ANLUD METAL RECYCLING CORPORATION VS.

JOAQUIN ANGThe
Case:
Anlud Metal Recycling Corporation was awarded the exclusive contractto
purchase aluminium and tin-based scrap melts from San MiguelPackaging
Products-Metal Closures itography Plant for the period !"March !""# to
#$ %anuary !""&' (owever) it discovered that one ofSMC-MCP*e employee)
Conrado Alday allowed +enita ,ela Cru) whopretended to be an agent of the
petitioner) to load scrap metals intotwo trucks owned by respondent
%oa.uin Ang' /ortunately) the twotrucks were not able to leave the
compound' Anlud then filed acomplaint for Attempted 0stafa through
falsification ofcommercial'private document against Alday) ,ela Cru)
the twodrivers) and the respondent' After preliminary investigation) the
publicprosecutor filed an 1nformation against them) including
therespondent' After the court issued a warrant for his arrest) therespondent
filed a Petition for Reinvestigation before the 2ffice of theCity Prosecutor)
and a Motion to Suspend Proceedings before the R3C'3he latter denied the
motion filed by Ang) holding that there was areasonable ground to engender
a well-founded belief that he may beliable for estafa' 3he 2ffice of the City
Prosecutor) however) afterreinvestigation) dismissed the case against
Ang' Aggrieved) Anlud fileda Petition for Review before the ,2%) which
reversed the 2ffice of theCity Prosecutor*s resolution' A Second Amended
1nformation was thusfiled against Ang' 3o assail the filing of this Second
Amended1nformation) %oa.uin filed an 2mnibus Motion to ,etermine
ProbableCause and to ,efer 1ssuance of 4arrant of Arrest 5ntil
,eterminationof Probable Cause 1s Completed 62mnibus
Motion7' After petitionerfiled its comment) the R3C ruled in favour of
%oa.uin Ang' 1t explainedthat mere ownership of the trucks did not make
respondent a co-conspirator for
estafa
' /or conspiracy to be appreciated against Ang)the trial court re.uired proof
showing that he knew of the crime)consented to its commission) or
performed any of its elements' 4henits motions for reconsideration and
inhibition were both denied by theR3C) Anlud sough relief with the Court of
Appeals) without theparticipation of the 2ffice of the Solicitor 8eneral' 3he
CA) howeverdismissed the petition for certiorari' 1t ruled that the R3C
conducted anindependent evaluation of the case) and the R3C*s failure to
notify theprivate prosecutor) even though the public prosecutor was notified) wasa
matter for the R3C to consider in his sound discretion' Aggrieved)Anlud
sought recourse with the Supreme Court to assail the CA ruling'
Issue:
4hether or not the R3C had no 9urisdiction to determine
probablecause:4hether or the R3C abused its discretion when it
entertainedrespondent*s 2mnibus Motion for determination of probable
causedespite a defective +otice of (earing: and4hether or not the R3C erred
in dismissing the chargeof
estafa
 against Ang
The Ruling:
Petitioner has no personality to appeal the dismissal of thecriminal case for
estafa before this Court.
;efore the Court proceeds with the substantive issues in this case)
theprocedural issue of petitioner*s personality to appeal the dismissal ofthe
criminal case merits preliminary attention'Petitioner argues that since theCA
has already ruled upon this issue)without respondent filing a partial appeal)
then the latter has alreadylost its right to .uestion the standing of Anlud
Metal RecyclingCorporation' 3his argument is unmeritorious' 1n the past) the
Courthas
motu proprio
ascertained the standing of a private offended partyto appeal the dismissal
of a criminal case'
1
 
1n any event) respondent cannot be considered to have waived itsargument
regarding the personality of petitioner to file the instantappeal' 1n his
Comment) respondent cites
Republic v. Partisala
2
 andasserts that petitioner has no right to appeal the dismissal of thecriminal
case absent the participation of the 2S8' 1n its Reply)petitioner responds
by .uoting the ruling of the CA)
viz 
<
3
 
As argued by petitioner) citing the case of
Perez v. Hagonoy RuralBan! "nc 
') the petitioner) as private complainant) has legalpersonality to impugn the
dismissal of the criminal case against theprivate respondent under Rule =>'
As private offended party) thepetitioner has an interest in the civil aspect
of the case: thus) it mayfile a special civil action for certiorari and prosecute
the same in its ownname without making the People of the Philippines a
party' 4hile it isonly the Solicitor 8eneral who may bring or defend actions in
behalf ofthe Republic of the Philippines) or represent the People or State
incriminal proceedings pending in the Supreme Court and the Court
ofAppeals) the private offended party retains the right to bring a specialcivil
action for certiorari in his own name in criminal proceedings beforethe courts
of law'+otably) both positions taken by the parties are supported
by 9urisprudence' 1t is then proper for this Court to clarify the standing ofa
private offended party ? in this case) petitioner ? to appeal thedismissal of
the criminal case against the accused) who in this case isrespondent'3he real
party in interest in a criminal case is the People of thePhilippines' (ence) if
the criminal case is dismissed by the trial court)