Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company Vs Reynado

<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml"
xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document>
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15">
<meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 15">
<link rel=File-List
href="03%20Metropolitan%20Bank%20and%20Trust%20Company%20vs%20Reynado_files/file
list.xml">

<link rel=themeData
href="03%20Metropolitan%20Bank%20and%20Trust%20Company%20vs%20Reynado_files/them
edata.thmx">
<link rel=colorSchemeMapping
href="03%20Metropolitan%20Bank%20and%20Trust%20Company%20vs%20Reynado_files/colo
rschememapping.xml">
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Print</w:View>
<w:TrackMoves>false</w:TrackMoves>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-PH</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>

<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]-->
<style>
<!-/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:1;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}
h3
{mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
mso-outline-level:3;
font-size:13.5pt;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
font-weight:bold;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
Table
Table
Table
Table
2
3
4
5
Accent 6"/>
Accent 6"/>
Accent 6"/>
Dark Accent 6"

mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}
span.Heading3Char
{mso-style-name:"Heading 3 Char";
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:9;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-locked:yes;
mso-style-link:"Heading 3";
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri Light",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-ascii-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-fareast-theme-font:major-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:"Calibri Light";
mso-hansi-theme-font:major-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:major-bidi;
color:#1F4D78;
mso-themecolor:accent1;
mso-themeshade:127;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>

