G.R. No. L-25413 October 31, 1969
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. ONOFRE SANTOS and EXEQUIEL SANTIAGO, defendants-appellees, ERLINDA N. JAVALERA, complainant-appellant.

FACTS

On March 23, 1964, Erlinda N. Javalera and Araceli N. Vistan filed a complaint for qualified theft in the Municipal Court of Bocaue, Bulacan, against Onofre Santos and Exequiel Santiago. They alleged that on or about February 3, 1964, the accused, conspiring and helping each other, willfully and feloniously took 150 cavans of palay valued at P2,250.00, which was the 1963-64 harvest from the land Santos tilled as their tenant. The taking was allegedly done without the owners’ knowledge and consent, with Santos committing a serious breach of confidence, and Santiago aiding with knowledge of this breach. After a preliminary examination, the Municipal Court issued arrest warrants. The defendants waived their right to present exculpatory evidence during the second stage, and the case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance. The Special Counsel, representing the Provincial Fiscal, re-investigated and filed a motion to dismiss on April 28, 1965, stating that based on the evidence (including the complaint and submitted tax declarations), no case for qualified theft existed. The grounds included: (1) no theft between joint owners (landlord and tenant) before liquidation of the harvest; (2) no taking by Santos as he delivered the palay to Santiago believing Santiago owned the land through a sale from complainant Araceli Vistan; (3) no intent to gain as Santos did not personally benefit; (4) no liquidation of the harvest to establish taking of property belonging to another; and (5) absence of the special relation of intimacy required for grave abuse of confidence in qualified theft. Earlier, on March 2, 1965, co-complainant Araceli Vistan had also filed a motion for dismissal, stating the case arose from a misunderstanding and that Santiago took possession of land she sold to him. On May 14, 1965, the lower court dismissed the case, citing the Fiscal’s grounds and the non-filing of an information. Complainant Erlinda Javalera’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting her appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the criminal case for qualified theft based on the prosecuting officer’s motion, which concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt.

RULING

The order of dismissal is affirmed. The prosecuting officer has the discretion, based on examination and evaluation of the evidence, to determine who “appear to be responsible” for an offense and whether to file a criminal charge. The law mandates the prosecuting officer to prosecute all persons who appear responsible, and criminal prosecutions are under the Fiscal’s direction and control. However, this does not abridge the officer’s discretion to refrain from filing a charge if, in their opinion, guilt cannot be established with sufficient evidence. The appellant, seeking what is in effect a mandamus to compel the filing of an information, must show a clear legal right to such relief and that the officer has an imperative duty to prosecute based on the evidence. Upon the evidence and facts of record, the appellant’s case for qualified theft against the defendants is not entirely free from doubt. Therefore, the trial court did not err in dismissing the case upon the prosecuting officer’s motion. This dismissal does not bar the filing of a similar action if supported by stronger evidence of guilt. The Court deemed it unnecessary to rule on the specific question of the appellant’s right or personality to prosecute the appeal.