PERSONAL COLLECTION DIRECT SELLING, INC. vs. TERESITA L.

CARANDANG
G.R. No. 206958, November 8, 2017

DOCTRINE:

“The order granting the withdrawal of an information must state the judge’s assessment of the
evidence and reasons in resolving the motion. It must clearly show why the court’s earlier assessment of
probable cause was erroneous. An order granting a motion to withdraw an information and dismissing a criminal
case is final, and the remedy to question this final order is an appeal.”

FACTS:

On March 30, 2007, Personal Collection filed a Complaint-Affidavit for estafa with unfaithfulness
and/or abuse of confidence against Carandang before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.
After the preliminary investigation, Assistant City Prosecutor Job M. Mangente filed an Information against
Carandang before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, which issued an arrest warrant against the same.
On July 10, 2009, Carandang filed a Motion for Reinvestigation, alleging that she did not appear during the
preliminary investigation because she did not receive any subpoena from the Office of the City Prosecutor.
She moved for the reinvestigation of Personal Collection’s complaint to not deprive her of due process.
Personal Collection filed its Opposition, arguing that she was not deprived of due process during the
preliminary investigation and that the Regional Trial Court found that there was prima facie evidence to support the
case. She filed a Manifestation and Motion to Admit Reply arguing that her motion was meritorious and not filed
to delay the case. The RTC granted Carandang’s Motion for
Reinvestigation in its Order dated August 14, 2009. She then filed her Counter-Affidavit before the Office of the
City Prosecutor, claiming that her failure to completely liquidate the cash advances was due to the sudden
termination of her employment by Personal Collection.

On January 29, 2010, the Office of the City Prosecutor, through State Prosecutor Aquiatan Morales, issued
a Resolution recommending that the complaint against Carandang be dismissed. After reinvestigation, it
found that Personal Collection’s cause of action is anchored primarily on Carandang’s failure to liquidate
her remaining cash advances. However, the Office of the City Prosecutor was unconvinced that Carandang’s
failure to return the cash advances would be sufficient to hold her liable for estafa. There would be no
estafa to speak of so long as there is no demand to return the money under obligation to be returned. The
element of demand not being present, the earlier finding that there was probable cause to charge Carandang
with estafa was overturned. Her acts could only be a subject of a civil action for sum of money.

On June 15, 2010, Prosecutor Aquiatan-Morales filed a Motion to Withdraw Information with the Regional
Trial Court, stating that the Office of the City Prosecutor found that there was lack of probable cause to hold
Carandang liable for estafa. Personal Collection filed its Opposition arguing that demand is not an element of
estafa, such that its lack would warrant the withdrawal of the Information. She filed her Reply arguing that
the Office of the City Prosecutor his control of the proceedings in a criminal case and that the private offended
party or private prosecutor has no right to question its actions and authority.

Consequently, the RTC issued an Order granting the Motion to Withdraw Information. It found that
Carandang used the cash advances to pay for the operational expenses of Personal Collection Iloilo City
branch and that her unceremonious termination from employment prevented her from fully liquidating these cash
advances. Thus, she was able to explain her failure to account for the cash advances she had received in trust. The
trial court also noted the general policy of the courts to not interfere in the conduct of preliminary
investigations and to give the investigating officers sufficient discretion to determine probable cause. It found
that no exception existed in the case that would require the court to intervene in the findings of the
preliminary investigation. Personal Collection’s Motion for Reconsideration which was then denied by the
same in its Order dated October 12, 2011. Upon Carandang’s motion, the Regional Trial Court, in its
Order dated November 16, 2011, released the cash bond posted for Carandang’s bail.

Personal Collection filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the Regional
Trial Court acted with grave abuse of discretion when it issued the Orders granting the Motion to
Withdraw Information and the Motion to Release Bond. It argued that the trial court failed to make its own
evaluation of the merits of the case and only relied on Prosecutor Aquiatan Morales’ recommendation that there
was no probable cause to charge Carandang with estafa. It alleged that the trial court had already found that
there was probable cause to sustain the complaint in its Order dated September 20, 2007, in which a warrant of
arrest was issued against Carandang.

Moreover, Carandang already admitted in her reply-affidavit that she had received the funds in
trust but still had not liquidated the balance. Contrary to the public prosecutor’s resolution, all of the elements of
estafa were present. Personal Collection also alleged that it was deprived of due process when the Regional Trial
Court granted Carandang’s Motion to Release Cash Bond, even though Personal Collection did not receive a
copy of this motion.

On November 7, 2012, the Court of Appeals (CA) issued its Decision,dismissing the Petition for Certiorari
for lack of merit. It found that the Regional Trial Court conducted an independent assessment of the facts of
the case, basing its order to withdraw the Information on the pleadings filed by the parties. Further, the trial
court’s determination of probable cause for purposes of preliminary investigation was separate from the
probable cause for the issuance of an arrest warrant. In issuing the warrant of arrest against Carandang, the trial
court only evaluated the evidence furnished by Personal Collection. In contrast, by the time the trial court
was deciding whether to permit the withdrawal of the Information or not, Carandang had filed her counter-
affidavit and subsequent pleadings. The CA also found that Personal Collection was not deprived of the
opportunity to oppose Carandang’s Motion to Release Cash Bond. The CA denied Personal Collection’s
Motion for Reconsideration. Hence, this petition for review before this court.

