G.R. No. 230649 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. NOEL M. CARIÑO, FERDINAND T. SANTOS, ROBERT JOHN L. SOBREPEÑA, EXEQUIEL E. ROBLES, ROBERTO J. CHAN, SUSANA S. CHAN, RUBEN C. SY, SOFIA C. SY, VICENTE SANTOS, AND IGMIDIO ROBLES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered and pursuant to Section 5 Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the above-entitled case is hereby DISMISSED since the evidence on record fails to establish probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest. [42] With petitioner's bid for reconsideration being denied by the trial court, [43] it filed a petition for certiorari [44] before the CA. Ruling of the Court of Appeals In the impugned Decision, [45] the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The fallo states: WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing premises, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Orders dated June 23, 2014 and January 21, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 211 in Criminal Case No. MC13-15299 are hereby AFFIRMED . [46] At the outset, the appellate court held that the petition was immediately dismissible for being the wrong remedy. It observed that the assailed Order dated June 23, 2014 was a final order which should have been appealed by the petitioner. [47] In any event, the CA found that even on the merits, the petition must fail as there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in rendering the assailed Orders. The appellate court agreed that the purportedly "untrue statement" as to the project's completion date was not the false or fraudulent material statement contemplated and punished by the Securities Regulation Code. [48] It likewise affirmed the trial court's conclusion that petitioner failed to demonstrate how respondents were probably liable for the false claims in the Registration Statement. [49] Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied in the challenged Resolution. [50] Hence, it instituted the present petition. [51] During the pendency of the petition, the Court, in its Resolution [52] dated February 3, 2021, directed petitioner and respondents to submit their respective memoranda to clarify their arguments and to limit the issues. In compliance therewith, the parties submitted their separate memoranda. [53] Issues From the memoranda submitted, the primary issues tendered for this Court's resolution are whether the CA erred in holding that: ( 1 ) the proper remedy from a final order of dismissal in a criminal case is appeal and not certiorari ; and (2) the trial court committed no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal case against respondents for lack of probable cause. [54] THE RULING OF THE COURT The Petition is devoid of merit. As to the first issue raised, the CA did not err in holding that petitioner's case was dismissible outright for having availed of the wrong remedy. [55] "The dismissal of the criminal Information ..., was a final judgment because it finally disposed of the case . With the dismissal of the Information, the trial court's task was ended as far as deciding the controversy was concerned. There was nothing left to be done by the trial court. " [56] Undoubtedly, the t