Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
_____ Division

CARLA FAYE P. PANGILINAN,

Petitioner,
GR NO. ____________
-versus-

HON. VERONICA B. TONGIO-IGOT,

Presiding Judge of the REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT for Mandaluyong,
Branch 278, and the People of the
Philippines,
Respondents.
X----------------------------------------------X

PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

(Under Rule 65)

PETITIONER CARLA FAYE P. PANGILINAN (Petitioner for

brevity), through the undersigned counsels, unto this Honorable
Court, most respectfully avers that:

I. NATURE OF THE PETITION

1. This is a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules

of Civil Procedure assailing the resolutions of the Hon.
VERONICA B. TONGIO-IGOT (Hon. Tongio-Igot), Acting
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court for Mandaluyong,
Branch 278 dated June 20, 2022 and August 2, 2022 denying
the Motion to Quash filed by herein Petitioner.

II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

2. On June 20, 2022, the Regional Trial Court, through Presiding

Judge Hon. Veronica B. Tongio-Igot, rendered the assailed
Order, a copy of which was received by the petitioner on July 1,
2022. A certified true copy of the Order is attached hereto as
Annex "A".

3. On July 11, 2022, Petitioner filed his Motion for

Reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC in its Order
dated August 2, 2022, a copy of which was received on August
3, 2022, thus giving the petitioner sixty (60) days or until
October 2, 2022 within which to file a Petition for Certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. A certified true copy of the
Page 1 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
 Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration is attached
hereto as Annex "B".

4. Hence, this petition is being filed within the reglementary

period.

III. PARTIES TO THE CASE

5. Petitioner CARLA FAYE P. PANGILINAN, of legal age, and

presently incarcerated at the Bureau of Jail Management and
Penology Mandaluyong City, is represented by the undersigned
counsels with office address indicated below where notices and
other processes of this Honorable Court may be served.

6. Respondent, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, is represented

by the Office of the Solicitor General, with office address at 134
Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City, where it may be
served with summons and other processes.

7. Public respondent HON.VERONICA B. TONGIO-IGOT is the

Acting Presiding Judge of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF
MANDALUYONG CITY, BRANCH 278 (RTC). He may be
served with notices and processes of this Honorable Court at
the Mandaluyong City Hall of Justice. Pursuant to Section 5,
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, it shall be the duty of the private
respondent to appear and defend both in its behalf and on
behalf of the public respondent.

IV. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

8. Sometime in 2004, Petitioner applied and was employed as an

encoder of Respondent Petron on contractual basis. She was
assigned at Petron's Receivables Department.

9. In 2005, she was transferred to a third-party service provider-

Cards Ayala System as part of the back-end office support for
Complainant's Fleet Card.

10. In 2009, Petitioner became part of PETRON CUSTOMER

INTERACTION CENTER (PCIC) that serves as the call center
of Respondent Petron which take note and encode product
orders and/ or consumer complaints.

11. In 2011, again, she was transferred to the CARDS BUSINESS

GROUP (CBG) as Administrative Assistant. Part of her duty is
to assist in processing the affairs of CBG Manager under the
latter's directive.

Page 2 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
12. On February 1, 2015, Petitioner was assigned to hold the
position of Area Sales Executive (ASE)under the Cards
Business Group. Based on the job description for the given
position, her primary function together with my duties and
responsibilities are as follows:

Primary Function

 Jobholder is responsible for selling the fleet card

products to target clients.

Duties and Responsibilities

 Identifies prospective customers who may or may

not have an existing relationship with Petron or with
competitors

 Prepares Fleet Card proposal to target customers;

 Submits necessary documents to Fleet Card Unit for

applications processing;

 Upon closing of deal, manages the account and

communicates all concerns to the Sales Head (CBG
ASM);

 Coordinates with Fleet Manager assigned by

customer for various requirements such as additional
cards, fleet reports, payment details, etc. informs
Card Assistant for other technical requirements;

 Support Credit and Collection in its collection

function;

 Visits customers on a regular basis to gather

feedback about the program;

 Identifies areas for improvement based on

information gathered from customers; and

 Establishes a reliable network infrastructure to get

information about the competitive market.

13. As CBG-ASE, Petitioner is duty bound to identify prospective

clients who may be interested and qualified to be accredited as
Petron's Fleet Card Account. It was also her duty to give
Page 3 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
 assistance concerning client's application and to the needed
documentary requirements.

14. Likewise, part of her duty to manage the account of every

customer she has and communicate all matters involving
thereto to her superiors.

15. To mention, MR. VIRGILIO CENTENO (MR. CENTENO) was

her former CBG Manager. MR. CENTENO introduced to
Petitioner a certain MS. EVARITA DE LEON (MS. DE LEON), a
Service Station Dealer in Tarlac who used to serve MDMA
Trading's fuel requirements.

16. MDMA Trading (MDMA) is sole proprietorship company owned

by MS. DESIREE R. SALUDO (Ms. Saludo), which is engaged
in freight forwarding services to manufacturing and shipping
companies, with business address at 9h Floor Quad Alpha
Centrum, 125 Pioneer Street, Mandaluyong City. The said
company is registered before the Department of Trade and
Industry. Copy of document to prove the same is attached
herewith as Annex “C".

17. Petitioner came to know Ms. Saludo when she was introduced
to her by Ms. De Leon. Being a CBG ASE and for the sole
purpose of increasing the CBG's Sales Accomplishment, the
former considered Ms. Saludo as one of the prospective
customers under Petron's Fleet Card System.

18. Similar to what Petitioner did to every target client, she offered
Ms. Saludo to avail the Petron Fleet Card product for her
MDMA's fuel and lube requirements.

19. Since Ms. Saludo decided to avail the said offer, Petitioner
assisted her in the application for accreditation of MDMA as
Fleet Card Account. As part of the process, Ms. Saludo formally
submitted MDMA Trading's Fleet Card Application Form on
June 7, 2017. Ms. Saludo also submitted a copy of the MDMA
Business Profile.

20. Along with the said Fleet Card Application, Petitioner also
assisted Ms. Saludo regarding MDMA's Credit Line Application
for Four Million Pesos (Php4,000,000.00).

21. A temporary credit line for Ms. Saludo was approved for a
period of three (3) months from June 1, 2017 to August 31,
2017. Copy of the email thread showing preparation,

Page 4 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
 endorsement and approval by the proper department is
attached herewith as Annex "D".

22. Eventually, after considering the said Fleet Card Application

and Credit Card Application together with the documentary
requirements, both were approved by the approving
authority of Petron. It should be emphasized that Petitioner
Pangilinan merely assisted Ms. Saludo in her Fleet Card and
Credit Line Application while accused Ma. Kristine Joy C. Lim
merely endorsed her application to the proper offices, but the
approval itself came from Petron’s approving authority.
Upon approval of the said applications, Ms. Saludo started to
purchase fuel products of the Complainant on credit.

23. As per detailed audited report attached to the Complaint-

Affidavit (attached herewith as Annex “E”), from June 2017 to
October 2017, Ms. Saludo made early payments for the
purchased products. However, in November 2017, Ms. Saludo
started to incur unpaid purchases.

24. Sometime in March 2018, Petitioner was surprised due to the

improper actions made upon her by the officers of Respondent
Petron. Without proper observation as to her right to due
process, her superior, CBG Manager ABADA, barred her from
performing her usual sales route and required her to turn over
her sales activities.

25. The highlight of these improper acts against her happened on

March 5, 2018 when AVP ROMELL REMULA called her for a
meeting even when Petitioner was on sick leave. Thereupon,
without the benefit of a counsel, she was investigated,
threatened, and humiliated.

26. Due to the foregoing circumstances, on March 19, 2018,

Petitioner had no choice but to tender her resignation letter.
Copy of her letter is attached herewith as Annex “F".

27. Since Petitioner’s act of resigning from work was not voluntary,
but instead, caused only by the improper acts made against her
by PETRON's personnel and officers, she went to the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to request for assistance
concerning her grievances against PETRON CORPORATION
as her employer. Copy of the request for assistance issued by
NLRC, through the designated SEnA Desk Officer is attached
herewith as Annex “G".

Page 5 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
28. To Petitioner’s surprise, on September 10, 2018, she came to
know that a Subpoena was issued by this Office of the City
Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City regarding the Complaint for
Qualified Theft filed by PETRON CORPORATION through its
representative, LUBIN B. NEPOMUCENO against ten (10)
individuals, including herein Petitioner. A copy of the Criminal
Complaint filed by Petron through Mr. Nepomuceno is hereto
attached as Annex “H”. Petitioner, in response, filed her
Counter-Affidavit on October 1, 2018 and her Rejoinder-
Affidavit on December 3, 2018. A copy of the Petitioners
Counter-Affidavit and Rejoinder are hereto attached as Annex
“I” and Annex “J” respectively.

29. Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong initially found

probable cause to charge herein Petitioner with the crime of
Qualified Theft. A copy of the Resolution of the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong dated ___ is hereto attached
as Annex “K”. However, when the Petitioner, through the
undersigned counsels, filed a Petition for Review with the
Department of Justice, the latter found no probable cause to
indict the Petitioner as the case merely involves a breach of
contractual obligation which does not necessarily constitute a
criminal offense. A copy of the Petitioner’s Petition for Review is
hereto attached as Annex “L” while a copy of the Resolution of
the Department of Justice dated April 16, 2021 is hereto
attached as Annex “M”.

30. With the said findings of the Department of Justice, the

Decision of the Office of the City Prosecutor was ordered
Reversed and Set-Aside and the latter was directed to file the
necessary motion to withdraw information filed against herein
Petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong,
Branch 278. A copy of the Motion to Withdraw Information is
hereto attached as Annex “N”. Unfortunately, the motion to
withdraw information against the Petitioner was denied by the
Trial Court. A copy of the trial court’s Order denying the Motion
to Withdraw Information is hereto attached as Annex “O”.

31. Meanwhile, Ms. Saludo filed Petition for Certiorari assailing the
Trial Court’s denial of her demurrer to evidence. The Court of
Appeals in granting the said petition, made a similar finding with
the Department of Justice that the case filed by PETRON
merely involves a contractual breach which is only civil in
nature. Consequently, the criminal case against Ms. Saludo
was dismissed. A copy of the resolution of the Court of Appeals
on the Petition for Certiorari filed Ms. Saludo is hereto attached
as Annex “P”.

Page 6 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
32. On March 18, 2022, Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a
warrant of arrest issued by RTC Branch 278. Petitioner through
the undersigned counsels immediately filed a Motion to Quash
the information and prayed for the dismissal of the criminal case
against her. A copy of the Motion to Quash is hereto attached
as Annex “Q”.

33. The trial court, in an Order dated June 20, 2022 denied
Petitioner’s Motion to Quash. Thereafter, Petitioner through
counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration assailing the denial
of the Motion to Quash but the same was also denied the trial
court in its Order dated August 2, 2022. Hence, this Petition for
Certiorari.
TABLE OF ANNEXES

ANNEX DESCRIPTION
“A” Certified True Copy of the Order dated
June 20, 2022
“B” Certified True Copy of the Order dated
August 2, 2022
“C” Copy of Certificate of Registration with the
Department of Trade and Industry of
MDMA Trading
“D” Email thread showing preparation,
endorsement and approval by the proper
department of the temporary credit line for
Ms. Saludo from June 1, 2017 to August
31, 2017
“E” Detailed audited report from June 2017 to
October 2017
“F” Resignation letter of Carla Faye
Pangilinan dated March 19, 2018
“G” Request for assistance issued by NLRC,
through the designated SEnA Desk Officer
“H” Copy of the Criminal Complaint filed by
Petron through Mr. Lubin Nepomuceno
against the Petitioner and the other
accused
“I” A copy of the Petitioners Counter-Affidavit
“J” A copy of the Petitioners Rejoinder
“K” Copy of the Resolution of the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong on the
Complaint filed against Petitioner and the
other accused
“L” Copy of the Petitioner’s Petition for
Review

Page 7 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
 “M” Copy of the Resolution of the Department
of Justice dated April 16, 2021
“N” Copy of the Motion to Withdraw
Information filed by the Office of the City
Prosecutor
“O” Copy of the trial court’s Order denying the
Motion to withdraw Information
“P” Copy of the resolution of the Court of
Appeals on the Petition for Certiorari filed
Ms. Saludo
“Q” Copy of the Motion to Quash filed by the
Petitioner

GROUNDS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF THE PETITION

34. Public Respondent Hon. Veronica B. Tongio-Igot, Acting

Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court for Mandaluyong
Branch 278, committed grave abuse of discretion in the denying
Petitioner’s Motion to Quash despite the fact that the
information failed to allege clearly and accurately the acts or
omission complained of as constituting the offense and despite
the apparent lack of jurisdiction of the trial court on the case
being only civil in nature.

35. The assailed Orders being interlocutory in nature,

petitioner has no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
the ordinary course of the law. "Under Section 1 (c) of Rule 41
of the Rules of Court, no appeal may be taken from an
interlocutory order. An interlocutory order is one that does not
dispose of the case completely but leaves something to be
decided upon. xxx xxx xxx Instead, the proper remedy is to file
a Petition for Certiorari and/or Prohibition under Rule 65.” 1

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

I.
Public Respondent committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in denying Petitioner’s Motion to
Quash despite the fact that the information
failed to allege clearly and accurately the acts or
omission complained of as constituting the
offense.

