Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila
Third Division
G.R. NO. 181021
BURGUNDY REALTY CORPORATION, petitioner
Vs
JOSEFA JING C. REYES and SECRETARY RAUL GONZALES OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, respondents.
Promulgated: December 10, 2012
FACTS:
Respondent Josefa Reyes offered her services to herein petitioner as its real estate
agent in buying parcels of land situated in Calamba, Laguna for the purpose of
developing it into a golf course. Reyes made not that at least 10 of her clients, all of them
lot owners, are willing to sell to herein petitioners. Convinced that here representations
were reputable, petitioner corporation ordered the released of the amount of P23,
423,327.50 in her favor for the purpose of buying the land. However, such was not the
case as Reyes converted and misappropriated the money given by petitioner to her
personal use, instead of buying the land.
When the petitioners knew of the matter, they sent a formal letter of demand to
Reyes for the return of the full sum of P23, 423,327.50. But such efforts did not yield
results despite her receipt of such demand. As a result, petitioners filed a complaint of
Estafa before the Assistant City Prosecutors Office of Makati City. After a preliminary
investigation was made, the assistant Prosecutor of Makati then filed information for the
crime of Estafa against Reyes before the RTC of Makati. Respondent, contested said
resolution by the assistant prosecutor, claiming that there is no sufficient evidence to
prove such, before the DOJ Secretary, but it was dismissed by the State Prosecutor
Jovencio Zuno. Later, the Reyes filed a motion for reconsideration and was granted,
wherein Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzales issued a Resolution graning the petition for
review. Pettioner then filed a motion for reconsideration first to the DOJ, then later to the
CA, both of which were denied. The CA sustained the DOJ finding that theelement of
misappropriation or conversion is wanting...and that if the accused is able to satisfactorily
explain her failure to produce the thing delivered in trust , he may not be liable for
estafa.. Hence, petitioners assailed this decision in this court.

ISSUE:
Whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well- founded belief that the estafa
has been committed by respondent should be held for trial.
RULING:
According to the court, it must be committed to memory that the finding of probable
cause was made after conducting a preliminary investigation. A preliminary investigation
constitutes a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of a case. Its purpose is to determine
whether a crime has been committed; and whether there is a probable cause to believe
that the accused is guilty thereof. The public prosecutor, in preliminary investigations,
merely determines whether there is probable cause. On the other hand, it does not call for
the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after
trial on the merits. The complainant need not present at this stage, proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Evidences of both parties need not be exhausted during this period of
the case. There is, by rules of procedure, a trial to allow the reception of evidence
wherein both parties can substantiate their respective claims. In this case, as the court
finds it in the review of the records, it showed that investigating prosecutor was right in
finding that all the elements of the crime of estafa existed. Therefore, the petition was
granted and the Resolutions of the CA was reversed and set aside.