<meta charset=utf-8>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026"/>
</xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-PH style='tab-interval:.5in'>
<div class=WordSection1>
METROPOLITA
N
BANK and TRUST COMPANY v. ROGELIO REYNADO and JOSE C. ADRANDEA<o:p></o:p>
It is a hornbook doctrine in our criminal law
that the criminal liability for estafa is not affected by a compromise, for it
is a public offense which must be prosecuted and punished by the government on
its own motion, even though complete reparation [has] been made of the damage
suffered by the private offended party. Since a criminal offense like estafa is
committed against the State, the private offended party may not waive or
extinguish the criminal liability that the law imposes for the commission of the
crime
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court seeks the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CAs) Decision
and its further
Resolution denying petitioners Motion for Reconsideration.
FACTS:<o:p>
</o:p>
On January 31, 1997, petitioner Metropolitan Bank
and Trust Company charged respondents before the Office of the City Prosecutor
of Manila with the crime of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the
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 Universal
Converter Philippines, Inc. (Universal); that respondents were the only voting
members of the branches credit committee authorized to extend credit
accommodation to clients up to P200,000.00; that through the so-called Bills
Purchase Transaction, Universal, which has a paid-up capital of only P125,000.00
and actual maintaining balance of P5,000.00, was able to make withdrawals totali
ng
P81,652,000.00 against uncleared regional checks deposited in its account at
petitioners Port Area branch; that, consequently, Universal was able to utilize
petitioners funds even before the seven-day clearing period for regional checks
expired; that Universals withdrawals against uncleared regional check deposits
were without prior approval of petitioners head office; that the uncleared
checks were later dishonored by the drawee bank for
Respondents denied responsibility in the
anomalous transactions with Universal and claimed that they only intended to
help the Port Area branch solicit and increase its deposit accounts and daily
transactions.
On February 26, 1997, petitioner and Universal
entered into a Debt Settlement Agreement whereby the latter acknowledged its
indebtedness to the former and undertook to pay the same in bimonthly
amortizations. 
Following the requisite preliminary
investigation, Assistant City Prosecutor Winnie M. Edad (Prosecutor Edad) in
her Resolution dated July 10, 1997 found petitioners evidence insufficient to
hold respondents liable for estafa. According to Prosecutor Edad:
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 between
the parties [have] change[d], novation has set in and prevented the incipience
of any criminal liability on the part of respondents
Thus, Prosecutor Edad recommended the dismissal
of the case for insufficiency of evidence.
Ruling
of the Department of Justice<o:p></o:p>
On December 9, 1997, petitioner appealed the
Resolution of Prosecutor Edad to the Department of Justice (DOJ) by means of a
Petition for Review. It was denied:
Equivocally, there is no estafa in
the instant case as it was not clearly shown how respondents misappropriated
the P53,873,500.00 which Universal owed your client after its checks deposited w
ith
Metrobank were dishonored. Moreover, fraud is not present considering that the
Executive Committee and the Credit Committee of Metrobank were duly notified of
these transactions which they approved
Further, no damage was caused to your client as it agre
ed
[to] the settlement [with] Universal
A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by
petitioner, but the same was denied.
Aggrieved, petitioner went to the CA by filing a
Petition for Certiorari & Mandamus.<o:p></o:p>
Ruling
of the Court of Appeals<o:p></o:p>
On October 21, 2002, the CA affirmed the twin
resolutions of the Secretary of Justice. Citing jurisprudence wherein we ruled
that while novation does not extinguish criminal liability, it may prevent the
rise of such liability as long as it occurs prior to the filing of the criminal
information in court. Hence, according to the CA, [j]ust as Universal cannot be
held responsible under the bills purchase transactions on account of novation,
private respondents, who acted in complicity with the former, cannot be made
liable [for] the same transactions. The CA added that [s]ince the dismissal of
the complaint is founded on legal ground, public respondents may not be
compelled by mandamus to file an information in court.
Incidentally, the CA totally ignored the Comment o
f
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) where the latter, despite being the
statutory counsel of public respondent DOJ, agreed with petitioner that the DOJ
erred in dismissing the complaint. It alleged that where novation does not
extinguish criminal liability for estafa neither does restitution negate the
offense already committed.
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 remedy
is to cause their inclusion in the information.
Hence, this instant petition before the Court.
ISSUES:<o:p
></o:p>
Whether or not the public prosecutor and the
Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in disposing of the
case of petitioner, given the sufficiency of evidence on hand
HELD:<o:p><
/o:p>
Determination of the probable cause, a
function belonging to the public prosecutor judicial review allowed where it
has been clearly established that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of
discretion.<o:p></o:p>
YES. In
a preliminary investigation, a public prosecutor determines whether a crime has
been committed and whether there is probable cause that the accused is guilty
thereof.
The Secretary of Justice, however, may review or
modify the resolution of the prosecutor. Probable cause is defined as such
facts and circumstances that will engender a well-founded belief that a crime
has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and
should be held for trial.
Generally, a public prosecutor is afforded a wide
latitude of discretion in the conduct of a preliminary investigation. By way of
exception, however, judicial review is allowed where respondent has clearly
established that the prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion that is,
when he has exercised his discretion 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 perfo
rm
a duty enjoined by law. Tested against these guidelines, we find that this case
falls under the exception rather than the general rule.
A close scrutiny of the substance of Prosecutor
Edads Resolution dated July 10, 1997 readily reveals that were it not for the
Debt Settlement Agreement, there was indeed probable cause to indict respondents
for the crime charged. From her own assessment of the Complaint-Affidavit of
petitioners auditor, her preliminary finding is that Ordinarily, the offense of
estafa has been sufficiently established.
The findings of the Secretary of Justice in
sustaining the dismissal of the Complaint are matters of defense best left to
the trial courts deliberation and contemplation after conducting the trial of
the criminal case. To emphasize, a preliminary investigation for the purpose of
determining the existence of probable cause is not a part of the trial. A full
and exhaustive presentation of the parties evidence is not required, but only
such as may engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been committed
and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.
A finding of probable cause does not require an
inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It
is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of
constitutes the offense charged.
Non-inclusion of officers of Universal not a
ground for the dismissal of the complaint.<o:p></o:p>
The DOJ in resolving to deny petitioners appeal
from the resolution of the prosecutor gave another ground failure to implead
the officers of Universal.
Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court mandates
that all criminal actions must be commenced either by complaint or information
in the name of the People of the Philippines against all persons who appear to
be responsible therefor. Thus the law makes it a legal duty for prosecuting
officers to file the 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 complaint of the
private complainant is definitely not to dismiss the complaint but to include
them in the information. As the OSG correctly suggested, the proper remedy
should have been the inclusion of certain employees of Universal who were found
to have been in cahoots with respondents in defrauding petitioner. The DOJ,
therefore, cannot seriously argue that because the officers of Universal were
not indicted, respondents themselves should not likewise be charged. Their non-i
nclusion
cannot be perversely used to justify desistance by the public prosecutor from
prosecution of the criminal case just because not all of those who are probably
guilty thereof were charged.
Mandamus a proper remedy when resolution of
public respondent is tainted with grave abuse of discretion.<o:p></o:p>
Mandamus is a remedial measure for parties
aggrieved. It shall issue when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. The writ of mandam
us
is not available to control discretion neither may it be issued to compel the
exercise of discretion. Truly, it is a matter of discretion on the part of the
prosecutor to determine which persons appear responsible for the commission of
a crime. However, the moment he finds one to be so liable it becomes his
inescapable duty to charge him therewith and to prosecute him for the same. In
such a situation, the rule loses its discretionary character and becomes
mandatory. Thus, where, as in this case, despite the sufficiency of the
evidence before the prosecutor, he refuses to file the corresponding
information against the person responsible, he abuses his discretion. 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, des
pite
the existence of sufficient evidence for the crime of estafa as acknowledged by
the investigating prosecutor, he completely ignored the latters finding and
proceeded with the questioned resolution anchored on purely evidentiary matters
in utter disregard of the concept of probable cause as pointed out in Balanga

uan.
To be sure, findings of the Secretary of Justice are not subject to review
unless shown to have been made with grave abuse. The present case calls for the
application of the exception. Given the facts of this case, petitioner has
clearly established that the public prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice
committed grave abuse of discretion.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG. R. SP No. 58548 promulgated on October
21, 2002 affirming the Resolutions dated June 22, 1998 and March 1, 2000 of the
Secretary of Justice, and its Resolution dated July 12, 2004 denying reconsidera
tion
thereon are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The public prosecutor is ordered to f
ile
the necessary information for estafa against the respondents.
</div>
</body>
</html>

Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company Vs Reynado

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company Vs Reynado

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml"

<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>

UnhideWhenUsed="true" Name="toc 5"/>

Name="Table Classic 2"/>

Priority="65" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>

Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>

Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>

Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>

Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>

Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>

Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>

Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>

Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>

Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>

Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>

Priority="72" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="52"

<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="49"

Name="List Table 1 Light Accent 6"/>

mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";

</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>

amortizations.<span style='mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"'> </span></

in utter disregard of the concept of probable cause as pointed out in <i>Balanga

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen