8/21/2016

G.R.No.164538

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

METROPOLITANBANKand
TRUSTCOMPANY,
Petitioner,

versus

ROGELIOREYNADOand
JOSEC.ADRANDEA,**
Respondents.

G.R.No.164538

Present:

CORONA,C.J.,Chairperson,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
BERSAMIN,*

DELCASTILLO,and
PEREZ,JJ.

Promulgated:

August9,2010

xx

DECISION

DELCASTILLO,J.:

Itisahornbookdoctrineinourcriminallawthatthecriminalliabilityforestafaisnotaffectedby
acompromise,foritisapublicoffensewhichmustbeprosecutedandpunishedbythegovernmenton
itsownmotion,eventhoughcompletereparation[has]beenmadeofthedamagesufferedbytheprivate
offendedparty.SinceacriminaloffenselikeestafaiscommittedagainsttheState,theprivateoffended
partymaynotwaiveorextinguishthecriminalliabilitythatthelawimposesforthecommissionofthe
[1]
crime.

ThisPetitionforReviewonCertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtseeksthereversalof
[2]
the Court of Appeals (CAs) Decision dated October 21, 2002 in CAG.R. SP No. 58548 and its
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/164538.htm

1/15

8/21/2016

G.R.No.164538

[3]
[4]
furtherResolution datedJuly12,2004denyingpetitionersMotionforReconsideration.

FactualAntecedents

OnJanuary31,1997,petitionerMetropolitanBankandTrustCompanychargedrespondentsbeforethe
OfficeoftheCityProsecutorofManilawiththecrimeofestafaunderArticle315,paragraph1(b)ofthe
[5]
Revised Penal Code.In the affidavit of petitioners audit officer, Antonio Ivan S. Aguirre, it was
alleged that the special audit conducted on the cash and lending operations of its Port Area branch
uncovered anomalous/fraudulent transactions perpetrated by respondents in connivance with client
UniversalConverterPhilippines,Inc.(Universal)thatrespondentsweretheonlyvotingmembersof
thebranchscreditcommitteeauthorizedtoextendcreditaccommodationtoclientsuptoP200,000.00
thatthroughthesocalledBillsPurchaseTransaction,Universal,whichhasapaidupcapitalofonly
P125,000.00 and actual maintaining balance of P5,000.00, was able to make withdrawals totaling
[6]
P81,652,000.00 againstunclearedregionalchecksdepositedinitsaccountatpetitionersPortArea
branchthat,consequently,Universalwasabletoutilizepetitionersfundsevenbeforethesevenday
clearing period for regional checks expired that Universals withdrawals against uncleared regional
checkdepositswerewithoutpriorapprovalofpetitionersheadofficethattheunclearedcheckswere
laterdishonoredbythedraweebankforthereasonAccountClosedand,thatrespondentsactedwith
fraud,deceit,andabuseofconfidence.

Intheirdefense,respondentsdeniedresponsibilityintheanomaloustransactionswithUniversaland
claimedthattheyonlyintendedtohelpthePortAreabranchsolicitandincreaseitsdepositaccounts
anddailytransactions.
Meanwhile, on February 26, 1997, petitioner and Universal entered into a Debt Settlement
[7]
Agreement wherebythelatteracknowledgeditsindebtednesstotheformerinthetotalamountof
[8]
P50,990,976.27 asofFebruary4,1997andundertooktopaythesameinbimonthlyamortizations
in the sum of P300,000.00 starting January 15, 1997, covered by postdated checks, plus balloon
paymentoftheremainingprincipalbalanceandinterestandothercharges,ifany,onDecember31,
[9]
2001.

