Lawyerly

GR No. 195956

2015-03-11

LEONEN, J.

The principle applies whether or not the crime requires the consciousness of wrongdoing. It applies to those corporate agents who themselves commit the crime and to those, who, by virtue of their managerial positions or other similar relation to the corporation, could be deemed responsible for its commission, if by virtue of their relationship to the corporation, they had the power to prevent the act. Moreover, all parties active in promoting a crime, whether agents or not, are principals. Whether such officers or employees are benefited by their delictual acts is not a touchstone of their criminal liability. Benefit is not an operative fact. [160] (Emphasis supplied) An accused's participation in criminal acts involving violations of intellectual property rights is the subject of allegation and proof. The showing that the accused did the acts or contributed in a meaningful way in the commission of the infringements is certainly different from the argument of lack of intent or good faith. Active participation requires a showing of overt physical acts or intention to commit such acts. Intent or good faith, on the other hand, are inferences from acts proven to have been or not been committed.

GR No. 194062

2013-06-17

REPUBLIC GAS CORPORATION v. PETRON CORPORATION

PERALTA, J.

In sum, this Court finds that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the prosecution of petitioners for trademark infringement and unfair competition, considering that petitioner Republic Gas Corporation, being a corporation, possesses a personality separate and distinct from the person of its officers, directors and stockholders.[12] Petitioners, being corporate officers and/or directors, through whose act, default or omission the corporation commits a crime, may themselves be individually held answerable for the crime.[13] Veritably, the CA appropriately pointed out that petitioners, being in direct control and supervision in the management and conduct of the affairs of the corporation, must have known or are aware that the corporation is engaged in the act of refilling LPG cylinders bearing the marks of the respondents without authority or consent from the latter which, under the circumstances, could probably constitute the crimes of trademark infringement and unfair competition. The existence of the corporate entity does not shield from prosecution the corporate agent who knowingly and intentionally caused the corporation to commit a crime. Thus, petitioners cannot hide behind the cloak of the separate corporate personality of the corporation to escape criminal liability. A corporate officer cannot protect himself behind a corporation where he is the actual, present and efficient actor.[14]

GR No. 179003

2013-01-09

ANTONIO L. TAN v. YOSHITSUGU MATSUURA

REYES, J.

While probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accused's constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to protect the State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding trials arising from false, fraudulent or groundless charges.[38]

GR No. 179243

2011-09-17

JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO v. ATTY. JOSE A. BERNAS

PERALTA, J.

Probable cause demands more than suspicion; it requires less than evidence that would justify conviction.[50] While probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accused's constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to protect the State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding trials arising from false, fraudulent or groundless charges.[51] It is, therefore, imperative upon the prosecutor to relieve the accused from the pain of going through a trial once it is ascertained that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused.[52]

GR No. 170891

2009-11-24

MANUEL C. ESPIRITU v. PETRON CORPORATION

ABAD, J.

Bicol Gas is a corporation. As such, it is an entity separate and distinct from the persons of its officers, directors, and stockholders. It has been held, however, that corporate officers or employees, through whose act, default or omission the corporation commits a crime, may themselves be individually held answerable for the crime.[15]

GR No. 180165

2009-04-07

METROPOLITAN BANK v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE RAUL M. GONZALES

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

An entrustee is one having or taking possession of goods, documents or instruments under a trust receipt transaction, and any successor in interest of such person for the purpose of payment specified in the trust receipt agreement. The entrustee is obliged to (1) hold the goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and shall dispose of them strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the trust receipt; (2) receive the proceeds in trust for the entruster and turn over the same to the entruster to the extent of the amount owed to the entruster or as appears on the trust receipt; (3) insure the goods for their total value against loss from fire, theft, pilferage or other casualties; (4) keep said goods or the proceeds therefrom whether in money or whatever form, separate and capable of identification as property of the entruster; (5) return the goods, documents or instruments in the event of non-sale or upon demand of the entruster; and (6) observe all other terms and conditions of the trust receipt not contrary to the provisions of the decree.[33]

GR No. 147065

2008-03-14

JUANITO CHAN y LIM v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

NACHURA, J.

Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person charged is guilty of the crime subject of the investigation. Being based merely on opinion and reasonable belief, it does not import absolute certainty.[29] Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, as the investigating officer acts upon reasonable belief. Probable cause implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify a conviction.[30]

GR No. 143591

2007-11-23

TEODORO C. BORLONGAN v. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA

NACHURA, J.

