D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Esguerra
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner D.M. Consunji, Inc. discovered systematic pilferage of company properties amounting to at least P6,500,000.00 over nearly a year. The stolen materials were allegedly diverted and sold to hardware stores owned by private respondents Eduardo L. Ching (MC Industrial Sales) and Spouses Anthony and Cecilia C. Say (Seato Trading Company, Inc.). The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted an investigation and, pursuant to search warrants, seized phenolic plywood from the premises of Ching and the Spouses Say. Petitioner identified these seized items as among those stolen from its warehouse. 2. Procedural History: Following the NBI's recommendation, criminal complaints for violation of P.D. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) were filed against private respondents with the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office. These complaints were consolidated and assigned to Assistant City Prosecutor Prospero B. Semana. After evaluating the submitted affidavits, Prosecutor Semana recommended the dismissal of the case against private respondents, finding that they had no reason to suspect the plywood was stolen, as they purchased it from legitimate businesses with proper receipts. This recommendation was approved by the First Assistant City Prosecutor. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, petitioner filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice, which was also denied by Undersecretary Ramon S. Esguerra for failure to comply with formal requirements and for finding no reversible error. 3. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the October 18, 1994 Order of the Undersecretary of Justice. Petitioner argues that the public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the dismissal of the anti-fencing case against private respondents and in dismissing the appeal due to procedural non-compliance. Petitioner contends that certiorari should issue to reverse the dismissal and mandamus should compel the prosecutor to file the information, asserting that prima facie evidence of fencing existed and that the prosecutor's refusal to file the information amounted to a willful refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.
Issue(s)
Whether the Undersecretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the dismissal of the anti-fencing case against the private respondents. Whether mandamus should issue to compel the prosecutor to file an information against the private respondents.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of certiorari and grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that certiorari does not lie because public respondents did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The elements of fencing require that the accused knew or should have known that the article was derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft. While Section 5 of P.D. 1612 provides that mere possession of stolen goods is prima facie evidence of fencing, this presumption can be rebutted. In this case, the private respondents presented sales receipts and invoices for their purchases, which, absent other evidence, served to dispute the prima facie presumption. The Court reiterated the definition of grave abuse of discretion as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, which was not present here. The public respondents had a substantial basis for dismissing the complaint. On the issue of mandamus: The Court ruled that mandamus is improper. The institution of a criminal action depends on the sound discretion of the fiscal, who has the quasi-judicial discretion to determine whether a criminal case should be filed. This is not a ministerial duty that can be compelled by mandamus. The Court clarified that while mandamus may lie in extreme cases of grave abuse of discretion or willful refusal to perform a duty, such circumstances were not present here. Petitioner failed to show a clear legal right, sufficient evidence of guilt, or a prima facie case that would compel the prosecutor to file an information. The Court emphasized that preliminary investigation is meant to protect the innocent and prevent the filing of cases without sufficient evidence.
Main Doctrine
The writ of certiorari will not issue to reverse the dismissal of a complaint by an investigating prosecutor if such dismissal was upheld by the Secretary of Justice, absent grave abuse of discretion. Mandamus will not lie to compel the filing of an information if the prosecutor, in the exercise of sound discretion, finds no sufficient evidence to establish probable cause, unless such discretion was gravely abused.