Eric Wu a.k.a. Wu Chun and Daphny Chen vs. People of the Philippines and Hafti Tours, Inc.,
G.R. Nos. 207220-21, March 16, 2022
Facts:
1. The spouses Wu are Taiwan nationals residing in the Philippines under a Special Resident Retiree's Visa upon their investment and deposit of $90,000.00 with the Philippine Retirement Authority (PRA) of the Board of Investments (BOI).
2. In 2002, at the solicitation of HAFTI Tours, Inc.'s (HTI), the spouses Wu sought to transfer their dollar time deposit investment plus accrued interests with the PRA, and invest the money with HTI, representing their capital contribution, in exchange for the issuance of 47,440 shares of stock of HTI.
3. On August 21, 2002, pending approval by the PRA of the spouses Wu's dollar time deposit, HTI issued a board resolution certified by its corporate secretary, listing petitioners as two of four persons authorized to deposit and withdraw from HTI's Globalbank deposit account
4. Upon approval of the conversion of the spouses Wu's dollar time deposit, the PRA, deposited the peso equivalent thereof i.e., P4,622,508.00, to HTI's deposit account with Metrobank. However, HTI failed to issue the promised shares of stock in Eric and Chen's names.
5. Immediately thereafter, the relationship between HTI and the spouses Wu turned sour. On separate occasions, Eric and Chen issued checks to various payees, for different amounts, drawn from HTI's corporate bank deposit accounts leading to the litigation between the parties
6. Two of those checks are the subject matter of Criminal Case Nos. 06-1263- CFM [Php17,524.00] and 07-0254-CFM [Php 291,000.00] for Estafa (filed by HTI) against the Wu couple.
a. Both cases involve willful, unlawful and felonious misappropriation and conversion of the amounts of the checks to their own use and benefit
7. Previous thereto, HTI filed seven criminal complaints against the Wus before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Parafiaque City, involving the same checks, including those with payable amounts of Php291,000.00 and Php l7,524.00, which were ultimately dismissed on the ground of duplicity of offenses charged. The dismissal was brought up to the DOJ, the CA and the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 196066 which affirmed the Paraniaque City Prosecutor's Office's dismissal of the complaints with finality.
8. Insisting on the defect in the Informations, the spouses Wu filed separate motions to quash before the RTC Branches 112 and 114
9. In separate Orders, the RTC Branches 112 and 114, quashed the Informations for Estafa against the Wus on the same ground of duplicity of offenses charged.
10. With the respective denials of its motions for reconsideration, HTI filed separate appeals to the CA.
11. The CA granted HTI's appeal and reversed and set aside the Orders of the RTC Branches 112 and 114.
Issues:
· Whether or not the trial court has the right to dismiss criminal information after finding the same to be insufficient to sustain a probable cause
· Whether or not there is duplicity of offenses in the present case.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling
FIRST ISSUE
Rule l12 of the Rules of Court provides for the prosecution of offenses. A criminal action is instituted upon the filing of a complaint with the prosecutor's office for the purpose of conducting a preliminary investigation, as may be required. Upon the filing of the Information before the trial court, the judge is required to personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence for purposes of issuance of a warrant of arrest. At that stage, the judge may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. However, the judge cannot reverse the findings of the prosecutor during preliminary investigation and motu propio quash the Information for lack of probable cause. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may simply order the prosecutor to present additional evidence.
Corollary thereto, Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court provides the remedy of a party aggrieved by the resolution of the investigating prosecutor, i.e. to file a petition for review before the Secretary of the DOJ. Plainly, at the stage of the proceedings in RTC Branches 112 and 114, the filing of a motion to quash and before arraignment, the spouses Wu have already been arrested and taken into custody to answer for their alleged commission of Estafa against HTI.
Moreover, Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court lists the grounds for the filing of a motion to quash which should distinctly specify its factual and legal grounds. Spouses Wu's belated argument on lack of probable cause as the RTC's additional ground in quashing the Informations against them fails in light of Section 2, Rule 117 which precludes the court from considering grounds not stated in the motion to quash, except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged.
Further on this point, the failure to allege any grounds in their motion to quash is deemed a waiver of their objection. On the whole, the Wus' unsubstantiated claim that the RTC Branches 112 and 114 dismissed the cases, likewise for lack of probable cause, is decimated by specific provisions of the Rules of Court.
SECOND ISSUE
Spouses Wu's argument: the prior prosecution in Criminal Case No. 03-1293 before the RTC, Branch 195, Paraniaque City, barred their subsequent prosecution in Criminal Case Nos. 06-1263-CFM and 07-0254-CFM before the RTC Branches 112 and 114, Pasay City.
The Supreme Court held that the spouses Wu's argument is a fish that will not fly. Duplicity of actions is not the same as duplicity of offenses as a ground for a motion to dismiss. Certainly, duplicity of offenses is not the same as the rule on double jeopardy.
The Rules of Court do not proscribe the filing of dual or even multiple actions against a respondent or accused. The Wus prior prosecution in Criminal Case No. 03-1293 where they were not arraigned is not a bar to another or subsequent prosecution.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment