3/6/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 426

*
G.R. No. 132422. March 30, 2004.

FILADAMS PHARMA, INC., petitioner, vs. HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS and ANTONIO FERIA,
respondents.

Criminal Procedure; Pleadings and Practice; A person whose

complaint is dismissed by the Assistant Prosecutor could appeal to
the Secretary of Justice, and from a dismissal of his appeal and
denial of his motion for reconsideration, he could file a petition for
certiorari with the Court of Appeals on the ground of grave abuse
of discretion.—With our ruling in Bautista that the Office of the
Prosecutor was not covered by the appellate process under Rule
43 of the Rules of Court, what then was petitioner’s remedy from
the resolution of the Assistant Prosecutor dismissing his
complaint? Based on the 1993 Revised Rules on Appeals from
Resolutions in Preliminary Investigations or Reinvestigations—
now the 2000 NPS Rule on Appeals—the petitioner could appeal
to the Secretary of Justice. In this case, the petitioner did appeal
to the Secretary of Justice but his appeal was dismissed. His
motion for reconsideration was also dismissed. Since there was no
more appeal or other remedy available in the ordinary course of
law, the petitioner correctly filed a petition for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
Criminal Law; Estafa Through Misappropriation or With
Abuse of Confidence; Elements.—To determine whether there was
probable cause warranting the filing of the information for estafa
through misappropriation or with abuse of confidence, the
presence of the following elements assumes critical importance: 1.
that money, goods, or other personal property is received by the
offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or
under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of,
or to return, the same; 2. that there is a misappropriation or
conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on
his part of such receipt; 3. that such misappropriation or
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and, 4. that
there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender.
Same; Same; Same; The failure to account, upon demand, for
funds of property held in trust is circumstantial evidence of
misappropriation.— The essence of estafa under Article 315 (1)(b)
of the Revised Penal Code is the appropriation or conversion of
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161f96037dc252e2868003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
3/6/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 426

money or property received, to the prejudice of the owner thereof.

It takes place when a person actually appropriates the property of
another for his own benefit, use and enjoyment. The failure to
account, upon demand, for funds or property held in trust is

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

461

VOL. 426, MARCH 30, 2004 461

Filadams Pharma, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. For example, in an

agency for the sale of jewelry, it is the agent’s duty to return the
jewelry upon demand of the owner and the failure to do so is
evidence of conversion of the property by the agent. In other
words, the demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust
and the failure of the accused to account for it are circumstantial
evidence of misappropriation. However, this presumption is
rebuttable. If the accused is able to satisfactorily explain his
failure to produce the thing delivered in trust, he may not be held
liable for estafa.
Same; Same; Criminal Procedure; Preliminary Investigations;
It is the Supreme Court’s general policy not to interfere in the
conduct of preliminary investigations, leaving the investigating
officers sufficient discretion to determine probable cause;
Exceptions.—While it is this Court’s general policy not to interfere
in the conduct of preliminary investigations, leaving the
investigating officers sufficient discretion to determine probable
cause, we have nonetheless made some exceptions to the general
rule, such as: 1. when necessary to afford adequate protection to
the constitutional rights of the accused; 2. when necessary for the
orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or
multiplicity of actions; 3. when there is a prejudicial question
which is subjudice; 4. when the acts of the officer are without or in
excess of authority; 5. where the prosecution is under an invalid
law, ordinance or regulation; 6. when double jeopardy is clearly
apparent; 7. where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
8. where it is a case of persecution rather than prosecution; 9.
where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by the lust
for vengeance; 10. when there is clearly no prima facie case

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161f96037dc252e2868003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/14
3/6/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 426

against the accused and a motion to quash on that ground has

been denied.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Where it is clear from the records
that a prima facie case for estafa exists, the dismissal of the
complaint-affidavit was a patent error constituting grave abuse of
discretion.—From the records, it is clear to us that a prima facie
case for estafa exists. The dismissal of petitioner’s complaint-
affidavit and the DOJ’s affirmance thereof on appeal was a patent
error constituting grave abuse of discretion within the ambit of
exception no. 4 above.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Alexander C. Estebal for petitioner.
     Perfecto A. Sotoridona, Jr. for private respondent.
462