1
Australian Professional Realty, Inc., et al. versus Municipality of Padre Garcia Batangas
Province, G.R. No. 183367, 14 March 2012.

Page 8 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
 II.
Public Respondent committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in denying Petitioner’s Motion to
Quash despite its apparent lack of jurisdiction
over the case being only civil in nature.

ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSIONS

The information failed to

allege clearly and accurately
the acts or omission
complained of as constituting
the offense.

36. Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure

provides that for a complaint or information to be sufficient, it
must among others, states the acts or omissions complained of
as constituting the offense.

37. The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Us vs.

Pompeya2, that “the complaint, in a criminal case, must state
every fact necessary to make out an offense. The complaint
must show, on its face that, if the facts alleged are true, an
offense has been committed. It must state explicitly and directly
every fact and circumstance necessary to constitute an offense.
Xxx

38. While not explicitly enumerated under the Rules of Court,

the constitutionally enshrined right of the accused to be
informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him is
the basic premised of some, if not all, of the grounds to quash
an Information under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court,
as amended.

39. In the instant case, the information failed to allege clearly

and accurately the acts or omission complained of as
constituting the offense. The said information charging the ten
(10) accused, including Petitioner Pangilinan, with the crime of
qualified theft is laid down as follows:

That on or about the period covering June 2017 to

January 2018, in the City of Mandaluyong,
Philippines a place within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with
2
August 6, 1915; G.R. No. L-10255; 31 Phil 245

Page 9 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
 grave abuse of confidence, knowing fully well the
policies, procedures, process regarding the sale,
withdrawal and delivery of fuel and lube products
of PETRON CORPORATION (Represented by
Lubin B. Nepomuceno) as well as its programs,
conspiring and confederating together and
mutually helping one another, with intent to gain,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously take, steal, and carry away, fuel and
lube products in the aggregate value of
Php841,000,000.00 belonging to PETRON
CORPORATIN by facilitating the unauthorized
withdrawal and delivery of fuel and lube products
to accused Desiree Saludo y Reales operating
under the business name “MDMA Trading” which
actually obtained, received and secured the same
without the knowledge and consent, and to the
damage and prejudice of PETRON
CORPORATION in the aforesaid amount of
Php841,000,000.00

40. A plain reading of the above cited information, readily

shows that the facts stated therein do not constitute the offense
charged as it fails to state the essential facts and
circumstance that would constitute violation of the law. On
the other hand, the facts recited therein merely involve a
sweeping statement.

41. It is respectfully submitted that the information must state

accurately the alleged acts of each accused as the law alleged
to be violated by the accused has defined the specific acts
punishable and provides for their corresponding penalties. To
allow general narration of facts would constitute violation to the
right of the accused to be informed of the true nature and cause
of the accusation against them. In this case however, the
information fails to specify in particular the act/s or
omission/s constituting the offense charged.

42. A criminal complaint or information must state

every single fact necessary to constitute the offense charged,
otherwise, the information or complaint may be quashed on the
ground that it charges no offense. When an accused files a
motion to quash information on this ground, he thereby
hypothetically admits the truth of the averments therein. This
however, does not mean that the accused admits any of the
allegation in the information or complaint.

Page 10 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
 43. The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Go vs.
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas3 likewise ruled that:

Under the Constitution, a person who stands charged

of a criminal offense has the right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him. The
Rules of Court, in implementing the right, specifically
require that the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense, including the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances, must be stated in ordinary
and concise language, not necessarily in the language
used in the statute, but in terms sufficient to enable a
person of common understanding to know what
offense is being charged and the attendant qualifying
and aggravating circumstances present, so that the
accused can properly defend himself and the court can
pronounce judgment. To broaden the scope of the
right, the Rules authorize the quashal, upon motion of
the accused, of an Information that fails to allege the
acts constituting the offense.

The Trial Court has no

jurisdiction over the case as
the alleged cause of action is
merely civil in nature and not
criminal.

44. Undeniably, MDMA through Ms. Saludo was able to make

payments in the aggregate amount of Six Hundred Fifty-Four
Million Six Hundred Forty-Five Thousand One Hundred Forty-
Seven and 70/100 Pesos (P654,645,147.70) representing over
77% of the total fuel and other lube products purchase.
Likewise, Petron admitted that MDMA had already made
payments for almost more than Six Hundred Million Pesos
(Php600,000,000.00) and thereby leaving the unpaid balance of
Two Hundred Eighteen Million Nine Hundred Forty-Nine
Thousand, Forty-Seven Pesos and 87/100 Pesos (Php218,
949, 047.87).