FindingsoftheProsecutor
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/164538.htm

2/15

8/21/2016

G.R.No.164538

Following the requisite preliminary investigation, Assistant City Prosecutor Winnie M. Edad
[10]
(ProsecutorEdad)inherResolution
datedJuly10,1997foundpetitionersevidenceinsufficientto
holdrespondentsliableforestafa.AccordingtoProsecutorEdad:

The execution of the Debt Settlement Agreement puts complainant bank in estoppel to argue that the
liability is criminal. Since the agreement was made even before the filing of this case, the relations
betweentheparties[have]change[d],novationhassetinandpreventedtheincipienceofanycriminal
[11]
liabilityonthepartofrespondents.

Thus,ProsecutorEdadrecommendedthedismissalofthecase:

WHEREFORE,forinsufficiencyofevidence,itisrespectfullyrecommendedthatthecasebedismissed.
[12]

On December 9, 1997, petitioner appealed the Resolution of Prosecutor Edad to the Department of
[13]
Justice(DOJ)bymeansofaPetitionforReview.

RulingoftheDepartmentofJustice

OnJune22,1998,theDOJdismissedthepetitionratiocinatingthat:

Itisevidentthatyourclientbasedonthesametransactionchosetofileestafaonlyagainstitsemployees
andtreatwithkidglovesitsbigtimeclientUniversalwhowastheonewhobenefitedfromthistransaction
andinstead,agreedthatitshouldbepaidoninstallmentbasis.

Toallowyourclienttomakethechoiceistomakeanunwarrantedclassificationunderthelawwhichwill
result in grave injustice against herein respondents. Thus, if your client agreed that no estafa was
committed in this transaction with Universal who was the principal player and beneficiary of this
transaction[,] more so with herein respondents whose liabilities are based only on conspiracy with
Universal.

Equivocally, there is no estafa in the instant case as it was not clearly shown how respondents
misappropriatedtheP53,873,500.00 which Universal owed your client after its checks deposited with
Metrobankweredishonored.Moreover,fraudisnotpresentconsideringthattheExecutiveCommittee
andtheCreditCommitteeofMetrobankweredulynotifiedofthesetransactionswhichtheyapproved.
[14]
Further,nodamagewascausedtoyourclientasitagreed[to]thesettlement[with]Universal.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/164538.htm

3/15

8/21/2016

G.R.No.164538

[15]
AMotionforReconsideration
wasfiledbypetitioner,butthesamewasdeniedonMarch1,
[16]
2000bythenActingSecretaryofJusticeArtemioG.Tuquero.

[17]
Aggrieved,petitionerwenttotheCAbyfilingaPetitionforCertiorari&Mandamus.

RulingoftheCourtofAppeals

[18]
ByDecision
ofOctober21,2002,theCAaffirmedthetwinresolutionsoftheSecretaryofJustice.
[19]
Citingjurisprudence
whereinweruledthatwhilenovationdoesnotextinguishcriminalliability,it
maypreventtheriseofsuchliabilityaslongasitoccurspriortothefilingofthecriminalinformationin
[20]
court.
Hence,accordingtotheCA,[j]ustasUniversalcannotbeheldresponsibleunderthebills
purchasetransactionsonaccountofnovation,privaterespondents,whoactedincomplicitywiththe
[21]
former,cannotbemadeliable[for]thesametransactions.
TheCAaddedthat[s]incethedismissal
ofthecomplaintisfoundedonlegalground,publicrespondentsmaynotbecompelledbymandamusto
[22]
fileaninformationincourt.

[23]
Incidentally, the CA totally ignored the Comment
of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
wherethelatter,despitebeingthestatutorycounselofpublicrespondentDOJ,agreedwithpetitioner
that the DOJ erred in dismissing the complaint. It alleged that where novation does not extinguish
[24]
criminalliabilityforestafaneitherdoesrestitutionnegatetheoffensealreadycommitted.

Additionally, the OSG, in sharing the views of petitioner contended that failure to implead other
responsible individuals in the complaint does not warrant its dismissal, suggesting that the proper
[25]
remedy is to cause their inclusion in the information.
This notwithstanding, however, the CA
disposedofthepetitionasfollows:

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIEDduecourseand,accordingly,DISMISSED.Consequently,the
resolutionsdatedJune22,1998andMarch1,2000oftheSecretaryofJusticeareAFFIRMED.

[26]
SOORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/164538.htm

4/15

8/21/2016

G.R.No.164538

Hence,thisinstantpetitionbeforetheCourt.

[27]
OnNovember8,2004,werequired
respondentstofileComment,notamotiontodismiss,onthe
petition within 10 days from notice. The OSG filed a Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of
[28]
[29]
Comment
while respondent Jose C. Adraneda (Adraneda) submitted his Comment
on the
petition.TheSecretaryofJusticefailedtofiletherequiredcommentontheOSGsManifestationand
Motion in Lieu of Comment and respondent Rogelio Reynado (Reynado) did not submit any. For
[30]
which reason, we issued a show cause order
on July 19, 2006. Their persistent noncompliance
withourdirectivesconstrainedustoresolvethattheyhadwaivedthefilingofcommentandtoimposea
fine of P1,000.00 on Reynado. Upon submission of the required memorandum by petitioner and
Adraneda,theinstantpetitionwassubmittedforresolution.

Issues

Petitionerpresentedthefollowingmainargumentsforourconsideration:

1.Novationandundertakingtopaytheamountembezzleddonotextinguishcriminalliability.

2.Itisthedutyofthepublicprosecutortoimpleadallpersonswhoappearcriminallyliablefor
theoffensecharged.

Petitioner persistently insists that the execution of the Debt Settlement Agreement with
Universaldidnotabsolveprivaterespondentsfromcriminalliabilityforestafa.Petitionersubmitsthat
thesettlementaffectsonlythecivilobligationofUniversalbutdidnotextinguishthecriminalliability
of the respondents. Petitioner thus faults the CA in sustaining the DOJ which in turn affirmed the
findingofProsecutorEdadforcommittingapparenterrorintheappreciationandtheapplicationofthe
[31]
law on novation. By petitioners claim, citing Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. v. Tonda,
the
negotiationspertain[to]andaffectonlythecivilaspectofthecasebut[do]notprecludeprosecutionfor
[32]
theoffensealreadycommitted.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/164538.htm

5/15

8/21/2016

G.R.No.164538

InhisComment,Adranedadeniesbeingaprivytotheanomaloustransactionsandpasseson
the sole responsibility to his corespondent Reynado as the latter was able to conceal the pertinent
documentsbeingtheheadofpetitionersPortAreabranch.Nonetheless,hecontendsthatbecauseofthe
DebtSettlementAgreement,theycannotbeheldliableforestafa.

TheOSG,foritspart,insteadofcontestingtheargumentsofpetitioner,evenprayedbeforethe
CAtogiveduecoursetothepetitioncontendingthatDOJindeederredindismissingthecomplaintfor
estafa.

Giventhefactsofthecase,thebasicissuepresentedbeforethisCourtiswhethertheexecutionofthe
DebtSettlementAgreementprecludedpetitionerfromholdingrespondentsliabletostandtrialforestafa
[33]
underArt.315(1)(b)oftheRevisedPenalCode.

OurRuling

Wefindthepetitionhighlymeritorious.

Novationnotamodeofextinguishing

criminal liability for estafa Criminal liability for estafa not

affectedbycompromiseornovationofcontract.

Initially,itisbesttoemphasizethatnovationisnotoneofthegroundsprescribedbytheRevised
[34]
PenalCodefortheextinguishmentofcriminalliability.