462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Filadams Pharma, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

CORONA, J.:

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules

1
of
Court seeking to annul and set aside the resolution dated
May 29, 1997 of the Court of Appeals denying
2
petitioner’s
petition for certiorari and its resolution dated January 23,
1998 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
The antecedent facts follow.
Petitioner Filadams Pharma, Inc. (Filadams) was a
corporation engaged in the business of selling medicines to
wholesalers. Private respondent Antonio Feria was its
sales representative from November 3, 1993 until his
dismissal on March 9, 1994. In an audit conducted
sometime between March 10 to 26, 1994, respondent Feria
was found accountable for P41,733.01 representing unsold
but unreturned stocks and samples, unremitted collections
and unliquidated cash advances. Filadams alleged that
these shortages and accountabilities were admitted by
respondent through his wife and counsel in a conference
held at its office but despite repeated demands, respondent
3
failed to settle them to its damage and prejudice.
In his defense, respondent denied the charge. He
averred that, although he was an agent of the corporation,
he was not the trustee of its products. The cash advances
were spent, as intended, for promoting the products of the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161f96037dc252e2868003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/14
3/6/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 426

company and it was only the unexpended amount that was

supposed to be returned by way of liquidation. The cash
rebates were properly given to the customers concerned
although the same were given in kind, as requested by the
customers. In a spot check conducted in his area in
January and February of 1994, the stock overages in his
possession were segregated and returned to the company
but he was not given the returned goods slip (RGS). He also
returned various items or medicines on March 14, 1994
amounting to P19,615.49 but what was reflected in the
inventory report was only P8,185.30. He maintained that
he neither misappropriated nor converted the subject sums
of money for his personal use or benefit. If ever, his obliga-

_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Hector L. Hofileña and concurred in by

Associate Justices Artemon D. Luna and Artemio G. Tuquero of the
Twelfth Division; Rollo, pp. 34-35.
2 Rollo, pp. 44-45.
3 Annex “A,” Resolution of Chief State Prosecutor Zuño; Rollo, p. 23.

463

VOL. 426, MARCH 30, 2004 463

Filadams Pharma, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

tion was purely civil in nature and the company in fact

accepted his partial payment of P3,000 through his wife in
a conference
4
held at petitioner’s office on September 13,
1994.
In a reply-affidavit, the internal auditor of Filadams
asserted that respondent occupied a position of trust and
confidence. He was not given a new cash advance but
merely a replenishment of the used revolving fund. The
cash rebates were never received by the customer as
confirmed by the customer himself. Respondent signed the
physical inventory report so he could not claim that he
made returns that were not recorded. Paying back the
amount of P3,000 to the company was an acknowledgment
of his stock shortages and proof of his breach of trust and
confidence5 resulting in the company’s damage and
prejudice.
The Assistant City Prosecutor of Quezon City dismissed
the complaint-affidavit for lack of cause of action:

A careful examination of the affidavit complaint plus the reply

affidavit of complainant failed to state the ultimate facts

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161f96037dc252e2868003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/14
3/6/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 426

constituting the cause of action.

While complainant states that their audit resulted in Feria’s
misappropriation of the company’s products, unremitted
collections, unreturned advances and unsubmitted sales proceeds
in the total amount of P41,733.01, the specifics of the
misappropriation, (i.e., [ineligible]. . . when committed, where
committed, how much per act of misappropriation or was the
misappropriation a one-act deal…[ineligible]) were all conclusions
a general recitals (sic) of the fact of commission/omission followed
by the personal conclusion of guilt by6 the complainant which are
not sustained by admissible evidence.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but this was

denied by 1st Assistant City Prosecutor Gerona who ruled
that there was no “manifest error or grave abuse of
discretion to justify reversal,
7
alteration or modification of
the challenged resolution.”
Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Justice under the
1993 Revised Rules on Appeals from Resolutions 8
in
Preliminary Investigations or Reinvestigations.

