Cited Laws
accordingly directed the filing of a Motion to Withdraw the Information before the trial court. Pursuant to the resolution-directive of the DOJ, Second Assistant City Prosecutor Antonietta Pablo Medina filed a Motion to Withdraw Information dated September 3, 2002 [11] to which was attached the DOJ Resolution. On September 8, 2002, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the DOJ Resolution. The hearing of the Motion to Withdraw Information which was initially set on October 16, 2002 was reset to November 21, 2002 in light of the pendency of petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of the DOJ Resolution. By Order of October 29, 2002, [12] the DOJ denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. On November 6, 2002, respondents filed before the trial court a MANIFESTATION AND MOTION TO RESOLVE Motion to Withdraw Information [13] manifesting that the DOJ had denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration of its Resolution of October 25, 2002. The trial court, acting on the MANIFESTATION AND MOTION TO RESOLVE filed by respondents, gave the prosecution three (3) days to file Comment thereon, by Order of November 12, 2002. [14] By Order of November 26, 2002, [15] the trial court issued an Order denying the Motion to Withdraw Information, it finding that there was probable cause to hold respondents for trial in this wise: x x x From the perspective of the prosecutions evidence, the letter reply dated October 24, 2001 (which was close to the date of the incident) of accuseds counsel denying the taking or possession of the documents, was or has never been denied or refuted. The affidavit too of Aurora Realon was neither refuted nor denied by the accused. Her statement about accused Jose Jimenez admission to her of his possession of the documents as a way of leverage or extortion was echoed in the joint affidavit of Carlos Jimenez and Eduardo Jimenez , all brothers of accused Jose. To all these, the accused proffered the ambivalent defense re the taking or possession of the documents and a defense of existence of alleged agency coupled with interest which could not just be revoked by the private complainant unilaterally. In the consideration of the Court, albeit prima facie, the prosecutions supporting evidence was able to show circumstantially the element of taking of the documents by both the accused, and positively the other elements of ownership by private complainant of these documents, the taking of the documents being without the consent of the private complainant, and the taking with animo lucrandi . These elements constitute theft under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, and qualified theft under Article 310 thereof with the circumstance of grave abuse of confidence also being shown in the evidence. What bolstered this prima facie finding of probability of guilt is the undisputed surrounding fact that the incident of taking or of disappearance of the documents transpired after September 10, 2001 when the private complainant and he