MENDOZA V PEOPLE

FACTS:
Alfredo Mendoza was employed in Juno Cars when the alleged incident of theft and estafa occurred. He was then a Trade-In / Used
Car Supervisor. The dealer conducted an audit and it was discovered that there were total of 5 cars had been sold and released by
Mendoza without the permission of the finance manager. The said audit also showed that the buyers of the 5 cars made payments
with a total of Php886K but Mendoza failed to remit such in the office. It was also alleged that aside from the 5 cars sold, there were
additional 2 cars Mendoza failed to account which was under his custody. There were also files of Honda Starex and Honda City
which Mendoza failed to turn over the files. All in all, Alfredo pilfered a total of Php1.046M pesos.

Provincial Prosecutor Delgado, issued a Resolution finding probable cause and recommending the filing of an information for
qualified theft and estafa against Mendoza. He moved for recon but it was denied. Afterwards, he filed a petition for review. However,
two information for qualified theft and estafa ensued before the RTC.

The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the evidence adduced does not support a
finding of probable cause for the offenses of qualified theft and estafa.

The respondents on the other hand appealed the decision and filed a petition for certiorari on the grounds that the trial court acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint. That the determination of
probable cause and the decision whether or not to file a criminal case in court, rightfully belongs to the public prosecutor.

CA ruled in favor of the respondents and reinstated the case. In their decision, the trial court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction
and with grave abuse of discretion in deposing of public prosecutors finding of probable cause with its own findings of insufficiency
of evidence and lack of probable cause.

Mendoza, feeling aggrieved filed a petition for review under Rule 45 and argued that the trial court decision was correct that there
was no probable cause. He argued that the judicial determination of probable cause is broader than the executive determination of
probable cause and it is not correct that the determination if the probable cause is exclusively vested on the prosecutor.

The OSG representing the respondents affirmed the appellate court stressing that the trial court should respect the finding of the
probable cause of the public prosecutor.

Mendoza further argued that the findings of the trial court should be accorded with greater weight than the appellate court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court may dismiss an information filed by the prosecutor on the basis of its own independents finding of lack
of probable cause?

RULING:
Yes. The power vested to the public prosecutor is one during the preliminary investigation proper. It is by way of an executive
determination of the probable cause, where it should be ascertained that the accused should be subjected to the expense, rigor and
embarrassment of the trial and file an information afterwards. However, the trial court may dismiss an information filed by the
prosecutor through the judicial determination of probable cause. It is where the judge has to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest
should issue against the accused. If the judge finds no probable cause the judge cannot be forced to issue arrest warrant.

In the case at bar, Judge Capco-Umali still had the discretion to make her own finding of whether probable exist to order the arrest of
the accused and proceed with the trial. In the absence or failure to establish probable cause, the judge has to immediately dismiss the
case. In the course of the independent assessment of the evidence on record, Juno Cars failed to prove by competent evidence that the
vehicles alleged to have been pilfered by Mendoza were lawfully possessed or owned by them, or that these vehicles were received
by Mendoza to be able to substantiate the charge of qualified theft. She also found that the complaint did not state with particularity
the exact value of the alleged office files or their valuation purportedly have been removed, concealed or destroyed by the accused
which she found crucial to the prosecution of the crime of estafa.

The court found that the trial court correctly dismissed the case against Mendoza, hence Petition is Granted and criminal cases are
Dismissed.