PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners, vs. TERESITA PUIG and ROMEO PORRAS, (Rule 110, Section 6)Respondent.FACTS: The petitioners fled before the RTC of loilo 11! c"ses of #u"lifed Theft "$"inst respondents Teresit" %ui$ (%ui$) "nd Ro&eo %orr"s (%orr"s) 'ho 'ere the C"shier "nd (oo))eeper, respecti*el+, of pri*"te co&pl"in"nt Rur"l ("n) of %otot"n, nc for t")in$ *"rious "&ounts of &one+ 'ith $r"*e "buse of confdence, "nd 'ithout the )no'led$e "nd consent of the b"n), to the d"&"$e "nd pre,udice of the b"n).The RTC dis&issed the c"ses "nd refused to issue " '"rr"nt of "rrest "$"inst %ui$ "nd %orr"s on the $round of l"c) of prob"ble c"use bec"use the co&pl"int f"iled to st"te the f"cts constitutin$ the -u"lif+in$ circu&st"nce of $r"*e "buse of confdence "nd the ele&ent of t")in$ 'ithout the consent of the o'ner, since the owner o the !one" is not the #an$, but the de%ositors therein. .R '"s fled but it '"s "lso denied.ISSUE& 'HETHER OR NOT THE (() INFORMATIONS FOR *UALIFIE+ THEFTSUFFI,IENTL- ALLEGE THE ELEMENT OF TA.ING 'ITHOUT THE ,ONSENT OF THEO'NER, AN+ THE *UALIF-ING ,IR,UMSTAN,E OF GRA/E A#USE OF ,ONFI+EN,E.R/012: 3es. #u"lifed Theft, "s defned "nd punished under Article 410 of the Re*ised %en"l Code, is co&&itted "s follo's,ART. 410.#u"lifed Theft The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectivelyspecifed in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant ,or with grave abuse ofconfdence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconutstaken from the premises of a plantation, fsh taken from a fshpond or fshery or if property is taken on theoccasion of fre, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civildisturbance. (Emphasis supplied.Theft, "s defned in Article 405 of the Re*ised %en"l Code, re-uires the ph+sic"l t")in$ of "nother6s propert+ 'ithout *iolence or inti&id"tion "$"inst persons or force upon thin$s. The ele&ents of the cri&e under this Article "re: 1. ntent to $"in7 !. /nl"'ful t")in$7 4. %erson"l propert+ belon$in$ to "nother7 8. Absence of *iolence or inti&id"tion "$"inst persons or force upon thin$s.To f"ll under the cri&e of #u"lifed Theft, the follo'in$ ele&ents &ust concur: 1. T")in$ of person"l propert+7 !. Th"t the s"id propert+ belon$s to "nother7 4. Th"t the s"id t")in$ be done 'ith intent to $"in7 8. Th"t it be done 'ithout the o'ner6s consent7 9. Th"t it be "cco&plished 'ithout the use of *iolence or inti&id"tion "$"inst persons, nor of force upon thin$s7 6. Th"t it be done 'ith $r"*e "buse of confdence. :n the su;cienc+ of the nfor&"tion, Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court re-uires,inter "li", th"t the infor&"tion &ust st"te the "cts or o&issions co&pl"ined of "s constituti*e of the o )) before the .etropolit"n Tri"l Court(.eTC), (r"nch !9, ."nil" (Cri&in"l C"se 1os. 481895B9@). ,. On March (@, )33A, =RT, #ranch B>The RTC, (r"nch C, ."nil" dis!issed the estaa cases =#oth OF THEM> Reason& Fai21re o the %rosec1tion to %rove the e2e!ents o the cri!e. The :rder dis&issin$ Cri&in"l C"se 1o. @5B@6@@9! cont"ined no decl"r"tion "s to the ci*il li"bilit+ of Tessie S+. :n the other h"nd, the Order in ,ri!ina2 ,ase No. 0?C0@00DE (th"t6s the second cri&in"l c"se) cont"ined " st"te&ent, hence, if there is "n+ li"bilit+ of the "ccused, the s"&e is purel+ ci*il, not cri&in"l in n"ture.E. Fe5r1ar" B, )33D =+is!issa2 o #P)) ,ases>0"ter, the .eTC, (r"nch !9, ."nil", dis&issed, on de&urrer, the #P #24. )) c"ses 4Re"son: The ai21re o %etitioner to identi" the acc1sed res%ondents in o%en co1rt. The Order a2so did not !a$e an" %rono1nce!ent as to the civi2 2ia5i2it" o acc1sed res%ondents.E. A%ri2 )@, )33D, =,o!%2aint or ,o22ection o S1! o Mone"> %etitioner then lod$ed "$"inst respondents before the RTC, (r"nch 15, ."nil", " co&pl"int for collection of " su& of &one+ 'ith d"&"$es (Ci*il C"se 1o. 09B11!89!) 5ased on the sa!e 2oaned a!o1nt o P@33, 333.33 covered 5" the two P#, chec$s %revio1s2" s157ect o the estaa and #P #24. )) cases. F. Fan1ar" ), )33@The RTC, (r"nch 15, ."nil", dis!issed the co!%2aint or 2ac$ o 71risdiction,Reason& That the civi2 action to co22ect the a!o1nt o P@33,333.33 with da!a4es was a2read" i!%2ied2" instit1ted in the #P #24. )) cases in 2i4ht o Section (, %ara4ra%h =5> o R12e ((( o the Revised R12es o ,o1rt. 2. The +enia2 o the Motion For Reconsideration%etitioner fled " &otion for reconsider"tion 'hich the court denied in its :rder d"ted Aune 9, !006. Fence, this petition.Other Law +isc1ssions&1. The rule is th"t upon the flin$ of the est"f" "nd (% (l$. !! c"ses "$"inst respondents, 'here the petitioner h"s not &"de "n+ '"i*er, e?press reser*"tion to liti$"te sep"r"tel+, or h"s not instituted the correspondin$ ci*il "ction to collect the "&ount of %600,000.00 "nd d"&"$es prior to the cri&in"l "ction, the ci*il "ction is dee&ed instituted 'ith the cri&in"l c"seISSUE: Dith the dis&iss"l of the (% (l$. !! c"ses for f"ilure to est"blish the identit+ of the "ccused, the -uestion th"t "rises is 'hether such dis&iss"l 'ould h"*e the s"&e le$"l e1"ture of C"se: This is " Petition or ,ertiorari 1nder R12e @D of the Re*ised Rules of Court Ass"ilin$ the !5 April !006 Eecision "nd !@ Aune !006 Resolution of the ,o1rt o A%%ea2s in CAB2.R. CG(BS% 1o. 00065, 'hich "nnulled "nd set "side the 6 April !008 "nd 40 Au$ust !008 Resolutions of the +e%art!ent o F1stice =+OF> in .S. 1o. 0!B@!40B, entitled The Fon$)on$ "nd Sh"n$h"i ("n)in$ Corpor"tion *. H"therine ("l"n$"u"n, et "l. The t'in resolutions of the E:A ";r&ed, in essence, the Reso21tion o the O8ce o the ,it" Prosec1tor, ,e51 ,it", 'hich dis&issed for l"c) of prob"ble c"use the cri&in"l co&pl"int for Gst"f" "ndIor #u"lifed Gst"f", fled "$"inst petitionerBSpouses (ern+l ("l"n$"u"n ((ern+l) "nd H"therene ("l"n$"u"n (H"therene) b+ respondent Fon$ Hon$ "nd Sh"n$h"i ("n)in$ Corpor"tion, 0td. (FS(C).6F"cts:A. .atherene and Ro4er +wa"ne%etitioner H"therene '"s " &remier "ustomer #ervices /epresentative (&"#/ of respondent b"n), FS(C. As " %CSR, she &"n"$ed the "ccounts of FS(C depositors 'ith %re&ier St"tus. :ne such client "ndIor depositor h"ndled b+ her '"s Ro4er +wa"ne -or$ =-or$>. #. A%ri2 )33) =-or$Hs +e%osit& P).D Mi22ion no trace>3or) &"int"ined se*er"l "ccounts 'ith respondent FS(C. So&eti&e in A%ri2 )33), he 'ent to respondent FS(Cs Cebu (r"nch to transact with %etitioner .atherene res%ectin4 his +o22ar and Peso Acco1nts. %etitioner H"therene 5ein4 on vacation at the ti!e, 3or) '"s "ttended to b+ "nother %CSR. Dhile "t the b"n), 3or) in-uired "bout the st"tus of his ti&e deposit in the "&ount of %!,900,000.00. The %CSR represent"ti*e 'ho "ttended to hi&, ho'e*er, could not fnd "n+ record of s"id pl"ce&ent in the b"n)s d"t" b"se. ,. -or$Hs a22e4ations =) a22e4ations>3or) "d"&"ntl+ insisted,". Th"t throu$h petitioner H"therene, he &"de " pl"ce&ent of the "fore&entioned "&ount in " hi$herBe"rnin$ ti&e deposit. b. Th"t petitioner H"therene e?pl"ined to hi& th"t the "lle$ed hi$herBe"rnin$ ti&e deposit sche&e '"s supposedl+ bein$ o/pon further scrutin+ "nd e?"&in"tion, respondent FS(Cs b"n) personnel disco*ered th"t: (1) on 15 A"nu"r+ !00!, 3or) preBter&in"ted " %1,000,000.00 ti&e deposit7 (!) there 'ere c"sh &o*e&ent tic)ets "nd 'ithdr"'"l slips "ll si$ned b+ 3or) for the "&ount of %1,000,000.007 "nd (4) there 'ere re$ul"r &o*e&ents in 3or)s "ccounts, i.e., be$innin$ in the &onth of A"nu"r+ !00!, &onthl+ deposits in the "&ount of %1!,900.00 "nd %5,444.44 'ere &"de, 'hich 3or) denied e*er &")in$, but sur&ised 'ere the re$ul"r interest e"rnin$s fro& the pl"ce&ent of the %!,900,000.00. +. The Transactions were !ade 1sin4 .atharineHs co!%1ter and on2" .atharine co12d have done the sa!et '"s li)e'ise disco*ered th"t the "bo*eB&entioned deposits 'ere tr"ns"cted usin$ petitioner H"therenes co&puter "nd 'or) st"tion usin$ the code or person"l p"ss'ord CG:5. The si$nifc"nce of code CG:5, "ccordin$ to the b"n) personnel of respondent FS(C, is that, JiKt is on2" Ms. #a2an4a1an who can transact ro! JtheK co!%1ter in the wor$ station ,EOC?, as she is %rovided with a swi%e card which she $ee%s so2e c1stod" o and on2" she can 1se, and which she 1ti2iLes or %1r%oses o %eror!in4 5an$ transactions ro! that co!%1ter.JBK E. A8davits o HS#, Personne2 =One !entionin4 #ern"2 and the Other Mentionin4 .atherene>C("n) personnel of respondent FS(C li)e'ise recounted in their ";d"*its th"t prior to the flin$ of the co&pl"int for est"f" "ndIor -u"lifed est"f", the+ 'ere in cont"ct 'ith petitioners (ern+l "nd H"therene. 1. %etitioner (ern+l supposedl+ &et 'ith the& on t'o occ"sions. At frst he dis"*o'ed "n+ )no'led$e re$"rdin$ the 'here"bouts of 3or)s &one+ but l"ter on "d&itted th"t he )ne' th"t his 'ife in*ested the funds 'ith Shell Co&p"n+. Fe li)e'ise "d&itted th"t he &"de the phone b"n)in$ deposit to credit 3or)s "ccount 'ith the %1!,900.00 "nd the %5,444.44 usin$ their l"ndline telephone. !. Dith respect to petitioner H"therene, she "lle$edl+ spo)e to the b"n) personnel "nd 3or) on se*er"l occ"sions "nd "d&itted th"t the funds 'ere indeed in*ested 'ith Shell Co&p"n+ but th"t 3or) )ne' "bout this. So as not to r1in its na!e and 4oodwi22 a!on4 its c2ients, res%ondent HS#, rei!51rsed -or$ the P),D33,333.33. F. ,ri!ina2 ,o!%2aint or Estaa andIor *1a2i6ed Estaa("sed on the fore$oin$ f"ctu"l circu&st"nces, respondent FS(C, throu$h its personnel, fled " cri&in"l co&pl"int for Gst"f" "ndIor #u"lifed Gst"f" before the :;ce of the Cit+ %rosecutor, Cebu Cit+.2. The ,o1nter A8davit o #ern"2 and .atharine%etitioners (ern+l "nd H"therene sub&itted their ,oint counterB";d"*it b"sic"ll+ den+in$ the "lle$"tions cont"ined in the ";d"*its of the "foren"&ed e&plo+ees of respondent FS(C "s 'ell "s th"t &"de b+ 3or). The+ "r$ued th"t the "lle$"tions in the Co&pl"intBA;d"*its 'ere pure f"bric"tions. %etitioner H"therene denied 1) h"*in$ spo)en on the telephone 'ith E+ "nd 3or)7 "nd !) h"*in$ "d&itted to the personnel of respondent FS(C "nd 3or) th"t she too) the %!,900,000.00 of 3or) "nd in*ested the s"&e 'ith Shell Corpor"tion. %etitioner (ern+l si&il"rl+ denied 1) h"*in$ &et 'ith E+, i$o, Cortes "nd Arcuri7 "nd !) h"*in$ "d&itted to the& th"t 3or) )ne' "bout petitioner H"therenes &o*e of in*estin$ the for&ers &one+ 'ith Shell Corpor"tion.H.Their +eenses Respectin$ the %1!,900.00 "nd %5,444.44 re$ul"r &onthl+ deposits to 3or)s "ccount &"de usin$ the code CG:5, petitioners (ern+l "nd H"therene, in their defense, "r$ued th"t since it '"s " deposit, it '"s her dut+ to "ccept the funds for deposit. As re$"rds 3or)s ti&e deposit 'ith respondent FS(C, petitioners (ern+l "nd H"therene insisted th"t the funds therein 'ere ne*er entrusted to H"therene in the l"tters c"p"cit+ "s %CSR G&plo+ee of the for&er bec"use &onies deposited "t "n+ b"n) 'ould not "nd 'ill not