True, a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence, or on evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It does not require that the evidence would justify conviction. Nonetheless, although the determination of probable cause requires less than evidence which would justify conviction, it should at least be more than mere suspicion.[51] While probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accused's constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to protect the State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding trials arising from false, fraudulent or groundless charges.[52] It is, therefore, imperative for the prosecutor to relieve the accused from the pain and inconvenience of going through a trial once it is ascertained that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused.[53]

GR NO. 164904

2007-10-19

JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ v. HONGKONG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As a last ditch effort to exculpate himself from the offense charged, petitioner Gonzalez posits that, "the fact that (he) held a high position in MLRC was not sufficient reason to charge him for alleged violation of trust receipts."[44] Unfortunately, it is but a futile attempt. Though petitioner Gonzalez signed the Trust Receipts merely as a corporate officer of MLRC and had no physical possession of the goods subject of such receipts, he cannot avoid responsibility for violation of Presidential Decree No. 115 for two unpretentious reasons: first, that the last sentence of Section 13 of the "Trust Receipts Law," explicitly imposes the penalty provided therein upon "directors, officers, employees or other officials or persons therein responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense," of a corporation, partnership, association or other juridical entities found to have violated the obligation imposed under the law. The rationale for making such officers and employees responsible for the offense is that they are vested with the authority and responsibility to devise means necessary to ensure compliance with the law and, if they fail to do so, are held criminally accountable; thus, they have a responsible share in the violations of the law.[45] And second, a corporation or other juridical entity cannot be arrested and imprisoned; hence, cannot be penalized for a crime punishable by imprisonment.[46]

GR No. 154438

2007-09-05

ALICIA F. RICAFORTE v. LEON L. JURADO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In a preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor merely determines whether there is probable cause or sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.[11] Probable cause implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify a conviction.[12] A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed by the suspect.[13] It does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits.[14] The complainant need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. A preliminary investigation does not require a full and exhaustive presentation of the parties' evidence.[15] It is enough that in the absence of a clear showing of arbitrariness, credence is given to the finding and determination of probable cause by the Secretary of Justice in a preliminary investigation.[16]

GR NO. 168380

2007-02-08

MANUEL V. BAVIERA v. ESPERANZA PAGLINAWAN

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Concomitant with his authority and power to control the prosecution of criminal offenses, the public prosecutor is vested with the discretionary power to determine whether a prima facie case exists or not. [15] This is done through a preliminary investigation designed to secure the respondent from hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution. A preliminary investigation is essentially an inquiry to determine whether (a) a crime has been committed; and (b) whether there is probable cause that the accused is guilty thereof. [16] In Pontejos v. Office of the Ombudsman, [17] probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances that would engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It is the public prosecutor who determines during the preliminary investigation whether probable cause exists. Thus, the decision whether or not to dismiss the criminal complaint against the accused depends on the sound discretion of the prosecutor.

