense best ventilated during trial. Furthermore, a petition for review under Rule 45 can only raise questions of law, and petitioners failed to substantiate any exception to this rule that would allow a review of factual findings. The executive determination of probable cause requires only a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty, which the Secretary of Justice reasonably found based on the records.