CASE DIGEST BY: MARY CHOLEENE BAUTISYA; PINEDA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Case digest:  Mary Choleene M. Bautista

G.R. No. 189533            November 15, 2010

MA. IMELDA PINEDA-NG, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

FACTS:

    On December 19, 2007, an information for Qualified Theft was filed against: (1) Richard Francisco (Francisco), the branch manager of private complainant Philippine Business Bank; (2) Imelda Marilag-Aquino (Aquino); and (3) petitioner, Ma. Imelda Pineda-ng (Pineda).

    The prosecution found that Aquino had drawn and issued multiple checks which amounted to P8,735,000.00.  In turn, Pineda had presented the seven checks that Aquino had drawn before the above-mentioned bank through Francisco, who, in excess of his authority, approved the payment of these checks despite the fact that each check had a face value of more than P 100,000.00 and that the same were actually drawn from Closed Accounts and/or drawn against insufficient funds.

    Judge Reyes found probable cause to hold Francisco liable, while ordered the dismissal of the case against Aquino and Pineda.  Aggrieved, the bank filed a motion for reconsideration which made Judge Reyes reversed her earlier ruling, finding probable cause against Aquino and Pineda, and directing the issuance of warrants of arrest to all the accused with no bail recommended. 

    Pineda file a petition for certiorari before the CA, however the latter dismissed the same. And so Pineda filed before the Supreme Court a petition ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the CA.  She claimed that being a bank client and not an employee of the bank, she could not be held liable for Qualified Theft and that there is no such crime as Conspiracy to Commit Qualified Theft.  Pineda avers that Judge Reyes merely relied on the findings and recommendations of the City Prosecutor when she did not clearly state the bases for the assailed Order, thus, violating her constitutional rights to liberty and presumption of innocence.

ISSUE:

    Whether or not the CA made a grave abuse of discretion.

RULING:

    The Supreme Court denies the Petition.

    Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person charged is guilty of the crime subject of the investigation.

    The general rule si that this Court does not review factual findings of the trial court, which include the determination of probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest, it is only in exceptional cases where this Court sets aside the conclusion of the prosecutor and the trial court judge on the existence of probable cause, such as cases when the Court finds it necessary in order to prevent the misuse of the strong arm of the law or to protect the orderly administration of justice.  The facts obtaining in this case do not warrant the application of the exception.