G.R. No. 160316 - ROSALINDA PUNZALAN, RANDALL PUNZALAN AND RAINIER PUNZALAN, VS. MICHAEL GAMALIEL J. PLATA AND RUBEN PLATA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the above cases are hereby dismissed for lack of sufficient basis in fact and in law. [7] [Emphases supplied] The complainants in I.S. Nos. 97-11487, 97-11523, 97-11786, 97-11520, 97-11521, 97-11528, 97-765, and 11-766 filed their separate petitions [8] before the DOJ. On March 23, 2000, the DOJ modified the July 28, 1998 Joint Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor and ordered the filing of separate informations for Slight Oral Defamation, Light Threats, Attempted Homicide, Malicious Mischief, and Theft against Rosalinda, Rainier, Randall and the other respondents in the above cases. The latter filed a motion for reconsideration, [9] dated April 28, 2000. Upon review , the DOJ reconsidered its findings and ruled that there was no probable cause. In its Resolution, dated June 6, 2000, the DOJ set aside its March 23, 2000 Resolution and directed the Office of the City Prosecutor to withdraw the informations. Not in conformity, the complainants moved for a reconsideration of the June 6, 2000 Resolution but the DOJ denied the motion in its Resolution, dated October 11, 2000. On January 11, 2001, the complainants elevated the matter to the CA by way of certiorari ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DOJ Secretary which ordered the withdrawal of the separate informations for Slight Oral Defamation, Other Light Threats, Attempted Homicide, Malicious Mischief and Theft. On September 29, 2003, the CA annulled and set aside the June 6, 2000 and October 11, 2000 Resolutions of the DOJ and reinstated its March 23, 2000 Resolution. In the said decision, the CA explained that: In the conduct of a preliminary investigation, the main purpose of the same is to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the accused is guilty thereof, (Tandoc vs. Resultan, 175 SCRA 37). Based on the records We hold that probable cause exists in the subject complaints. Re: the complaints filed for malicious mischief and theft, We hold that said complaints had sufficient basis. Contrary to the second ruling of the Secretary of Justice that there was lack of eye witnesses to support the alleged act constituting the complaint, there were persons who claimed to have seen the respondents as they were running away from the place of incident. The joint affidavit of witnesses Rolando Curampes and Robert Cagara attest and corroborate the allegations in the complaint. Further the circumstances surrounding the incident as well as the presence of the defendants in the scene of the crime yield to strong presumption that the latter may have had some participation in the unlawful act. Since there was positive identification of the alleged malefactors, the complaints should not be dismissed, and trial should proceed to allow for the presentation of evidence in order for the court to determine the culpability or non-culpability of the alleged transgressors. As regards the complaints fo