_______________

4 Ibid.
5 Ibid., p. 24.
6 Records, p. 33.
7 Ibid., p. 39.
8 Records, pp. 41-47.

464

464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Filadams Pharma, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

But the Department of Justice

9
(DOJ), through the Office of
the Chief State Prosecutor, also dismissed the appeal:

While it is an undisputed fact that respondent incurred some

accountabilities with Filadams during the duration of his
employment, as shown by respondent’s payment of the amount of
P3,000.00 on September 13, 1994, mere acknowledgment by
respondent of these accountabilities does not of itself establish
that estafa under par. 1 (b) was committed. What is apparent
from the evidence adduced is the necessity for the parties to sit
down together and make an accounting of the alleged
accountability. Complainant failed to present any evidence of
conversion of the property to the benefit of the respondent or of
some other person. Respondent’s failure to return the goods or

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161f96037dc252e2868003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/14
3/6/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 426

cash advances in this case is not sufficient proof of conversion. If

at all, respondent’s liability to the company is purely civil in
nature10as the acts complained of do not constitute the crime of
estafa.

On the ground of grave abuse of discretion, Filadams filed

with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul the above-
quoted decision of the DOJ dismissing its appeal and
affirming the resolution of the Assistant City Prosecutor of
Quezon City. The Court of Appeals denied the petition on
two grounds: (1) the proper remedy for the petitioner was a
petition for review under Rule 45 and not a petition for
certiorari inasmuch as certiorari was available only if there
was no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of law, and (2) assuming that a petition
for certiorari was proper, the11DOJ decision was not marked
by grave abuse of discretion.

_______________

9 Previously, appeals to the Secretary of Justice may be referred to and

resolved by the Chief State Prosecutor. This practice was changed on
October 12, 1998 by Department Circular No. 69 entitled “Disposition and
Resolution of Petitions for Review/Appeals to the Department and all
Motions for Reconsideration Arising Therefrom” which provides that “all
petitions for review/appeals to the Department of Justice from the
resolutions of the Regional State Prosecutors, Provincial and City
Prosecutors together with the Motions for Reconsideration arising
therefrom shall be referred, resolved and acted upon only by [the Secretary
of Justice].”
10 Rollo, pp. 24-25.
11 Ibid., pp. 44-45.

465

VOL. 426, MARCH 30, 2004 465

Filadams Pharma, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Hence, the petitioner filed the instant petition seeking to

annul the decision of the Court of Appeals and raising the
following issues:

WHETHER OR NOT APPEAL AND NOT CERTIORARI IS THE

PROPER REMEDY IN ASSAILING THE TWO RESOLUTIONS
OF THE CHIEF STATE PROSECUTOR FINDING THE
ABSENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161f96037dc252e2868003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/14
3/6/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 426

II

WHETHER OR NOT BOTH THE CHIEF STATE

PROSECUTOR AND THE COURT OF APPEALS HAVE
COMMITTED A (SIC) GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
DISREGARDING THE GUIDELINES SET BY THIS HON.
SUPREME COURT IN DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF A
PROBABLE CAUSE TO WARRANT
12
THE FILING OF AN
INFORMATION IN COURT.

Before anything else, we need to clarify some ground rules.

This case was elevated to the Court of Appeals by way of a
petition on certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure. The Court of Appeals dismissed the
petition for certiorari on the ground that the proper remedy
was petition for review under Revised Circular No. 1-91,
now embodied in Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. Rule 43 applies to “appeals from judgments or
final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards,
judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by
any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise
13
of quasi-judicial
functions to the Court of Appeals.” The question is: was
the Office of the Prosecutor of Quezon City a quasi-judicial
agency whose resolutions were appealable to the Court of 14
Appeals under Rule 43? In Bautista vs. Court of Appeals,
we ruled:

Petitioner submits that a prosecutor conducting a preliminary

investigation performs a quasi-judicial function, citing Cojuangco
v. PCGG, Koh v. Court of Appeals, Andaya v. Provincial Fiscal of
Surigao del Norte and Crespo v. Mogul. In these cases this Court
held that the power to conduct preliminary investigation is quasi-
judicial in nature. But this statement