45. It must be taken into account that Petron itself considered the
sums of money it sought to collect from Accused Saludo as her
partial discharge of an outstanding obligation to pay for the
products purchased.

46. This only shows that MDMA’s unpaid balance (of Php218,
949,047.87) was truly incurred in the ordinary conduct of

3
G.R. NO. 178429, October 23, 2009

Page 11 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
 legitimate business between complainant and MDMA and is in
no way incurred by any means of fraud or deceit. This finding
becomes all the more plausible considering that most, if not all,
of the purchases made by Accused Saludo's MDMA was done
using some mechanism which is normally made available to
qualified customers of Petron Corporation, i.e., purchase of fuel
and other lube products through the fleet card system.
Therefore, the instant case should be dismissed as the
proper action should have been a civil case against Ms.
Saludo’s MDMA Trading.

47. To quote the pertinent portion of the Resolution of the

Department of Justice on the petitions for review filed by the
Petitioner and her co-accused, the Honorable Office states:

When a business deal has gone south, it does not

mean that one of the parties had all along been
animated by some sinister intent. Success in
business is never guaranteed. A failed business
venture does not a criminal make. This Office finds
no basis for the investigating prosecutor's conclusion
that “xxx the unlawful taking has been consummated
at the inception and upon every unauthorized
withdrawal of Petron fuel and lube products xxx".
What this Office finds in the present complaint is
nothing more than an obligation that is clearly
civil in nature.
xxx

To reiterate, respondent-appellant Saludo's

failure to settle in full her purchases from
complainant-appellee of fuel and other lube
products gives rise to a liability that is merely
civil in nature and may be enforced through the
institution of the appropriate civil action.
(Emphasis Supplied)

48. Likewise, in granting the Petition for Certiorari filed by Ms.

Saludo assailing the trial court’s denial of her demurrer to
evidence, the Court of Appeals pointed out that Complainant
Petron voluntarily delivered the products to Saludo by virtue of
perfected contract of sale.

49. It is clear that in a contract of sale, the ownership of the

thing sold is transferred to the vendee from the time it is
delivered to the latter in any of the ways stated under the New
Civil Code, or in any other means showing an agreement that

Page 12 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
 the possession is transferred from the vendor to the vendee.
This bolsters the fact that there was really no unlawful taking in
this case but a mere perfected contract of sale. Hence, the
cause of action involved in this case is not criminal but civil in
nature.

50. Considering the above, it logically follows that the trial

court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the case.

51. Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is the power to hear

and determine cases of the general class to which the
proceedings in question belong (C. J. S. p. 36) and is conferred
by the sovereign authority which organizes the court and
defines the court and defines its powers (Banco Español
Filipino vs. Palanca, 37 Phil., 921; Perkins vs. Dizon, 40 Off
Gaz., No. 7, 3rd Sup., p., 216; Ng Si Chok vs. Vera, G. R. No.
45674).

52. It is settled that jurisdiction of courts over the subject

matter of the litigation is conferred by law and determined by
the allegations in the complainant. 4

53. The above discussion readily shows that the allegations

in the complaint-affidavit filed by the Petron, even when
hypothetically admitted, do not constitute a criminal offense but
only presents, at the very least, a cause of action that is only
civil in nature.

54. The trial court, which acts in this instance as trier of

criminal cases, cannot automatically acquire jurisdiction over a
case which presents a controversy that is only civil in nature
notwithstanding the fact that the case was filed under the guise
of a criminal complaint or information.

55. It is worthy to mention that it is not only the Department of

Justice who recognize the civil nature of the case at bar in its
Resolution granting the Petition for Review in favor of the
Petitioner, but even the Court of Appeals, in ruling on the
Petition for Certiorari in favor of Ms. Saludo, arrived at the same
conclusion.

56. Thus, the Public Respondent cannot turn a blind eye to its
apparent lack of jurisdiction over the instant case and continue
to hear the same to the prejudice of the Petitioner.

4
Pablo B. Malabanan, V. Republic of The Philippines, G.R. No. 201821, September 19, 2018 -

Page 13 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
 57. Evidently, the Public Respondent’s denial of the Motion to
Quash, despite its lack of jurisdiction over the instant case is
tantamount to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.

Petitioner Pangilinan's limited

capacity as a former employee
of Petron makes it impossible
for her to contribute to the
alleged crime.

58. Petitioner’s limited actions were all based on Petron’s clear-

cut and established company policies, guidelines, rules,
regulations and procedures.