Inacatenaofcases,itwasruledthatcriminalliabilityforestafaisnotaffectedbyacompromiseor
[35]
[36]
novation of contract. In Firaza v. People
andRecuerdo v. People,
this Court ruled that in a
crimeofestafa,reimbursementorbelatedpaymenttotheoffendedpartyofthemoneyswindledbythe
[37]
accuseddoesnotextinguishthecriminalliabilityofthelatter.WealsoheldinPeoplev.Moreno
and
[38]
inPeoplev.Ladera
thatcriminalliabilityforestafaisnotaffectedbycompromiseornovationof
contract,foritisapublicoffensewhichmustbeprosecutedandpunishedbytheGovernmentonits
ownmotioneventhoughcompletereparationshouldhavebeenmadeofthedamagesufferedbythe
[39]
offendedparty.SimilarlyinthecaseofMetropolitanBankandTrustCompanyv.Tonda
citedby
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/164538.htm

6/15

8/21/2016

G.R.No.164538

petitioner, we held that in a crime of estafa, reimbursement of or compromise as to the amount

misappropriated,afterthecommissionofthecrime,affectsonlythecivilliabilityoftheoffender,and
nothiscriminalliability.

Thus,thedoctrinethatevolvedfromtheaforecitedcasesisthatacompromiseorsettlemententeredinto
afterthecommissionofthecrimedoesnotextinguishaccusedsliabilityforestafa.Neitherwillthesame
bartheprosecutionofsaidcrime.Accordingly,insuchasituation,asinthiscase,thecomplaintfor
estafa against respondents should not be dismissed just because petitioner entered into a Debt
SettlementAgreementwithUniversal.EventheOSGarrivedatthesameconclusion:

Contrary to the conclusion of public respondent, the Debt Settlement Agreement entered into
betweenpetitionerandUniversalConverterPhilippinesextinguishesmerelythecivilaspectofthelatters
liabilityasacorporateentitybutnotthecriminalliabilityofthepersonswhoactuallycommittedthecrime
[40]
ofestafaagainstpetitionerMetrobank.xxx

Unfortunatelyforpetitioner,theaboveobservationoftheOSGwaswittinglyglossedoverinthe
bodyoftheassailedDecisionoftheCA.

ExecutionoftheDebtSettlementAgreementdidnotprevent
theincipienceofcriminalliability.

Eveniftheinstantcaseisviewedfromthestandpointofthelawoncontracts,thedisposition
absolvingtherespondentsfromcriminalliabilitybecauseofnovationisstillerroneous.

UnderArticle1311oftheCivilCode,contractstakeeffectonlybetweentheparties,theirassigns
andheirs,exceptincasewheretherightsandobligationsarisingfromthecontractarenottransmissible
bytheirnature,orbystipulationorbyprovisionoflaw.Thecivillawprincipleofrelativityofcontracts
providesthatcontractscanonlybindthepartieswhoenteredintoit,anditcannotfavororprejudicea
[41]
thirdperson,evenifheisawareofsuchcontractandhasactedwithknowledgethereof.

In the case at bar, it is beyond cavil that respondents are not parties to the agreement. The
intentionofthepartiestheretonottoincludethemisevidenteitherintheonerousorinthebeneficent
provisionsofsaidagreement.Theyarenotassignsorheirsofeitheroftheparties.Notbeingpartiesto
theagreement,respondentscannottakerefugetherefromtobartheiranticipatedtrialforthecrimethey
committed. It may do well for respondents to remember that the criminal action commenced by
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/164538.htm

7/15

8/21/2016

G.R.No.164538

petitionerhaditsgenesisfromtheallegedfraud,unfaithfulness,andabuseofconfidenceperpetratedby
theminrelationtotheirpositionsasresponsiblebankofficers.Itdidnotarisefromacontractualdispute
ormattersstrictlybetweenpetitionerandUniversal.Thisbeingso,respondentscannotrelyonsubject
settlement agreement to preclude prosecution of the offense already committed to the end of
extinguishingtheircriminalliabilityorpreventtheincipienceofanyliabilitythatmayarisefromthe
criminaloffense.Thisonlydemonstratesthattheexecutionoftheagreementbetweenpetitionerand
Universalhasnobearingontheinnocenceorguiltoftherespondents.

Determinationoftheprobablecause,afunctionbelongingto
the public prosecutor judicial review allowed where it has
beenclearlyestablishedthattheprosecutorcommittedgrave
abuseofdiscretion.

In a preliminary investigation, a public prosecutor determines whether a crime has been

[42]
committedandwhetherthereisprobablecausethattheaccusedisguiltythereof.
TheSecretaryof
Justice,however,mayreviewormodifytheresolutionoftheprosecutor.

Probablecauseisdefinedassuchfactsandcircumstancesthatwillengenderawellfoundedbeliefthat
acrimehasbeencommittedandthattherespondentisprobablyguiltythereofandshouldbeheldfor
[43]
trial.
Generally, a public prosecutor is afforded a wide latitude of discretion in the conduct of a
preliminaryinvestigation.Bywayofexception,however,judicialreviewisallowedwhererespondent
has clearly established that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion that is, when he has
exercisedhisdiscretioninanarbitrary,capricious,whimsicalordespoticmannerbyreasonofpassion
orpersonalhostility,patentandgrossenoughastoamounttoanevasionofapositivedutyorvirtual
[44]
refusaltoperformadutyenjoinedbylaw.
Testedagainsttheseguidelines,wefindthatthiscase
fallsundertheexceptionratherthanthegeneralrule.

AclosescrutinyofthesubstanceofProsecutorEdadsResolutiondatedJuly10,1997readilyreveals
that were it not for the Debt Settlement Agreement, there was indeed probable cause to indict
respondentsforthecrimecharged.FromherownassessmentoftheComplaintAffidavitofpetitioners
auditor,herpreliminaryfindingisthatOrdinarily,theoffenseofestafahasbeensufficientlyestablished.
[45]
Interestingly,shesuddenlychangedtackanddeclaredthattheagreementalteredtherelationofthe
partiesandthatnovationhadsetinpreventingtheincipienceofanycriminalliabilityonrespondents.In
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/164538.htm

8/15

8/21/2016

G.R.No.164538

light of the jurisprudence herein earlier discussed, the prosecutor should not have gone that far and
executed an apparent somersault.Compounding further the error, the DOJ in dismissing petitioners
petition,ruledoutestafacontrarytothefindingsoftheprosecutor.Pertinentportionoftherulingreads:

Equivocally, there is no estafa in the instant case as it was not clearly shown how respondents
misappropriatedtheP53,873,500.00 which Universal owed your client after its checks deposited with
Metrobankweredishonored.Moreover,fraudisnotpresentconsideringthattheExecutiveCommittee
andtheCreditCommitteeofMetrobankweredulynotifiedofthesetransactionswhichtheyapproved.
[46]
Further,nodamagewascausedtoyourclientasitagreed[to]thesettlement[with]Universal.

ThefindingsoftheSecretaryofJusticeinsustainingthedismissaloftheComplaintarematters
ofdefensebestlefttothetrialcourtsdeliberationandcontemplationafterconductingthetrialofthe
criminalcase.Toemphasize,apreliminaryinvestigationforthepurposeofdeterminingtheexistenceof
probablecauseisnotapartofthetrial.Afullandexhaustivepresentationofthepartiesevidenceisnot
required,butonlysuchasmayengenderawellgroundedbeliefthatanoffensehasbeencommittedand
[47]
thattheaccusedisprobablyguiltythereof.
Afindingofprobablecausedoesnotrequireaninquiry
intowhetherthereissufficientevidencetoprocureaconviction.Itisenoughthatitisbelievedthatthe
[48]
actoromissioncomplainedofconstitutestheoffensecharged.
SoweheldinBalangauanv.Court
[49]
ofAppeals:

Applyingtheforegoingdisquisitiontothepresentpetition,thereasonsofDOJforaffirmingthedismissal
of the criminal complaints for estafa and/or qualified estafa are determinative of whether or not it
committedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction.Inrequiringhardfacts
andsolidevidenceasthebasisforafindingofprobablecausetoholdpetitionersBernylandKatherene
liabletostandtrialforthecrimecomplainedof,theDOJdisregardsthedefinitionofprobablecausethatit
isareasonablegroundofpresumptionthatamatteris,ormaybe,wellfounded,suchastateoffactsinthe
mindoftheprosecutoraswouldleadapersonofordinarycautionandprudencetobelieve,orentertainan
honestorstrongsuspicion,thatathingisso.Thetermdoesnotmeanactualandpositivecausenordoesit
importabsolutecertainty.Itismerelybasedonopinionandreasonablebeliefthatis,thebeliefthattheact
oromissioncomplainedofconstitutestheoffensecharged.Whileprobablecausedemandsmorethanbare
suspicion,itrequireslessthanevidencewhichwouldjustifyconviction.Herein,theDOJreasonedasifno
evidencewasactuallypresentedbyrespondentHSBCwheninfacttherecordsofthecasewereteeming
or it discounted the value of such substantiation when in fact the evidence presented was adequate to
exciteinareasonablemindtheprobabilitythatpetitionersBernylandKatherenecommittedthecrime/s
complainedof.Insodoing,theDOJwhimsicallyandcapriciouslyexerciseditsdiscretion,amountingto
graveabuseofdiscretion,whichrendereditsresolutionsamenabletocorrectionandannulmentbythe
extraordinaryremedyofcertiorari.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/164538.htm

9/15

8/21/2016

G.R.No.164538

In the case at bar, as analyzed by the prosecutor, a prima facie case of estafa exists against
respondents.As perused by her, the facts as presented in the ComplaintAffidavit of the auditor are
reasonableenoughtoexciteherbeliefthatrespondentsareguiltyofthecrimecomplainedof.InAndres
[50]
v.JusticeSecretaryCuevas
wehadoccasiontorulethatthepresenceorabsenceoftheelementsof
thecrimeisevidentiaryinnatureandisamatterofdefensethatmaybepasseduponafterafullblown
[51]
trialonthemerits.

ThusconfrontedwiththeissueonwhetherthepublicprosecutorandtheSecretaryofJustice
committed grave abuse of discretion in disposing of the case of petitioner, given the sufficiency of
evidenceonhand,wedonothesitatetoruleintheaffirmative.Wehavepreviouslyruledthatgrave
abuseofdiscretionmayarisewhenalowercourtortribunalviolatesandcontravenestheConstitution,
thelaworexistingjurisprudence.

Noninclusion of officers of Universal not a ground for the

dismissalofthecomplaint.

The DOJ in resolving to deny petitioners appeal from the resolution of the prosecutor gave
anothergroundfailuretoimpleadtheofficersofUniversal.Itexplained:

Toallowyourclienttomakethechoiceistomakeanunwarrantedclassificationunderthelaw
whichwillresultingraveinjusticeagainsthereinrespondents.Thus,ifyourclientagreedthatnoestafa
wascommittedinthistransactionwithUniversalwhowastheprincipalplayerandbeneficiaryofthis
transaction[,] more so with herein respondents whose liabilities are based only on conspiracy with
[52]
Universal.

The ratiocination of the Secretary of Justice conveys the idea that if the charge against
respondentsrestsuponthesameevidenceusedtochargecoaccused(officersofUniversal)basedon
thelattersconspiratorialparticipation,thenoninclusionofsaidcoaccusedinthechargeshouldbenefit
therespondents.

ThereasoningoftheDOJisflawed.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/164538.htm

10/15

8/21/2016

G.R.No.164538

Sufficeittosaythatitisindubitablywithinthediscretionoftheprosecutortodeterminewhomustbe
chargedwithwhatcrimeorforwhatoffense.Publicprosecutors,nottheprivatecomplainant,arethe
onesobligedtobringforthbeforethelawthosewhohavetransgressedit.