_______________

12 Rollo, pp. 14-15.

13 Sec. 1, Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
14 360 SCRA 618 [2001].

466

466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Filadams Pharma, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

holds true only in the sense that, like quasi-judicial bodies, the
prosecutor is an office in the executive department exercising
powers akin to those of a court. Here is where the similarity ends.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161f96037dc252e2868003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/14
3/6/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 426

A closer scrutiny will show that preliminary investigation is

very different from other quasi-judicial proceedings. A quasi-
judicial body has been defined as “an organ of government other
than a court and other than a legislature which affects the rights
of private parties through either adjudication or rule-making.”
In Luzon Development Bank v. Luzon Development Bank
Employees, we held that a voluntary arbitrator, whether acting
solely or in a panel, enjoys in law the status of a quasi-judicial
agency, hence his decisions and awards are appealable to the
Court of Appeals. This is so because the awards of voluntary
arbitrators become final and executory upon the lapse of the
period to appeal; and since their awards determine the rights of
parties, their decisions have the same effect as judgments of a
court. Therefore, the proper remedy from an award of a voluntary
arbitrator is a petition for review to the Court of Appeals,
following Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, which
provided for a uniform procedure for appellate review of all
adjudications of quasi-judicial entities, which is now embodied in
Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
On the other hand, the prosecutor in a preliminary
investigation does not determine the guilt or innocence of the
accused. He does not exercise adjudication nor rule-making
functions. Preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and is
often the only means of discovering the persons who may be
reasonably charged with a crime and to enable the fiscal to
prepare his complaint or information. It is not a trial of the case
on the merits and has no purpose except that of determining
whether a crime has been committed and whether there is
probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof. While
the fiscal makes that determination, he cannot be said to be
acting as a quasi-court, for it is the courts, ultimately, that pass
judgment on the accused, not the fiscal.
Hence, the Office of the Prosecutor is not a quasi-judicial body;
necessarily, its decisions approving the filing of a criminal
complaint are not appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule
43. Since the ORSP (Office of the Regional State Prosecutor) has
the power to resolve appeals with finality only where the penalty
prescribed for the offense does not exceed prision correccional,
regardless of the imposable fine, the only remedy of petitioner, in
the absence of grave abuse of discretion, is to present her defense
in the trial of the case.

With our ruling in Bautista that the Office of the

Prosecutor was not covered by the appellate process under
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, what then was petitioner’s
remedy from the resolution of the Assistant Prosecutor
dismissing his complaint? Based
467

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161f96037dc252e2868003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/14
3/6/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 426

VOL. 426, MARCH 30, 2004 467

Filadams Pharma, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

on the 1993 Revised Rules on Appeals from Resolutions in

Preliminary
15
Investigations or Reinvestigations—now the
2000 NPS Rule on Appeals—the petitioner could appeal to
the Secretary of Justice. In this case, the petitioner did
appeal to the Secretary of Justice but his appeal was
dismissed. His motion for reconsideration was also
dismissed. Since there was no more appeal or other remedy
available in the ordinary course of law, the petitioner
correctly filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of
Appeals on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
The next question now arises: was the Court of Appeals
correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari on the
ground that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the DOJ (in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal, thus
affirming the resolution of the Assistant City Prosecutor)?
The Court of Appeal’s cryptic ruling on this matter read:

His ruling that “in the crime of estafa under Art. 315 par. 1 (b), it
is an essential element that there be proof of misappropriation or
conversion”, is not inconsistent with the ruling of the Supreme
Court in Ilagan vs. Court of Appeals, 239 SCRA 575, on which
petitioner relies that the operative act in the perpetration of
estafa under the said article and paragraph is the failure of the
agent to turn over or deliver to16his principal the amounts he
collected despite the duty to do so.