59. As CBG-ASE, Petitioner was mandated to look for prospective

clients for the Petron’s Fleet Card Account and give the latter
assistance concerning client’s application and to the needed
documentary requirements but the approval and scrutiny of the
Application rests solely with the Petron’s management
discretion.

60. Petitioner was merely performing her functions and she has no
power to approve the said application and/or to convince of
affect the judgment call of her supervisors on the approval of
the applications she filed. Such in this case, Petitioner
Pangilinan merely performed her job under the direct control
and supervision of her former CBG Manager, Mr. Virgilio
Centeno by way of an introduction to Ms. Evarita De Leon, who
used to serve MDMA Trading (MDMA).

61. As part of her due diligence and compliance with Petron’s

standard of application, Petitioner performed her functions all
in good faith and reviewed all the documentary requirements
submitted to her for the application and availment of Petron’s
Fleet Card System, to wit:

a.) MDMA is an entity duly organized and existing

under the laws of the Republic of the
Philippines. It was registered before the
Department of Trade and Industry; and

b.) MDMA is a sole proprietorship owned by Ms.

Desiree R. Saludo (Ms. Saludo). MDMA is
engaged in freight forwarding services to
manufacturing and shipping companies and
with business address at 9th Floor Quad Alpha

Page 14 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
 Centrum, 125 Pioneer Street, Mandaluyong
City.

62. Petitioner then assisted Ms. Saludo in the documentation for

submission to her supervisor for the latter’s approval. It must
be taken into account that upon Petron’s approval of Saludo’s
application, they granted a temporary credit line. Thereafter,
the said Fleet Card Application and Credit Card Application
together with the documentary requirements, both were
approved by the approving authority of the Petron.

63. Petitioner Pangilinan only solicited MDMA as a Fleet Card

customer and such Petron Fleet Card account as that of a
“Petron customer” who sources fuel requirements for its/ his/
her group or “fleet” of motor vehicles directly from Petron
Services Stations/ Dealers through the use of a Fleet Card
which is an actual plastic card.

64. With regard to the deliveries of Petron fuel and lube products
on credit to MDMA, these were authorized by the Petron and
were made in accordance with the company policies,
guidelines, and procedures.

65. The alleged unauthorized bulk deliveries of Petron fuel and

lube products on credit to Ms. Saludo’s MDMA Trading under
the Petron Fleet Card System and unpaid accountabilities are
beyond the control and responsibility of Petitioner Pangilinan,
being merely an Area Sales Executive (CBG-ASE) under the
Cards Business Group. These alleged anomalous
transactions involving MDMA undergone company procedure
and were designated to the complainant’s respective
departments to conduct checking or evaluation. Hence, if
there is anyone to be accused for these irregularities, it is the
Petron’s respective Departments.

The Resolution dated 16 April

2021 of the Secretary of the
Department of Justice
reversed the 16 January 2019
Resolution of the Office of the
City Prosecutor of
Mandaluyong City and
directed the withdrawal of the
subject Information.

66. In the Resolution promulgated on 16 April 2021 by the

Secretary of the Department of Justice, resolving the Petition

Page 15 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
 for Review assailing the Resolution dated January 16, 2019 of
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong finding
probable cause to indict the Petitioner for Qualified Theft under
Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the Secretary of
Justice found no probable cause to indict them of the said
offense, the dispositive portion of which reads:

67. After careful evaluation of the records, the Office of the

Secretary of Justice found that the unlawful taking of the
Petron’s personal property with grave abuse of
discretion, which is the gravamen of the crime of qualified
theft has not been established in the present case. A
pertinent portion of the said Resolution reads:

Page 16 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
 68. With the reversal and setting aside of the Resolution dated 16
January 2019 due to lack of merit, the Secretary of Justice
directed the Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong to
file the necessary motion to withdraw the information filed in
connection with the instant case. Consequently, the Office of
the City Prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw information
dated July 5, 2021. It is the humble submission of the
undersigned that this Honorable Court should order the
dismissal of the case filed against the Accused Pangilinan on
the basis of the findings of the Secretary of Justice that no
probable cause exists to charge the Accused with the above-
cited crime.

The Court of Appeals, in

resolving the Petition for
Certiorari filed by DESIREE
SALUDO y RUALES, held that
there is no unlawful taking with
intent to gain in the instant
case, hence not all the elements
of the crime of qualified theft
are present

69. It is worth noting that one of the accused in the instant case,
DESIREE SALUDO y RUALES, filed a motion for demurrer to
evidence which was denied by the trial a court. Aggrieved by
the said ruling, Accused Saludo filed a Petition for Certiorari
before the Court of Appeals to assail the decision of the
Regional Trial Court.

