2025 Bar Chair's Cases Bar Q and A Remedial Law - Q3

Zenaida Silver, operating under "ZSH Commercial," participated in a public auction conducted by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) and was declared the winning bidder for several imported vehicles. The purchase was supposed to be financed by a loan from Loreto Hao, as agreed upon in a Memorandum of Agreement, which included a deed of sale in favor of Loreto. However, Loreto did not release the loan proceeds to Silver. Instead, Loreto directly paid the BOC for the auctioned vehicles.

Despite this, the BOC released the vehicles to Silver’s company. Subsequently, Silver allowed the vehicles to be stored at the Honasan Compound in Davao City and authorized Loreto’s nephew, Kenneth Hao, to access the premises to facilitate the sale of the vehicles. Later, Silver discovered that several vehicles were allegedly sold by Kenneth without her knowledge and that some units were registered under the names of third parties by Loreto and Kenneth. Feeling aggrieved, Silver revoked the special power of attorney previously issued to Kenneth and filed criminal complaints against Loreto and Kenneth for grave coercion, qualified theft, and violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act (RA 6539).

The Office of the City Prosecutor dismissed the complaints, but the Department of Justice (DOJ), upon review, reversed the dismissal and directed the filing of charges. Consequently, the trial court found probable cause and issued warrants of arrest against Silver and SPO4 Nelson Salcedo, who was allegedly involved in transporting the vehicles. The Court of Appeals sustained the trial court’s issuance of warrants, ruling that there was sufficient basis for finding probable cause for violation of RA 6539, considering that the vehicles were already registered in the names of private respondents.

Did the Court of Appeals err in sustaining the trial court's finding of probable cause against Silver & et. al. for violation of RA 6539?

Ans:

No, the CA did not err in sustaining the trial courts finding of prabable cause against Silver & et. al for violation of RA 6539 because the Court does not review the factual findings of the trial court, including the determination of probable cause for issuance of a warrant of arrest.

Under the provision of criminal procedure, probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest pertains to facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.

Here, If the trial court decides to issue a warrant of arrest, such warrant must have been issued after compliance with the requirement that probable cause be personally determined by the judge. At this stage, the judge is tasked to merely determine the probability, not the certainty of guilt of the accused. Hence, the CA did not err in sustaining the trial courts findings of probable cause.