[53]
Section2,Rule110oftheRulesofCourt
mandatesthatallcriminalactionsmustbecommenced
eitherbycomplaintorinformationinthenameofthePeopleofthePhilippinesagainstallpersonswho
appeartoberesponsibletherefor.Thusthelawmakesitalegaldutyforprosecutingofficerstofilethe
charges against whomsoever the evidence may show to be responsible for the offense. The proper
remedy under the circumstances where persons who ought to be charged were not included in the
complaintoftheprivatecomplainantisdefinitelynottodismissthecomplaintbuttoincludethemin
theinformation.AstheOSGcorrectlysuggested,theproperremedyshouldhavebeentheinclusionof
certainemployeesofUniversalwhowerefoundtohavebeenincahootswithrespondentsindefrauding
petitioner.TheDOJ,therefore,cannotseriouslyarguethatbecausetheofficersofUniversalwerenot
indicted, respondents themselves should not likewise be charged. Their noninclusion cannot be
perverselyusedtojustifydesistancebythepublicprosecutorfromprosecutionofthecriminalcasejust
becausenotallofthosewhoareprobablyguiltythereofwerecharged.

Mandamus a proper remedy when resolution of public

respondentistaintedwithgraveabuseofdiscretion.

Mandamusisaremedialmeasureforpartiesaggrieved.Itshallissuewhenanytribunal,corporation,
board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically
[54]
enjoinsasadutyresultingfromanoffice,trustorstation.
Thewritofmandamusisnotavailableto
controldiscretionneithermayitbeissuedtocompeltheexerciseofdiscretion.Truly,itisamatterof
discretion on the part of the prosecutor to determine which persons appear responsible for the
commissionofacrime.However,themomenthefindsonetobesoliableitbecomeshisinescapable
dutytochargehimtherewithandtoprosecutehimforthesame.Insuchasituation,therulelosesits
discretionarycharacterandbecomesmandatory.Thus,where,asinthiscase,despitethesufficiencyof
theevidencebeforetheprosecutor,herefusestofilethecorrespondinginformationagainsttheperson
responsible,heabuseshisdiscretion.His act is tantamount to a deliberate refusal to perform a duty
enjoined by law. The Secretary of Justice, on the other hand, gravely abused his discretion when,
despitetheexistenceofsufficientevidenceforthecrimeofestafaasacknowledgedbytheinvestigating
prosecutor, he completely ignored the latters finding and proceeded with the questioned resolution
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/164538.htm

11/15

8/21/2016

G.R.No.164538

anchoredonpurelyevidentiarymattersinutterdisregardoftheconceptofprobablecauseaspointed
outinBalangauan.To be sure, findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review unless
[55]
shown to have been made with grave abuse.
The present case calls for the application of the
exception.Giventhefactsofthiscase,petitionerhasclearlyestablishedthatthepublicprosecutorand
theSecretaryofJusticecommittedgraveabuseofdiscretion.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisGRANTED.TheassailedDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsinCA
G.R.SPNo.58548promulgatedonOctober21,2002affirmingtheResolutionsdatedJune22,1998
and March 1, 2000 of the Secretary of Justice, and its Resolution dated July 12, 2004 denying
reconsiderationthereonareherebyREVERSEDandSETASIDE.Thepublicprosecutorisorderedto
filethenecessaryinformationforestafaagainsttherespondents.

SOORDERED.

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/164538.htm

12/15

8/21/2016

G.R.No.164538

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusionsinthe
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
*InlieuofAssociateJusticePresbiteroJ.Velasco,Jr.,perSpecialOrderNo.876datedAugust2,2010.
**SometimesreferredtoasJoseC.AndranedaandJoseC.Adranedainotherpartsoftherecords.
[1]
Tamayov.People,G.RNo.174698,July28,2008,560SCRA312,323324.
[2]
CArollo,pp.195202pennedbyAssociateJusticeEdgardoP.CruzandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesOswaldoD.Agcaoili
andAmelitaG.Tolentino.
[3]
Id.at249251pennedbyAssociateJusticeEdgardoP.CruzandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesMartinS.Villarama,Jr.(nowa
MemberofthisCourt)andAmelitaG.Tolentino.
[4]
Id.at205215.
[5]
Id.at3347.
[6]
Id.at43.
[7]
Id.at6569.
[8]
Id.at65.
[9]
Id.at69.
[10]
Id.at4850.
[11]
Id.at49.
[12]
Id.at50.
[13]
Id.at5164.
[14]
Id.at72.
[15]
Id.at7385.
[16]
Id.at86.
[17]
Id.at232.
[18]
Id.at195202.
[19]
Diongzonv.CourtofAppeals,378Phil.1090(1999).
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/164538.htm

