Consunji v. Esguerra

G.R. No. 118590 (July 30, 1996)

Facts:

Petitioner D.M. Consunji, Inc. discovered systematic pilferage of its properties, amounting to at least six million five hundred thousand pesos (P6,500,000.00), perpetrated by its stock clerks and drivers over the course of nearly a year. The stolen materials were identified as having been sold to hardware stores owned by private respondents Eduardo L. Ching and spouses Anthony and Cecilia Say, located in Cubao, Quezon City.

To investigate the matter further, the petitioner sought assistance from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). On August 28, 1991, search warrants were executed at the premises of the private respondents, resulting in the seizure of phenolic plywood, which was later identified as stolen property from the petitioner’s warehouse. Following the investigation, the NBI filed a complaint with the Quezon City Prosecutor's Office, recommending the prosecution of Ching for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. 1612) and subsequently filed another complaint against the Say spouses.

The complaints were consolidated and assigned to Assistant City Prosecutor Prospero B. Semana for preliminary investigation. After reviewing the evidence, Semana recommended the dismissal of the case against the private respondents, concluding that they had no knowledge that the plywood was stolen, as they had purchased it from a legitimate business and received proper sales invoices.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, and subsequently appealed to the Department of Justice. The Undersecretary of Justice upheld the dismissal of the complaint, leading the petitioner to file a petition for certiorari and mandamus to compel the filing of an information against the private respondents.

Issues:

1. Did the Undersecretary of Justice and the Investigating Prosecutor commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint against the private respondents?
2. Is mandamus an appropriate remedy to compel the prosecutor to file an information against the private respondents?

Arguments:

• Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner argued that the public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion by dismissing the case despite the existence of probable cause. They contended that the evidence presented, including witness affidavits, established sufficient grounds to believe that the private respondents were guilty of fencing. The petitioner maintained that mere possession of the stolen plywood constituted prima facie evidence of fencing under Section 5 of P.D. 1612.

• Respondents’ Argument: The respondents, including the Solicitor General, countered that there was no clear evidence showing that the private respondents were aware that the plywood was stolen. They argued that the private respondents acted in good faith, purchasing the plywood from a legitimate business and receiving proper documentation for their transactions. The absence of knowledge of the stolen nature of the goods negated the essential element of the crime of fencing.

Court’s Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court ruled that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The Court found that the Investigating Prosecutor and the Undersecretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint. The Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause is a discretionary function of the prosecutor, who is not compelled to file a case if he believes there is insufficient evidence.

The Court reiterated the elements of fencing, highlighting that knowledge or awareness of the stolen nature of the goods is crucial. In this case, the private respondents presented sales receipts and claimed they purchased the plywood from legitimate sources, successfully disputing the prima facie presumption of knowledge of theft. The Court noted that the mere possession of stolen goods does not automatically imply guilt if the accused can provide evidence of legitimate acquisition.

Furthermore, the Court ruled that mandamus was not an appropriate remedy, as the prosecutor's discretion in filing charges is not a ministerial duty that can be compelled. The Court underscored the importance of protecting individuals from unwarranted criminal prosecution and the necessity of a prosecutor's discretion in determining the merits of a case.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. The determination of probable cause for filing criminal charges is a discretionary function of the prosecutor, and the courts will not interfere unless there is grave abuse of discretion.
2. Mere possession of stolen goods can constitute prima facie evidence of fencing, but this presumption can be rebutted by evidence of legitimate acquisition.
3. Mandamus cannot be used to compel a prosecutor to file charges when the prosecutor has exercised discretion based on the evidence available.