be entrusted to specifc b"n) e&plo+ee but to the b"n) "s " 'hole.Proced1ra2 Fo1rne"& JA,PCSecretar" o the +OFC+OFCMotion or RE,ONC,o1rt o A%%ea2s =@D>C Motion or Recon ,AC S1%re!e ,o1rtK5A. Assistant ,it" Prosec1tor =A,P> /ictor ,. La5orte, Prosec1tor II o the O,P, ,e51 ,it" =)( Fe5r1ar" )33E>There was no %ro5a52e ca1se to hold petitioners (ern+l "nd H"therene li"ble to st"nd tri"l for the cri&in"l co&pl"int of est"f" "ndIor -u"lifed est"f", p"rticul"rl+ Article 419 of the Re*ised %en"l Code. Accordin$l+, the AC% reco&&ended the dis&iss"l of respondent FS(Cs co&pl"int.Re"son: .r. 3or) B("sed on his ";d"*its1B could not h"*e been th"t un'"r+ "nd un)no'in$l+ innocent to cl"i& unf"&ili"rit+ 'ith 'ithdr"'"l slips "nd c"sh &o*e&ent tic)ets 'hich .s. ("l"n$"u"n &"de hi& to si$n on se*er"l occ"sions. Fe is " pre&ier client of FS(C &"int"inin$ "n "ccount in &illions of pesos. A 'ithdr"'"l slip "nd c"sh &o*e&ent tic)ets could not h"*e h"d such intric"te 'ordin$s or ter&inolo$+ so "s to render the& nonBunderst"nd"ble e*en to "n ordin"r+ "ccount holder. .r. 3or) "d&ittedl+ is " lon$Bst"ndin$ client of the b"n). Dithin the period of lon$Bst"ndin$ he cert"inl+ &ust h"*e ece at 6?'9 p.m. with a bulky plastic bag presumably containing cash since a portion of the funds was withdrawn, we do not however dwell on possibilities suspicion and speculation. -e rule based on hard facts and solid evidence..+. HS#,Hs A%%ea2 to ,o1rt o A%%ea2s 5" !eans o a Petition or ,ertiorari 1nder R12e @D o theRevised R12es o ,o1rt.:n !5 April !006, the Court of Appe"ls pro&ul$"ted its Eecision $r"ntin$ respondent FS(Cs petition, there5" ann122in4 and settin4 aside the twin reso21tions o the +OF.E:ect/ 0The &ity )rosecutor of &ebu &ity is hereby 1(23(32 to %le the appropriate Information against the private respondents.E. #ern"2 and .athereneHs Motion or Recon ,o1rt o A%%ea2s =F1ne )0, )33@>+eniedF. S1%re!e ,o1rtIss1e& 'ON ,o1rt o A%%ea2s acted with 4rave a51se o discretion a!o1ntin4 to 2ac$ or e;cess o 71risdiction in settin4 aside the reso21tions o the +OF =oc1s on Pro5a52e ,a1se>No n re*ersin$ "nd settin$ "side the resolutions of the E:A, %etitioners #ern"2 and .atherene contend that the ,o1rt o A%%ea2s acted with 4rave a51se o discretion a!o1ntin4 to 2ac$ or e;cess o 71risdiction.The ,o1rt o A%%ea2s, 'hen it resol*ed to $r"nt the petition in CAB2.R. CG(. S% 1o. 00065, did so on t'o $rounds, i.e., 1) th"t the public respondent (E:A) $r"*el+ "bused his discretion in fndin$ th"t there '"s no re*ersible error on the p"rt of the Cebu Cit+ %rosecutor dis&issin$ the c"se "$"inst the pri*"te respondent 'ithout st"tin$ the f"cts "nd the l"' upon 'hich this conclusion '"s &"de7 "nd !) th"t the public respondent (E:A) &"de reference to the f"cts "nd circu&st"nces of the c"se le"din$ to his fndin$ th"t no prob"ble c"use e?ists, ? ? ? (the) *er+ f"cts "nd circu&st"nces ('hich) sho' th"t there e?ists " prob"ble c"use to belie*e th"t indeed the pri*"te respondents co&&itted the cri&es ? ? ? ch"r$ed"$"inst the&. The ,A e;%2ained that:0In refusing to %le the appropriate information against the private respondents because he does notdwell on possibilities, suspicion and speculation and that he rules based on hard facts and solid evidence,(sic the public respondent exceeded his authority and gravely abused his discretion. ,t must beremembered that a fnding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there issufcient evidence to procure a conviction. ,t is enough that it is believed that the act or omissioncomplained of constitutes the o+ense charged. The term does not mean actual or positive cause@ (sic nordoes it import absolute certainty. ,t is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. -"itation omitted.. !trial is there precisely for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge.10,n this case, the petitioner had amply established that it has a prima facie case against the privaterespondents. !s observed by the public respondent in his second assailed resolution, petitioner wasable to present photographs of private respondent 4s. 