Criminal Procedure 2E

TOPIC Purposes of Preliminary Investigation DATE December 2017

CASE TITLE Chiang vs. PLDT GR NOG.R. No.

The determination of probable cause is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor and,
ultimately, to the Secretary of Justice, who may direct thefiling of the corresponding information
or move for the dismissal of the case.
FACTS This is a petition for review on Certiorari assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals.

In its Affidavit, PLDT alleged that Planet Internet committed illegal toll bypass operations, a method
of routing and completing international long distance calls using lines, cables, antenna and/orair wave
or frequency which connects directly to the local or domestic exchange facilities of the country where
the callsoriginated. The calls were made to appear as local calls but wereactually international. In the
process, these calls bypassed theInternational Gateway Facility (IGF) found at the originating country,
which meters all international calls for charging and billing. Moreover, PLDT argued that Planet
Internet violated PD No. 401because of the unauthorized installation of telephone connections and the
illegal connection of PLDT telephone lines/numbers to anequipment which routes the international
calls.

On September 26, 2001, upon application of Regional Intelligence Special Operation Office R2
(RISOO), along with PLDT personnel as technical witnesses, Branch 78 of the Regional. Trial Court
(RTC), Quezon City issued three search warrants against Worldwide Web, Message One, and Planet
Internet against Planet Internet and petitioners for violation of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 401and
Article 308(1), in relation to Article 309of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), respectively. On the same
date, RISOO personnel served Search Warrant Nos.Q-01-3857 and Q-01-3858 against petitioners,
corporate owners of Planet Internet, at Unit 2103, 21/F Orient Square Building, Emerald Avenue,
Barangay San Antonio.

There, RISOO seized various equipment and arrested Rene Lacson (Lacson) and Arnold Julio (Julio),
who were both employees of Planet Internet. Lacson and Julio were thens ubjected to inquest
proceedings, and corresponding informations were directly filed in Branch 152 of the RTC, Pasig
City. Subsequently, however, on their motion, the RTC ordered a reinvestigation of the charges
against Lacson and Julio.

Meanwhile, the cases against petitioners, who were at-large at thetime of Lacson and Julio’s inquest,
were subjected to regularpreliminary investigation. Upon conclusion of the DOJ’sinvestigation, their
cases were submitted for resolution and indorsedto the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City
(OCP Pasig) forfurther investigation. Only Robertson S. Chiang (Robertson)appeared and submitted
his counter-affidavit and controverting evidence.

In its Resolution dated June 28, 2002, the OCP Pasig dismissedthe charges for insufficiency of
evidence and filed a motion towithdraw the informations before the RTC.

1
 Criminal Procedure 2E
PLDT filed a motion for reconsideration, which the OCP Pasig also denied. Meanwhile, the RTC
allowed the informations to bewithdrawn. PLDT filed a petition for review before the DOJ. In its
Resolution dated November 5, 2007, the DOJ denied PLDT’spetition and affirmed the findings of the
OCP Pasig.

Thereafter, PLDT filed a petition for certiorari with the CA,alleging that the DOJ committed grave
abuse of discretion in: 1)sustaining OCP Pasig’s finding that PLDT’s complaints were not sufficiently
supported by evidence; and 2) issuing its resolutions despite the CA’s prior decision in PLDT v.
Regional Trial Court,Branch 152, Pasig City, Rene Fernan dez Lacson and Arnold Bata Julio which
constitutes res judicata o nthe existence of probable cause against petitioners

The CA granted the petition in its Decision dated January 31,2011. The CA found probable cause for
theft in petitioners’ act of depriving PLDT of fees and tolls by routing and completinginternational
long distance calls. The CA held that PlanetInternet’s arguments that it is not involved in toll bypass
operations because it is an authorized reseller of IGF services and that toll bypass does not constitute
theft are matters of defense that should be proved during a full-blown trial.

The CA also held that since there is probable cause thatpetitioners committed theft, there is also
probable cause that theyviolated PD No. 401. PD No. The search conducted by RISOO on Planet
Internet’spremises yielded an assortment of equipment used to attach toPLDT’s phone lines to pilfer
and manipulate the electrical impulsesthat constitute a telephone call. CA held that the ruling in C.A.-
G.R. S.P. No. 86466does not constitute res judicata on the propriety of petitioners’indictment for theft
and violation of PD No. 401.

ISSUE/S Procedural
1. WON the CA can exercise review over the findings of the DOJ.
RATIO Procedural
Yes, CA can exercise judicial review over the findings of DOJ. Grave abuse of discretion has been
defined as such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
The abuse of discretion must be grave as where thepower is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner
by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patentand gross as to amount to an evasion of
positive duty or to a virtualrefusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all incontemplation of law.
“Capricious,” usually used in tandem with theterm “arbitrary,” conveys the notion of willful and
unreasoning action.

Grave abuse of discretion refers not merely to palpable errors ofjurisdiction; or to violations of the
Constitution, the law andjurisprudence. It also refers to cases in which, for various reasons,there has
been a gross misapprehension of facts. It is on this score that questions of fact may inevitably be raised.

In its petition for certiorari with the CA, PLDT alleged that theDOJ gravely abused its discretion in
sustaining the dismissal by theOCP Pasig of PLDT’s complaint on the ground of insufficiency
ofevidence. According to PLDT, the OCP Pasig disregarded evidencepresented by PLDT, which, at the
very least, prima facie showedthat petitioners committed theft of PLDT’s business and violated PDNo.
401 when they engaged in illegal toll bypass operations. PLDT argued that the elements of toll bypass
are present in this case. From the foregoing, we agree with the CA’s exercise of judicialreview over
the findings of the DOJ. We also sustain its reversal ofthe DOJ’s ruling.

We hasten to reiterate the deferential attitude we have adoptedtowards review of the executive’s finding
of probable cause. This isbased not only upon the respect for the investigatory andprosecutorial powers
granted by the Constitution to the executivedepartment, but upon practicality as well.
2
 Criminal Procedure 2E
50 The determination ofprobable cause is a function that belongs to the public prosecutorand, ultimately,
to the Secretary of Justice, who may direct the filingof the corresponding

information or move for the dismissal of the case.. However, theresolution of the Secretary of Justice
may be subject of judicialreview. The review will be allowed only when grave abuse ofdiscretion is
alleged

RULING WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decisionand Resolution of the Court of Appeals
in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No.115394 dated January 31, 2011 and April 19, 2011 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED

NOTES Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are
sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondentis
probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial. Indetermining probable cause, the average
person weighs facts andcircumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the rules ofevidence
of which he has no technical knowledge. He relies oncommon sense. A finding of probable cause
needs only to rest onevidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has beencommitted and
that it was committed by the accused. Probable causedemands more than bare suspicion, but it
requires less than evidencethat would justify a conviction.

A finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry as towhether there is sufficient evidence to
secure a conviction. It isenough that the act or omission complained of constitutes theoffense
charged. The term does not mean “actual and positive cause”nor does it import absolute certainty. It
is merely based on opinionand reasonable belief. A trial is intended precisely for the receptionof
prosecution evidence in support of the charge. The court is taskedto determine guilt beyond
reasonable doubt based on the evidencepresented by the parties at a trial on the merits.