SECOND DIVISION
|
GLAXOSMITHKLINE
PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, - versus - KHALID
MEHMOOD MALIK and MUHAMMAD ATEEQUE, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 166924
Present: PUNO,
J., Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: August
17, 2006 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O
N
GARCIA, J.:
In this
petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHILIPPINES, INC. (Glaxo,
hereafter) seeks to nullify
and set aside the Decision[1]
dated October 28, 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 78646, as reiterated in its Resolution[2]
of January 24, 2005, affirming an
earlier resolution of the Secretary of Justice which dismissed the petition for
review taken by the petitioner in I.S. No. 2002-515 (Crim. Case Nos.
02-0699-0701), a prosecution for violation of Republic Acts (RA) No. 3720 and No.
8230, filed against the herein respondents, Khalid Mehmood Malik and Muhammad
Ateeque, at the instance of the petitioner
and others.
The facts:
Acting on
separate letter-complaints filed by Glaxo and two (2) other pharmaceutical
companies operating in the country, namely, Pfizer Phil., Inc. (Pfizer) and
Roche Phil., Inc. (Roche), to the effect that respondents were illegally
engaged in the sale and distribution of unregistered imported pharmaceutical
drugs at their business establishments in Parañaque
City, namely, the World Traders, Inc. and the Sahar
International Trading Center (SITI), the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
Intellectual Property Rights Division sent NBI agent Rodolfo Ignacio, accompanied
by investigators of the IP Manila Associates, a private investigating firm
hired by Glaxo, Pfizer and Roche, to the respondents’ place of business in Parañaque City. There, respondent Muhammad Ateeque
allegedly showed the members of the covert team samples of the medicines he was
selling. The samples shown allegedly included imported
drugs bearing the brand names of Glaxo, Pfizer and Roche, which the team found to be without the requisite registration
numbers from the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD).
On
After due examination of the
confiscated samples of pharmaceutical products and the drugs allegedly sold by
Malik, petitioner concluded that the same did not conform to Glaxo’s standards.
The next day,
State Prosecutor Isagani Rabe commenced
the preliminary investigation of respondent Ateeque. Upon motion of respondent
Malik that his case be reinvestigated together with that of Ateeque’s, the DOJ consolidated
the preliminary investigation of the complaints against both respondents and
had them docketed as I.S. No. 2002-515.
On
xxx xxx xxx
Consequently,
the affidavits filed by complainant failed to sustain any indictment in the
light of respondents’ evidence. Worse,
it is not consistent with the truth.
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the foregoing charges against
respondents Khalid Mehmood Malik and Muhammad Ateeque are hereby dismissed for
lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioner Glaxo moved for a reconsideration but its motion was denied by the same
State Prosecutor in her subsequent resolution of
From such denial, petitioner and the
other pharmaceutical firms (Pfizer and Roche) went to the Secretary of Justice on separate petitions
for review.
In a Resolution[4] dated
June 17, 2003, the Justice Secretary dismissed Glaxo’s petition, saying:
“We have examined the record and found no
such error committed by the prosecutor that would justify a reversal of the
assailed resolution which is in accord with the law and evidence on the matter.”
In yet a similarly worded Resolution[5]
dated
Obviously displeased, Glaxo went to the
CA on a petition for certiorari in CA-G.R.
SP No. 78646, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the DOJ
Secretary in denying its petition for review of the dismissal resolution, supra, of Senior State Prosecutor Leah
C. Tanodra-Armamento.
As stated at the outset hereof, the CA,
in the herein assailed Decision[6]
dated
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
In time, petitioner moved for
a reconsideration but its motion was denied by the
same court in its Resolution[7] of
Undaunted, petitioner is now with this
Court via the present recourse, raising substantially
the same issue of whether courts may review findings of the prosecutor
on the existence
of probable cause and substitute their own
judgment for
that of the latter in determining sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt.
We DENY.
Well-settled is the rule that the courts
will not interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations or
reinvestigations and leave to the investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude
of discretion in the determination of what constitutes sufficient evidence as
will establish probable cause for the filing of the corresponding complaint or
information against an offender.[8] In fact,
the prosecutor’s findings on the matter are not subject to review by the courts
unless shown to have been made with grave abuse of discretion.[9] And by
it is meant that the power is exercised in an arbitrary, capricious, whimsical or despotic
manner by reason of passion or personal
hostility,
patent and gross enough as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.[10]
Here, we failed to discern such abuse.
For, as found by Senior State Prosecutor Leah C. Tanodra-Armamento in her
dismissal Resolution[11] of
January 14, 2003, which was duly
sustained by the Secretary of Justice in his uniformly worded resolutions of June 17, 2003 and June
25, 2003 which denied the separate petitions for review filed by petitioner Glaxo
and others:
To prove their charge,
complainants presented the certification of their employees (sic) alleging that
the drugs purchased from respondent on
Respondents, to prove
the legitimacy of their business, presented a certification from BFAD that they
are duly licensed drug importer/distributor/wholesaler
at the same time that the alleged purchase was made by the complainants. In addition, respondents presented a
certification of BFAD LICD Chief Atty. Ireneo M. Galicia that Sahar
International Trading, Inc. has no pending violation with BFAD as of
Consequently, the affidavits filed by complaint (sic) failed
to sustain any indictment in the light of respondents’ evidence. Worse, it is not consistent with the truth.
Ateeque
presented his passport and the Bureau of Immigration computer print-out of his
arrival on
By
the nature of
his office, the investigating
prosecutor is under no compulsion to file criminal information where no clear
legal justification has been shown and
where he is
not convinced that he has the quantum of evidence to support the averments.[12] Prosecuting
officers have the duty not to prosecute when, after investigation or
reinvestigation, they are convinced that the evidence
adduced was not sufficient to establish a prima
facie case. This is as it should be.
For, the determination of the persons to be prosecuted rests
primarily with the prosecutor who is vested with discretion
in the discharge of this function.
Hence, the question of whether or not to dismiss a complaint is within
the purview of the functions of the prosecutor and, ultimately, that of the
Secretary of Justice.[13]
Absent, as here, of any clear showing
of arbitrariness, the Court defers to the authority of the prosecuting arm to determine probable cause in a
preliminary investigation and shall give
credence to its findings and determination.
For
sure, the Court is consistent in its view that the determination of whether
there is reasonable
ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and should
be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial is an executive
function exclusively of the prosecutor.[14]
IN VIEW WHEREOF,
the instant petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
(OFFICIAL LEAVE)
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
A
T T E S T A T I O N
I attest
that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by
Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., with Associate Justices
[2] Rollo, p. 71.
[3] Rollo, pp. 225-230.
[4] Rollo, pp. 300-301.
[5] Rollo, pp. 302-303.
[6] Supra note 1.
[7] Supra note 2.
[8]
Rosalinda Punzalan, Randall Punzalan and Rainier Punzalan vs. Dencio
Dela Peña and Robert Cagara,
G.R. No. 158543, July 21, 2004, 434 SCRA 601.
[9]
Cabahug vs. People, G.R. No. 132816,
[10] Baylon
vs. Office of the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 142738,
[11]
Supra note 3.
[12]
Tam Wing vs. Makasiar, G.R. No. 122452,
[13] Supra
note 1.
[14] Sistoza vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 144784,