'alangauan leaving her ofce carryinga bulky plastic bag. There was also the fact that the transactions in 4r. 5orks account used thecode &316 which presumably point to the private respondent 4s. 'alangauan as the authorthereof for she is the one assigned to such work station.:urthermore, petitioner was able to establish that it was ;s. %alangauan who handled ;r. 5orks accountand she was the one authoriAed to make the placement of the sum of &',677,777.77. #ince said sum isnowhere to be found in the records of the bank, then, apparently, ;s. %alangauan must be made toaccount for the same.1 The "ppell"te court then concluded th"t:0These facts engender a well$founded belief that that 7sic8 a crime has been committed and thatthe private respondents are probably guilty thereof. ,n refusing to fle the correspondinginformation against the private respondents despite the presence of the circumstances making out aprima facie case against them, the public respondent gravely abused his discretion amounting to anevasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal either to perform the duty en*oined or to act at all incontemplation of law.1 %etitioners (ern+l "nd H"therene, ,oined b+ the :;ce of the Solicitor 2ener"l, on the other h"nd, defends the E:A "nd "ssert th"t the -uestioned reso21tion was co!%2ete in that it stated the 2e4a2 5asis or den"in4 res%ondent HS#,s %etition or review that =ater> an e;a!ination =o> the %etition andits attach!ent JitK o1nd no reversi52e error that wo12d 71sti" a reversa2 o the assai2ed reso21tion which is in accord with the 2aw and evidence on the !atter. Is A PI A *1asiCF1dicia2 Proceedin4Gt &ust be re&e&bered th"t " preli&in"r+ in*esti$"tion is not a this Court held th"t " preli&in"r+ in*esti$"tion is not " -u"siB,udici"l proceedin$, thus:+oes the Prosec1tor in a PI +eter!ine the 41i2t or innocence o the Acc1sedG=T>he prosecutor in " preli&in"r+ in*esti$"tion does not deter&ine the $uilt or innocence of the "ccused.Fe does not e?ercise "d,udic"tion nor ruleB&")in$ functions.%reli&in"r+ in*esti$"tion is &erel+ in-uisitori"l, "nd is often the onl+ &e"ns of disco*erin$ the persons 'ho &"+ be re"son"bl+ ch"r$ed 'ith " cri&e "nd to en"ble the fsc"l to prep"re his co&pl"int or infor&"tion.'hat is its %1r%ose thenGt is not " tri"l of the c"se on the &erits "nd h"s no purpose e?cept that o deter!inin4 whether a cri!e has 5een co!!itted and whether there is %ro5a52e ca1se to 5e2ieve that the acc1sed is 41i2t" thereo.Dhile the fsc"l &")es th"t deter&in"tion, he c"nnot be s"id to be "ctin$ "s " -u"siBcourt, for it is the courts, ulti&"tel+, th"t p"ss ,ud$&ent on the "ccused, not the fsc"l. 11Thou$h so&e c"ses describe the public prosecutors po'er to conduct " preli&in"r+ in*esti$"tion "s -u"siB,udici"l in n"ture, this is true onl+ to the e?tent th"t, li)e -u"siB,udici"l bodies, the prosecutor is "n o;cer of the e?ecuti*e dep"rt&ent e?ercisin$ po'ers ")in to those of " court, "nd the si&il"rit+ ends "t this point.=46> A -u"siB,udici"l bod+ is "n or$"n of $o*ern&ent other th"n " court "nd other th"n " le$isl"ture 'hich "