70. The Court of Appeals, in order to rectify the RTC’s grave

abuse of discretion in denying the demurrer to evidence,
granted the Petition for Certiorari and ordered the dismissal
of the criminal case against Accused Saludo. The dispositive
portion of the Court of Appeal’s decision reads as follows:

Page 17 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
71. In granting the Petition for Certiorari, the Court of Appeals
pointed out that Complainant Petron voluntarily delivered
the products to Saludo by virtue of perfected contract of
sale. Pertinent portion of the Court of Appeals’ Decision
states:

72. A perusal of the evidence on record submitted by the

complainant would also show that Petron made subsequent
efforts to collect money from Saludo specifically as
attempts to enforce the latter's obligation to pay for the
items sold to her. This only bolsters the fact that the
products were sold to Saludo by virtue of a contract of
sale and are not unlawfully taken by the latter, through
the help of Petitioner Pangilinan, with intent to gain. The
relevant portion of the Court of Appeal’s decision reads:

73. Considering that the Court of Appeals found no existence

of an unlawful taking with intent to gain in this case, it will be
impossible to establish all of the elements of the crime of
qualified theft are present in this case.

74. Furthermore, a perusal of Petron’s Criminal Complaint

would show that the person they consider as the main principal
in the alleged commission of the crime is Ms. Saludo since her
company is the one that received the bulk of Petron petroleum
products on credit.

Page 18 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
 75. In view of the fact that the Court of Appeals found no
existence of an unlawful taking with intent to gain on the part of
Ms. Saludo who is the main principal accused in this case, it
would be impossible now to prove that there is a conspiracy
among the other accused, including herein Petitioner, to commit
a crime.

76. In the case of Quidet v. People5 the Supreme Court

explained that conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. The essence of conspiracy is
the unity of action and purpose. Its elements, like the physical
acts constituting the crime itself, must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. When there is conspiracy, the act of one is
the act of all. (Emphasis supplied)6

77. It can be reasonably inferred from the above that when

there is no commission of a felony, there can also be no
conspiracy and the act of one cannot be considered as the act
of all. consequently, it would now be futile for the trial court to
proceed in hearing the criminal case filed against the Petitioner
on the basis of an alleged conspiracy to commit qualified theft
when it was already established that there is no existence of an
unlawful taking with intent to gain from the beginning.

78. All told, the accusation of unlawful taking, or any

involvement whatsoever, against the herein Petitioner
Pangilinan is misplaced.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

for before this Honorable Court that the Resolution dated July 20,
2022 and August 2, 2022 be RECONSIDERED and SET ASIDE
and that the Information dated 16 January 2019 filed against the
Petitioner Carla Faye P. Pangilinan be DISMISSED/QUASHED.

Other reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the

premises are likewise prayed for.

___ August 2022, Makati City for Mandaluyong City, Philippines.

DESTURA AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

Units 3004-3005 and Unit 3607 Cityland Pasong Tamo Tower
2210 Chino Roces Avenue, Makati City 1231
P.O. Box 3446 Makati City Central Post Office 1274
Tel. No. (+632) 88138993; (+632) 8855-1662
5
G.R. No. 170289, April 8, 2010
6
Ibid.

Page 19 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
 Fax No. (+632) 88138993 loc. 124
Email Address: [email protected]/[email protected]

By:
ATTY. REYNALDO B. DESTURA
PTR No. 8857252 January 6, 2022 Makati City
IBP Lifetime Membership No. 00690; October 18, 1996
Roll of Attorney: 38494
MCLE Compliance No.VII-0006256
Dated November 29, 2021

ATTY. KIM ANGERIE B. AGUILERA

PTR No. 8857253 January 6, 2022 Makati City
IBP Membership No. 196941, January 6, 2022
Roll of Attorney No. 66070
MCLE Compliance No.VII-0018775
Dated May 25, 2022

ATTY. J-ANN VIOLETA J. JAVILLONAR-BUSTILLOS

PTR No. 8857254 January 6, 2022 Makati City
IBP Membership No. 196956, January 6, 2022
Roll of Attorney No. 64892
MCLE Compliance No.VII-0004227
Dated July 21, 2021

ATTY. CARMELO R. AGUILAR, JR.