To determine whether there was probable cause

warranting the filing of the information for estafa through
17
misappropriation or with abuse of confidence, the
presence of the following elements assumes critical
importance:

1. that money, goods, or other personal property is

received by the offender in trust, or on commission,
or for administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return,
the same;
2. that there is a misappropriation or conversion of
such money or property by the offender or denial on
his part of such receipt;
3. that such misappropriation or conversion or denial
is to the prejudice of another; and,

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161f96037dc252e2868003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/14
3/6/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 426

15 National Prosecution Service.

16 Rollo, p. 35.
17 Subdivision No. 1, Par. (b), Article 315, Revised Penal Code.

468

468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Filadams Pharma, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

4. that there is a demand

18
made by the offended party
on the offender.

The first, third and fourth elements were duly established

by the complaint-affidavits and were not disputed by the
parties. What was disputed was whether the element of
misappropriation, the most important element of the crime
charged, was shown by the affidavits to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime was committed 19
and the
respondent was probably 20
guilty thereof. Invoking Ilagan
vs. Court of Appeals, petitioner contends that it is the
mere failure to turn over or to deliver to the principal the
amounts collected, despite the duty to do so, that
constitutes the operative fact in the crime of estafa through
unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence. In short, the mere
failure of respondent Feria to turn over the stock shortages,
money collections, cash advances and unused cash rebates,
despite demand and the duty to do so, constituted prima
facie evidence of misappropriation.
The essence of estafa under Article 315 (1)(b) of the
Revised Penal Code is the appropriation or conversion of
money or property received, to the prejudice of the owner
thereof. It takes place when a person actually appropriates
the property of another for his own benefit, use and
enjoyment. The failure to account, upon demand, for funds
or property held 21in trust is circumstantial evidence of
misappropriation. For example, in an agency for the sale
of jewelry, it is the agent’s duty to return the jewelry upon
demand of the owner and the failure to do 22
so is evidence of
conversion of the property by the agent. In other words,
the demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust
and the failure of the accused to account for it are
circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. However, this
presumption is rebuttable. If the accused is able to
satisfactorily explain his failure to produce the 23 thing
delivered in trust, he may not be held liable for estafa.

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161f96037dc252e2868003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/14
3/6/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 426

18 Mangio vs. Court of Appeals, 371 SCRA 466, 477 (2001).

19 Section 1, Rule 112, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
20 239 SCRA 575 (1994).
21 Tubb vs. People, 101 Phil. 114 (1957); Panlilio vs. Court of Appeals,
115 Phil 168; 5 SCRA 182 (1962); Sullano vs. People, 17 SCRA 488 (1966).
22 U.S. vs. Zamora, 2 Phil. 583 (1903).
23 III R. AQUINO, THE REVISED PENAL CODE 264 (1997).

469

VOL. 426, MARCH 30, 2004 469

Filadams Pharma, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Did private respondent Feria satisfactorily explain his

failure to produce the goods delivered to him in trust as
well as turn over his collections upon demand by the
petitioner? His own counter-affidavit showed that he did
not. He claimed that he returned various items sometime
in March, 1994 amounting to P19,615.49. He, however,
neither presented any supporting evidence nor clarified
why he failed to account for his collections. His
explanations, on the other hand, regarding his
unliquidated cash advances and unused cash rebates were
also inadequate 24 inasmuch they were self-serving and
unsubstantiated.
In its reply-affidavit, petitioner was able to controvert
the explanations of respondent. The unrecorded returns
claimed by respondent were belied by the physical
inventory report prepared and signed by both the
warehouseman and respondent himself. Respondent
admitted that he was given checks for cash rebates to
particular customers. Since the rebates given to customers
were in the form of goods, as admitted by the respondent
himself, why did he therefore not return the checks given
to him? With respect to the unliquidated cash advances,
petitioner clarified that it was incorrect for respondent to
allege that he had already liquidated his cash advances
when he was given another P1,500 after his first cash
advance of P2,500. The truth was that he was given
another P1,500 not because he had already liquidated his
first cash advance of P2,500 but because it was the
company’s practice to replenish the revolving fund to its
original amount. Therefore, the release of a new cash
advance was not proof of liquidation of his previous cash
advances. The inventory clearly showed 25
in fact that he still
had not liquidated his cash advances.
In the face of petitioner’s fully documented evidence
(inventory reports, receipts, balances of accountabilities,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161f96037dc252e2868003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/14
3/6/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 426

computations of short/over samples, job description and

demand letter addressed to respondent), all respondent
Feria could offer were a lame denial and an
unsubstantiated, off-tangent explanation. He offered
absolutely no clarification concerning the unremitted
collections and unreturned, unused check rebates.
The rule that “the failure to account, upon demand, for
funds or property held in trust is circumstantial evidence of
misappropria-