	GR No. 195956 2015-03-11	ABS-CBN CORPORATION v. FELIPE GOZON LEONEN, J.
The principle applies whether or not the crime requires the consciousness of wrongdoing. It applies to those corporate agents who themselves commit the crime and to those, who, by virtue of their managerial positions or other similar relation to the corporation, could be deemed responsible for its commission, if by virtue of their relationship to the corporation, they had the power to prevent the act. Moreover, all parties active in promoting a crime, whether agents or not, are principals. Whether such officers or employees are benefited by their delictual acts is not a touchstone of their criminal liability. Benefit is not an operative fact. [160] (Emphasis supplied) An accused's participation in criminal acts involving violations of intellectual property rights is the subject of allegation and proof. The showing that the accused did the acts or contributed in a meaningful way in the commission of the infringements is certainly different from the argument of lack of intent or good faith. Active participation requires a showing of overt physical acts or intention to commit such acts. Intent or good faith, on the other hand, are inferences from acts proven to have been or not been committed.
	GR No. 194062 2013-06-17	REPUBLIC GAS CORPORATION v. PETRON CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
In sum, this Court finds that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the prosecution of petitioners for trademark infringement and unfair competition, considering that petitioner Republic Gas Corporation, being a corporation, possesses a personality separate and distinct from the person of its officers, directors and stockholders.[12] Petitioners, being corporate officers and/or directors, through whose act, default or omission the corporation commits a crime, may themselves be individually held answerable for the crime.[13] Veritably, the CA appropriately pointed out that petitioners, being in direct control and supervision in the management and conduct of the affairs of the corporation, must have known or are aware that the corporation is engaged in the act of refilling LPG cylinders bearing the marks of the respondents without authority or consent from the latter which, under the circumstances, could probably constitute the crimes of trademark infringement and unfair competition. The existence of the corporate entity does not shield from prosecution the corporate agent who knowingly and intentionally caused the corporation to commit a crime. Thus, petitioners cannot hide behind the cloak of the separate corporate personality of the corporation to escape criminal liability. A corporate officer cannot protect himself behind a corporation where he is the actual, present and efficient actor.[14]
	GR No. 179003 2013-01-09	ANTONIO L. TAN v. YOSHITSUGU MATSUURA REYES, J.
While probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accused's constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to protect the State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding trials arising from false, fraudulent or groundless charges.[38]
	GR No. 179243 2011-09-17	JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO v. ATTY. JOSE A. BERNAS PERALTA, J.
Probable cause demands more than suspicion; it requires less than evidence that would justify conviction.[50] While probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accused's constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to protect the State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding trials arising from false, fraudulent or groundless charges.[51] It is, therefore, imperative upon the prosecutor to relieve the accused from the pain of going through a trial once it is ascertained that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused.[52]
	GR No. 170891 2009-11-24	MANUEL C. ESPIRITU v. PETRON CORPORATION ABAD, J.
Bicol Gas is a corporation. As such, it is an entity separate and distinct from the persons of its officers, directors, and stockholders. It has been held, however, that corporate officers or employees, through whose act, default or omission the corporation commits a crime, may themselves be individually held answerable for the crime.[15]
	GR No. 180165 2009-04-07	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE RAUL M. GONZALES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
An entrustee is one having or taking possession of goods, documents or instruments under a trust receipt transaction, and any successor in interest of such person for the purpose of payment specified in the trust receipt agreement. The entrustee is obliged to (1) hold the goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and shall dispose of them strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the trust receipt; (2) receive the proceeds in trust for the entruster and turn over the same to the entruster to the extent of the amount owed to the entruster or as appears on the trust receipt; (3) insure the goods for their total value against loss from fire, theft, pilferage or other casualties; (4) keep said goods or the proceeds therefrom whether in money or whatever form, separate and capable of identification as property of the entruster; (5) return the goods, documents or instruments in the event of non-sale or upon demand of the entruster; and (6) observe all other terms and conditions of the trust receipt not contrary to the provisions of the decree.[33]
	GR No. 147065 2008-03-14	JUANITO CHAN y LIM v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE NACHURA, J.
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and circumstances as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person charged is guilty of the crime subject of the investigation. Being based merely on opinion and reasonable belief, it does not import absolute certainty.[29] Probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, as the investigating officer acts upon reasonable belief. Probable cause implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify a conviction.[30]
	GR No. 143591 2007-11-23	TEODORO C. BORLONGAN v. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA NACHURA, J.
True, a finding of probable cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence, or on evidence beyond reasonable doubt. It does not require that the evidence would justify conviction. Nonetheless, although the determination of probable cause requires less than evidence which would justify conviction, it should at least be more than mere suspicion.[51] While probable cause should be determined in a summary manner, there is a need to examine the evidence with care to prevent material damage to a potential accused's constitutional right to liberty and the guarantees of freedom and fair play, and to protect the State from the burden of unnecessary expenses in prosecuting alleged offenses and holding trials arising from false, fraudulent or groundless charges.[52] It is, therefore, imperative for the prosecutor to relieve the accused from the pain and inconvenience of going through a trial once it is ascertained that no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused.[53]
	GR NO. 164904 2007-10-19	JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ v. HONGKONG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As a last ditch effort to exculpate himself from the offense charged, petitioner Gonzalez posits that, "the fact that (he) held a high position in MLRC was not sufficient reason to charge him for alleged violation of trust receipts."[44] Unfortunately, it is but a futile attempt. Though petitioner Gonzalez signed the Trust Receipts merely as a corporate officer of MLRC and had no physical possession of the goods subject of such receipts, he cannot avoid responsibility for violation of Presidential Decree No. 115 for two unpretentious reasons: first, that the last sentence of Section 13 of the "Trust Receipts Law," explicitly imposes the penalty provided therein upon "directors, officers, employees or other officials or persons therein responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense," of a corporation, partnership, association or other juridical entities found to have violated the obligation imposed under the law. The rationale for making such officers and employees responsible for the offense is that they are vested with the authority and responsibility to devise means necessary to ensure compliance with the law and, if they fail to do so, are held criminally accountable; thus, they have a responsible share in the violations of the law.[45] And second, a corporation or other juridical entity cannot be arrested and imprisoned; hence, cannot be penalized for a crime punishable by imprisonment.[46]
	GR No. 154438 2007-09-05	ALICIA F. RICAFORTE v. LEON L. JURADO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In a preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor merely determines whether there is probable cause or sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.[11] Probable cause implies probability of guilt and requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence which would justify a conviction.[12] A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, a crime has been committed by the suspect.[13] It does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits.[14] The complainant need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. A preliminary investigation does not require a full and exhaustive presentation of the parties' evidence.[15] It is enough that in the absence of a clear showing of arbitrariness, credence is given to the finding and determination of probable cause by the Secretary of Justice in a preliminary investigation.[16]
	GR NO. 168380 2007-02-08	MANUEL V. BAVIERA v. ESPERANZA PAGLINAWAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Concomitant with his authority and power to control the prosecution of criminal offenses, the public prosecutor is vested with the discretionary power to determine whether a prima facie case exists or not. [15] This is done through a preliminary investigation designed to secure the respondent from hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution. A preliminary investigation is essentially an inquiry to determine whether (a) a crime has been committed; and (b) whether there is probable cause that the accused is guilty thereof. [16] In Pontejos v. Office of the Ombudsman, [17] probable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances that would engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. It is the public prosecutor who determines during the preliminary investigation whether probable cause exists. Thus, the decision whether or not to dismiss the criminal complaint against the accused depends on the sound discretion of the prosecutor.

ALFREDO CHING v. VS.SECRETARY OF JUSTICE