PTR No. 8857251 January 6, 2022 Makati City
IBP Membership No. 196898; January 6, 2022
Roll of Attorney No. 74441
MCLE Governing Board Order No. 1
Series of 2008 dated July 4, 2008

ATTY. EDUARDO L. REYES

PTR No. 8857258 January 6, 2022 Makati City
IBP Membership No. 196910; January 6, 2022
Roll of Attorney No. 74372
MCLE Compliance No.VII-0021459
Dated June 17, 2022
ATTY. RYAN JAY B. ERFELO
PTR No. 8999614 May 12, 2022 Makati City
IBP Membership No. 221846; May 18, 2022

Page 20 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
 Roll of Attorney No. 77182
MCLE Governing Board Order No. 1
Series of 2008 dated July 4, 2008

ATTY. CHRIS LLOYD PETER A. BUNIEL

PTR No. 9038022 June 13, 2022 Makati City
IBP Membership No. 218382; May 30, 2022
Roll of Attorney No. 82488
MCLE Governing Board Order No. 1
Series of 2008 dated July 4, 2008

ATTY. JOLLIETE KARL C. AGUADO

PTR No. 9017802 May 26, 2022 Makati City
IBP Membership No. 225650; May 31, 2022
Roll of Attorney No. 81917
MCLE Governing Board Order No. 1
Series of 2008 dated July 4, 2008

Copy Furnished:

Solicitor General Registry Receipt No.__

Counsel for the People Post Office of __________
134 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Date Mailed ___________
Makati City

HON.VERONICA B. TONGIO-IGOT Registry Receipt No.___

Public Respondent Post Office of __________
Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong Date Mailed ___________
City, Branch 278 (RTC).

ACP ERNEST JOHN G. RELETE Registry Receipt No.__

Office of the City Prosecutor Post Office of __________
Mandaluyong City Date Mailed ___________

POBLADOR BAUTISTA & REYES Registry Receipt No.___

LAW OFFICES Post Office of __________
Private Prosecutor Date Mailed ___________
5 Floor, SEDCCO 1 Building, 120
th

Rada corner Legaspi Streets, Legaspi

Village, Makati City

LAW FIRM OF R.V. DOMINGO & Registry Receipt No.___

ASSOCIATES Post Office of __________

Page 21 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
Counsel for Accused Ramon Abelardo Date Mailed ___________
J. Bolima
Executives Offices, 7th and 8th Floors,
The valeri Tower, 122 Valero Street,
Salcedo Village, 1227, Makati City

ARTECHE GARRIDO & Registry Receipt No._

ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE Post Office of __________
Counsel for Accused Desiree R. Date Mailed ___________
Saludo
Suite 2517 Herrera Tower Herrera
corner Valeri Street, Salcedo Village,
Makati City

LIGAN & UY LAW OFFICE Registry Receipt No.__

Counsel for Accused Juan De Vera Post Office of __________
9 Floor, High Street South Corporate Date Mailed ___________
th

Plaza Tower 1, 9th Avenue corner 26th

Street, Bonifacio Global City, Taguig

FORTUN NARVASA & SALAZAR Registry Receipt No.__

Counsel for Accused Leo Carlo De Post Office of __________
Castro Date Mailed ___________
23 Floor Multinational Bancorporation
rd

Centre 6805 Ayala Avenue, Makati City

ACERON PUNZALAN VEHEMENTE Registry Receipt No.__

AVILA & DEL PRADO LAW OFFICES Post Office of __________
Counsel for Accused Julius Arman Date Mailed ___________
Perez
Unit 3101-B 31st Floor, Atlanta Centre,
#31 Annapolis Street, San Juan, Metro
Manila

M.M. LAZARAO & ASSOCIATES Registry Receipt No.__

Counsel for Accused Sofia Mathay Post Office of __________
19 Floor Chatham House Building
th
Date Mailed ___________
Valero corner Rufino Street, Salcedo
Village, Makati City

BARRIOS AND BRAVO LAW Registry Receipt No.__

OFFICES Post Office of __________
Counsel for Accused Ma. Kristine C. Date Mailed ___________
Lim
West Avenue, West Triangle, Quezon
City

Page 22 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR
ATTY. DAVE MACHICA Registry Receipt No.__
Counsel for Accused Marlyn De Post Office of __________
Guzman Date Mailed ___________
Sagittarius Building, H.V. Dela Costa
Street, Salcedo Village, Makati City

EXPLANATION

Copy of the foregoing PETITION FOR CETIORARI (Under

Rule 65), if not personally served, was served by registered mail
and/or through electronic means as personal service cannot be
practically effected owing to lack of manpower, time and distance
involved, as well as the travel restrictions brought about by the
COVID-19 pandemic.

ATTY. EDUARDO L. REYES

Page 23 of 23
People of the Philippines vs. Carla Faye Pangilinan, et al.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. R-MND-19-00443-CR