_______________

24 Records, pp. 24-25.

25 Ibid., pp. 27-31.

470

470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Filadams Pharma, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

tion” applies without doubt in the present case. Since a

preliminary investigation is merely a determination of
“whether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
respondent 26
is probably guilty thereof, and should be held
for trial,” we find the documented allegations in the
complaint-affidavit and reply-affidavit of petitioner
Filadams sufficient to generate such well-founded belief.
While it is this Court’s general policy not to interfere in
the conduct of preliminary investigations, leaving the
investigating officers
27
sufficient discretion to determine
probable cause, we have nonetheless made some
exceptions to the general rule, such as:

1. when necessary to afford adequate protection to the

constitutional rights of the accused;
2. when necessary for the orderly administration of
justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of
actions;
3. when there is a prejudicial question which is
subjudice;
4. when the acts of the officer are without or in excess
of authority;
5. where the prosecution is under an invalid law,
ordinance or regulation;
6. when double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
7. where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161f96037dc252e2868003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/14
3/6/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 426

8. where it is a case of persecution rather than

prosecution;
9. where the charges are manifestly false and
motivated by the lust for vengeance;
10. when there is clearly no prima facie case against
the accused and 28a motion to quash on that ground
has been denied. (emphasis ours)

From the records, it is clear to us that a prima facie case

for estafa exists. The dismissal of petitioner’s complaint-
affidavit and the DOJ’s affirmance thereof on appeal was a
patent error consti-

_______________

26 Section 1, Rule 112, 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure;

Advincula vs. Court of Appeals, 343 SCRA 583 (2000).
27 Mendoza-Arce vs. Ombudsman, 380 SCRA 325 (2002), citing
Sebastian, Sr. vs. Garchitorena, 343 SCRA 463 (2000); Camanag vs.
Guerrero, 268 SCRA 473 (1997); Fernando vs. Sandiganbayan, 212 SCRA
680 (1992).
28 Mendoza-Arce vs. Ombudsman, 380 SCRA 325 (2002), citing Posadas
vs. Ombudsman, 341 SCRA 388 (2000); Venus vs. Desierto, 298 SCRA 196
(1998); Brocka vs. Enrile, 192 SCRA 183 (1990).

471

VOL. 426, MARCH 30, 2004 471

Filadams Pharma, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

tuting grave abuse of discretion within the ambit of

exception no. 4 above.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The
resolution of the Court of Appeals dated May 29, 1997
finding no grave abuse of discretion and its resolution
dated January 23, 1998 denying petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE;
and the resolution of the Department of Justice through
the Chief State Prosecutor dated January 8, 1997
dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and affirming the
resolution of the Assistant City Prosecutor of Quezon City
dated February 28, 1995 dismissing petitioner’s complaint
for estafa against private respondent Antonio Feria is
hereby ANNULLED for grave abuse of discretion.
SO ORDERED.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161f96037dc252e2868003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/14
3/6/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 426

     Sandoval-Gutierrez (Acting Chairman) and Carpio-

Morales, JJ., concur.
     Vitug (Chairman), J., On Official Business Leave.

Petition granted, resolution reversed and set aside.

Notes.—A judge who had earlier enjoined the

preliminary investigation of the accused at the Regional
State Prosecutor’s Office level can not be considered to
adequately possess such cold neutrality of an impartial
judge in the trial proper. (People vs. Court of Appeals, 262
SCRA 452 [1996])
The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted
before being bound over for trial for a criminal offense and
hence formally at risk of incarceration or some other
penalty, is not a mere formal or technical right—it is a
substantive right. (Larranaga vs. Court of Appeals, 281
SCRA 254 [1997])

——o0o——

472

472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Peralta

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000161f96037dc252e2868003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/14