PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF STATE PROSECUTOR JOVENCITO ZUÑO, STATE PROSECUTOR GERONIMO SY AND PROSECUTION ATTORNEY IRWIN MARAYA, VS. HON. BASILIO R. GABO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MALOLOS, BULACAN, BRANCH II AND WILSON CUA TING, EDWARD NGO

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that an information for Destructive Arson be filed against Wilson Ting, Edward Yao, Willy So Tan and Carol Ortega. That the case against Samson Ting be dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to indict him under the charge. As to the charge of Accessories against herein three (3) Fire Officers, let that case be remanded to TF-IATF for further investigation. [18] Pursuant to the foregoing Resolution, an Information [19] for Arson was filed against Wilson Cua Ting, Edward Ngo Yao, Willy So Tan, Carol F. Ortega, John Doe and Peter Doe, of the crime of arson, to wit: That on or about May 14, 2001, in the Municipality of Bocaue, Province of Bulacan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating and mutually helping one another, acting in common accord, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, destroy the warehouses known as Sanyoware Plastic Products Manufacturing Plant and New Unitedware Marketing Corporation, including the stocks of raw materials and finish products, machineries and various equipments by maliciously burning the same for the purpose of concealing or destroying evidence of another violation of law, and to conceal bankruptcy to defraud creditors and to collect from insurance. CONTRARY TO LAW. [20] The Information was raffled to Branch XI, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos Bulacan, 3 rd Judicial Region. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 300-47M 2002. Prior to the arraignment of respondents and before warrants of arrest could be issued, respondents filed a Motion to Conduct Hearing to Determine Probable Cause and to Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of Warrant of Arrest Pending Determination of Probable Cause. [21] On February 27, 2002, the RTC issued an Order [22] dismissing the case, the dispositive portion of which reads: Accordingly, for lack of probable cause, the instant case is DISMISSED as ordained under Sec. 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. SO ORDERED.