Contention of the Petitioner:

It argues that the Regional Trial Court gravely abused its discretion when it reversed and set aside its earlier finding
of probable cause, despite Carandang's express admissions, showing that all elements of the crime of estafa were
present. It claims that the trial court merely adopted the Resolution of Prosecutor Aquiatan-Morales and did not
make any independent determination of probable cause. Moreover, the basis of Prosecutor Aquiatan-Morales'
finding that Carandang was willing to fully liquidate her cash advance was Caranadang's unsubstantiated and self-
serving statements.

Contention of the Respondent:

Carandang filed her Comment, arguing that the Regional Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the
Motion to Withdraw Information. She points out that the ruling of the trial court granting the withdrawal was not
irregular. She also argues that her Motion to Release Cash Bond was granted after notice and hearing. Finally, she
claims that in criminal cases, the party in interest is the State and that the private offended party is only a witness for
the State. Thus, the Petition for Review should be dismissed for lack of merit.

ISSUES:
Whether or not the Regional Trial Court correctly allowed the withdrawal of the Information against
Teresita L. Carandang upon a finding that there was a lack of probable cause.

HELD:
Yes. In her Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, petitioner claims that it resorted to a
special civil action for certiorari as it had “no recourse to an appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law” against the trial court’s orders to withdraw the Information and
release respondent’s bail bond. Petitioner is incorrect, Appeal was available and was the proper remedy.
 As provided in Rule 122, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, Any party may appeal from a judgment or
final order, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy. Hence, an order granting a motion to
withdraw an information and dismissing a Criminal case is final, and the remedy to question this final order
is an appeal. Further, appealing the withdrawal of an information does not violate the right of the accused against
being placed in double jeopardy.
Question:
Personal Collection filed a Complaint-Affidavit for estafa with unfaithfulness and/or abuse of confidence
against Carandang before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. After the preliminary investigation,
Assistant City Prosecutor Job M. Mangente filed an Information against Carandang before the RTC)of Quezon
City, which issued an arrest warrant against the same. Thereafter, Carandang filed a Motion for Reinvestigation,
alleging that she did not appear during the preliminary investigation because she did not receive any
subpoena from the Office of the City Prosecutor. She moved for the reinvestigation of Personal Collection’s
complaint to not deprive her of due process. Personal Collection filed its Opposition, arguing that she was not
deprived of due process during the preliminary investigation and that the RTC found that there was prima facie
evidence to support the case. She filed a Manifestation and Motion to Admit Reply arguing that her motion was
meritorious and not filed to delay the case. The RTC granted Carandang’s Motion for Reinvestigation. She then filed
her Counter-Affidavit before the Office of the City Prosecutor, claiming that her failure to completely liquidate the
cash advances was due to the sudden termination of her

Prosecutor Aquiatan-Morales filed a Motion to Withdraw Information with the Regional Trial Court,
stating that the Office of the City Prosecutor found that there was lack of probable cause to hold Carandang liable
for estafa. Personal Collection filed its Opposition arguing that demand is not an element of estafa, such that its
lack would warrant the withdrawal of the Information. She filed her Reply arguing that the Office of the
City Prosecutor his control of the proceedings in a criminal case and that the private offended party or private
prosecutor has no right to question its actions and authority.

Consequently, the RTC issued an Order granting the Motion to Withdraw Information. It found that
Carandang used the cash advances to pay for the operational expenses of Personal Collection Iloilo City branch and
that her unceremonious termination from employment prevented her from fully liquidating these cash advances.
Thus, she was able to explain her failure to account for the cash advances she had received in trust. The trial court
also noted the general policy of the courts to not interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations and to
give the investigating officers sufficient discretion to determine probable cause. It found that no exception existed
in the case that would require the court to intervene in the findings of the preliminary investigation.
Personal Collection’s Motion for Reconsideration which was then denied by the same in its Order. Upon
Carandang’s motion, the RTC, in its Order, released the cash bond posted for Carandang’s bail.

Personal Collection filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the RTC acted
with grave abuse of discretion when it issued the Orders granting the Motion to Withdraw Information and the
Motion to Release Bond. Did the RTC correctly allowed the withdrawal of the Information against Teresita L.
Carandang upon a finding that there was a lack of probable cause?

Answer:

Yes. In her Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, petitioner claims that it resorted to a
special civil action for certiorari as it had “no recourse to an appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law” against the trial court’s orders to withdraw the Information and
release respondent’s bail bond. Petitioner is incorrect, Appeal was available and was the proper remedy.

As provided in Rule 122, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, Any party may appeal from a judgment or
final order, unless the accused will be placed in double jeopardy. Hence, an order granting a motion to
withdraw an information and dismissing a Criminal case is final, and the remedy to question this final order
is an appeal. Further, appealing the withdrawal of an information does not violate the right of the accused against
being placed in double jeopardy.