Digital Paradise,
Inc. v. Casimiro
G.R. No. 209608
February 13, 2019
FACTS:
Digital
Paradise, Inc. is engaged in electronics business. The respondents drove a Kia
L300 van and a Toyota Hi-Ace van to CHKS complex wherein they forced open a
padlock to a unit DPI is leasing. They brought inside the unit boxes which they
opened and took several items DPI owns. They left the complex and after 30 min.
they went back to take a picture of the unit. After 1 hour, the Barangay
Councilor, Chairman of Peace and Order of Brgy. Ugong and his team arrived.
However the policemen were not there anymore. DPI filed against them two counts
of Robbery with Force Upon Things, Incriminating Innocent Persons, two counts
of Other Forms of Trespass, and Grave Coercion, all under the RPC. Also
violations of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standard for Public Officials and
Employees as well as Section 3(e) RA No. 3019. According to the respondents,
they were informed by an informant that electronics were hijacked from Amkor
Tech Phil., Inc. that such items were loaded on two vans. The vans were set to
go to the compound of Giant Building. The respondents conducted surveillance in
that area and hailed the vans. As the police explained the driver’s violation
of Seatbelt Law, one alighted and ran away towards the compound. When the
police asked the contents of the boxes and learned that the items contained
therein were Amkor’s, the driver was informed of his right and his other
companion also ran but was eventually arrested as well as the one who first ran
away. Later on, Bistal said that he was the one who supervised the shipment
ordered by his bosses “Rebecca” and “Cris” but was also arrested. The Ombudsman
dismissed the case against respondents for lack of probable cause.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion.
HELD:
No. The
petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleging grave
abuse of discretion is an independent action. Its use is confined to
extraordinary cases wherein the action of the inferior court is wholly void.
Errors of judgment, as distinguished from errors of jurisdiction, are not
within the province of a special civil action for certiorari. The Ombudsman is
the protector of the people. The Court opines that there is merit in the
Ombudsman's assessment that the pieces of evidence presented by DPI were
insufficient to demonstrate the existence of probable cause. Probable cause for
purposes of filing a criminal information is defined as such facts as are
sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed
and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof. A finding of probable cause
needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has
been committed, and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause,
although it requires less than evidence justifying a conviction, demands more
than bare suspicion. DPI heavily relied on Manese’s affidavit. The respondents'
entry inside the subject warehouse and the command to Manese and Seciban for
them to lie down on the ground are still very much consistent with the
presumption of regularity in the performance of the respondents' official
duties as police officers. DPI utterly failed to show that the Ombudsman
gravely abused its discretion when it dismissed the criminal cases against the
respondents. Instead, the instant petition is bereft of any statement or
allegation purportedly showing that the Ombudsman exercised its power in an
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. Since DPI
failed to exhibit even a tinge of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Ombudsman, the assailed Joint Resolution and Joint Order must be upheld, and
the instant petition must be dismissed.