13/15

8/21/2016

G.R.No.164538

[20]
Id.at1097.
[21]
Carollo,p.201.
[22]
Id.
[23]
Id.at139147.
[24]
Id.at142143.
[25]
Id.at144.
[26]
Id.at202.
[27]
Rollo,p.197.
[28]
Id.at219235.
[29]
Id.at208217.
[30]
Id.at240.
[31]
392Phil.797(2000).
[32]
Id.at811.
[33]
ART. 315. Swindling (estafa). Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be
punishedby:
xxxx
1.Withunfaithfulnessorabuseofconfidence,namely:
xxxx
(b)Bymisappropriatingorconverting,totheprejudiceofanother,money,goodsoranyotherpersonalpropertyreceivedby
theoffenderintrust,oroncommission,orforadministration,orunderanyotherobligationinvolvingthedutytomake
delivery of, or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond or by
denyinghavingreceivedsuchmoney,goods,orotherproperty
xxxx
[34]
OcampoPaulev.CourtofAppeals,426Phil.463,471(2002)REVISEDPENALCODE, Art. 89. How criminal liability is
totallyextinguished.Criminalliabilityistotallyextinguished:1)Bythedeathoftheconvict,astothepersonalpenaltiesandas
topecuniarypenalties,liabilitythereforisextinguishedonlywhenthedeathoftheoffenderoccursbeforefinaljudgment2)By
serviceofthesentence3)Byamnesty,whichcompletelyextinguishesthepenaltyandallitseffects4)Byabsolutepardon5)
Byprescriptionofthecrime6)Byprescriptionofthepenaltyand7)Bythemarriageoftheoffendedwoman,asprovidedin
Article344ofthisCode.
[35]
G.R.No.154721,March22,2007,518SCRA681,694.
[36]
G.R.No.168217,June27,2006,493SCRA517,536.
[37]
373Phil336,349(1999).
[38]
398Phil.588602(2000).
[39]
Supranote31at811812.
[40]
CArollo,p.219.
[41]
IntegratedPackagingCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,388Phil.835,845(2000).
[42]
RULESOFCOURT,Rule112,Section1.
[43]
Bavierav.Paglinawan,G.R.Nos.168380and170602,February8,2007,515SCRA170,184.
[44]
GlaxosmithklinePhilippines,Inc.v.KhalidMehmoodMalik,G.R.No.166924,August17,2006,499SCRA268,273.
[45]
CArollo,p.49.
[46]
Id.at72.
[47]
Ledesmav.CourtofAppeals,344Phil.207,226(1997).
[48]
AngAbayav.Ang,G.R.No.178511,December4,2008,573SCRA129,142.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/164538.htm

14/15

8/21/2016

G.R.No.164538

[49]
G.R.No.174350,August13,2008,562SCRA184,206207.
[50]
499Phil.36(2005).
[51]
Id.at4950.
[52]
CArollo,p.72.
[53]
SEC. 2. The complaint or information. The complaint or information shall be in writing, in the name of the People of the
Philippinesandagainstallpersonswhoappeartoberesponsiblefortheoffenseinvolved.
[54]
RULESOFCOURT,Rule65,Sec.3.

[55]

PublicUtilitiesDepartmentv.Hon.Guingona,Jr.,417Phil.798,805(2001).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/164538.htm

15/15