Roberts v. Asuncion
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Several thousand holders of "349" Pepsi crowns, in connection with Pepsi Cola Products Phils., Inc.'s (PEPSI's) "Number Fever Promotion," filed complaints against petitioners, who were officers of PEPSI. The complaints accused petitioners of estafa, violation of the Consumer Act of the Philippines (R.A. No. 7394), violation of E.O. No. 913, and violation of Act No. 2333, as amended by Act No. 3740. 2. Procedural History: The investigating prosecutor recommended filing an information for estafa under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code against the petitioners and others, while dismissing other charges. The City Prosecutor approved this recommendation with modifications. An information for estafa was filed with the RTC of Quezon City. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and a Petition for Review with the Department of Justice (DOJ), and also motions to suspend proceedings and hold warrants of arrest in abeyance. Respondent Judge Asuncion denied these motions, stating the court would be guided by the doctrine in Crespo vs. Mogul and not the DOJ's resolution. The DOJ, initially giving due course to the petition for review, later dismissed it, citing the Court of Appeals' denial of a preliminary injunction and the trial court's order. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioners' special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, deeming the case moot due to the DOJ's dismissal. The DOJ denied the motion for reconsideration of its dismissal. The First Division of the Supreme Court initially denied due course to the petition but later, upon reconsideration, referred the case to the Court en banc. 3. The Petition: Petitioners seek to set aside the Court of Appeals' decision dismissing their petition, the resolution denying their motion for reconsideration, the RTC order denying their motion to suspend proceedings and hold warrants of arrest in abeyance, and the DOJ resolutions dismissing their petition for review. They argue that respondent Judge Asuncion acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering arrests without examining the preliminary investigation record and in determining probable cause himself. They also contend the DOJ gravely abused its discretion in refusing to review the City Prosecutor's resolution and dismissing their appeal. Furthermore, they assert that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in upholding the order for arrest without assessing probable cause and in dismissing their petition on grounds of mootness. Finally, they argue that the facts on record do not establish prima facie probable cause and the criminal case should have been dismissed. The petition is filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Asuncion committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions to suspend proceedings and hold in abeyance the issuance of warrants of arrest and to defer arraignment. Whether respondent Judge Asuncion committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the issuance of warrants of arrest without examining the records of the preliminary investigation. Whether the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for review. Whether respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a writ of preliminary injunction and in ultimately dismissing the petition. Whether the Supreme Court may determine the existence of probable cause in this proceeding.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the decisions of the Court of Appeals, the resolutions of the Department of Justice, and the order of the RTC Judge. The Department of Justice was directed to resolve the petition for review on the merits within sixty (60) days, and the RTC Judge was directed to cease proceedings and defer the issuance of warrants of arrest pending the DOJ's resolution and further action by the RTC.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Whether respondent Judge Asuncion committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions to suspend proceedings and hold in abeyance the issuance of warrants of arrest and to defer arraignment: The Court held that Crespo v. Mogul does not bar the DOJ from reviewing a prosecutor's resolution even after an information is filed, but advises refraining from doing so as far as practicable. The DOJ gave due course to the petition for review as an exception. The RTC Judge's denial, based on undermining judicial independence, was premature and misapplied Crespo, as the ultimate determination of dismissal rests with the court only after the DOJ's resolution and a subsequent motion to dismiss. The Court found that the RTC Judge failed to exercise independent judgment and merely deferred to the prosecution's stance, thus relinquishing his discretion. On the issue of Whether respondent Judge Asuncion committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the issuance of warrants of arrest without examining the records of the preliminary investigation: The Court reiterated that judges must personally evaluate the prosecutor's report and supporting documents to determine probable cause, not just rely on the certification. While judges need not personally examine witnesses, they must have the supporting documents. In this case, when the order for warrants was issued, the trial court only had the information and the Joint Resolution, not the complete records of the preliminary investigation. The Joint Resolution itself was received by the court after the order was issued. The judge made no specific finding of probable cause and inexplicably delayed the issuance of warrants, suggesting he might have been waiting for the DOJ's resolution. This lack of basis for the finding of probable cause constituted grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of Whether the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for review: The Court found that the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for review. The DOJ's initial decision to give due course was based on the belief that a review was necessary. Its subsequent dismissal, based on the CA's denial of injunction and the RTC's assertion of jurisdiction, was a unilateral volte-face. The DOJ reasoned that further action would be futile as the trial court's discretion was paramount, but this reasoning was flawed as the trial court's denial was itself questioned for grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of Whether respondent Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a writ of preliminary injunction and in ultimately dismissing the petition: The Court found the CA committed grave abuse of discretion. Its denial of the preliminary injunction, based on the assumption that the RTC Judge had the Joint Resolution and was convinced of probable cause, was unsubstantiated. The CA's subsequent dismissal of the petition on grounds of mootness was also erroneous because the issue of whether the RTC Judge gravely abused his discretion in ordering warrants of arrest without basis remained unresolved. On the issue of Whether the Supreme Court may determine the existence of probable cause in this proceeding: The Court stated that ordinarily, determining probable cause is not its function. However, in exceptional cases, such as where there is grave abuse of discretion or to prevent oppression or multiplicity of actions, the Court may examine the records. While the Court acknowledged the potential for thousands of cases, it refrained from re-evaluating the evidence itself, instead directing the DOJ to resolve the petition on the merits and the RTC to await that resolution, thereby allowing the proper authorities to perform their duties.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that the Department of Justice (DOJ) may entertain a petition for review of a prosecutor's resolution even after an information has been filed in court, provided it is practicable to do so, and that a trial judge's denial of a motion to suspend proceedings based solely on the pendency of such a review, without independent assessment, constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Furthermore, a judge issuing a warrant of arrest must personally evaluate the records of the preliminary investigation, not merely rely on the prosecutor's certification.