|
DR. AMANDA T. CRUZ, Petitioner, -versus- WILFREDO R. CRUZ, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 154128 Present: pUNO, CJ., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, * AZCUNA, and GARCIA,
JJ. Promulgated: |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
For our resolution is the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari
assailing the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals promulgated on
The parties in the instant case are relatives. Wilfredo R. Cruz, respondent, is a nephew by
affinity of Dr. Amanda T. Cruz, petitioner.
On P100,000.00. On P100,000.00 in his savings account.
In her Counter-Affidavit with Motion to Dismiss, petitioner
declared that in 1986, she issued to
respondent BPI Check No. 349866 as a guarantee for the loan of spouses Arturo and Malou Ventura
obtained from him. Later, they informed
her that they had paid the loan. However, she forgot to ask for the return of
the check. In 1987, she closed her account
and opened a new one with the drawee bank. For ten (10) years, she forgot having issued the
check. She claimed that respondent filed the complaint against her because
her husband, Atty. Francisco Galman Cruz, instituted criminal and civil complaints
against Carlos Cruz. Jr., respondent’s brother, involving a parcel of
land.
On P100,000.00 in the account of respondent at
the Westmont Bank, Sta. Mesa Branch.
On
Therefore, when complainant executed his affidavit in filing the case
for B.P. 22 against respondent, payment for the check has already been satisfied. Therefore, under the circumstances, there is
no offense to be charged.
The above recommendation was approved by the City
Prosecutor.
Thereafter, respondent filed with the Department of Justice
(DOJ) a petition for review contending that petitioner is still criminally
liable although she had paid the amount of the check in full.
In a Resolution dated
We find no sufficient basis to cause the indictment of the
respondent. There is no violation of
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 in view of the full payment made by the respondent, a
fact which the complainant expressly admitted.
The payment of the check removes the same from the punitive provision of
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration but it was
denied by former DOJ Secretary Serafin R. Cuevas in a Resolution dated
Respondent then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition
for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.
In its Decision of
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but in its
Resolution[2]
dated
Hence, this recourse.
The issue for our resolution is whether the Court of
Appeals erred in directing the Secretary of Justice to file an information for
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against petitioner.
The petition is meritorious.
First, there is no dispute that when respondent
filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City his complaint
against petitioner, a preliminary investigation was conducted. Section 1, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of
Criminal Procedure, as amended, defines preliminary investigation as “an
inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.”
Under Section 4 of the same Rule, the investigating
prosecutor is vested with the duty of (a) preparing a resolution holding the
respondent for trial and filing the corresponding information, or (b) dismissing the case should he find that no
probable cause exists against respondent.
The investigating Assistant City Prosecutor found no
probable cause to charge petitioner with violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Hence, she recommended the dismissal of the
case. The City Prosecutor, the Chief
State Prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice sustained the recommendation. They all found that when respondent filed his
complaint with the Office of the Quezon City Prosecutor, he knew that petitioner
had paid the amount of the check. In
fact, in his pleading, he admitted such payment. Thus, the prosecutors were one in concluding
that petitioner did not commit the offense charged.
The preliminary investigation seeks to free a respondent
from the inconvenience, expense, ignominy, and stress of a formal trial after
the reasonable probability of his guilt or innocence has been passed upon by a
competent officer designated by law for that purpose.[3] As mentioned, the prosecutors and also the
Secretary of Justice found no probable cause to warrant the filing against petitioner
of an information for violation of B.P. 22.
There is no indication that their finding of lack of probable cause was
reached without any basis in fact and in law.
Second, in paragraph 7 of respondent’s complaint,[4] he
alleged that petitioner failed to pay the amount of the check. However, in paragraph 7 (d) of his reply,[5] he
admitted that she already remitted the amount of P100,000.00 on
In Griffith v. Court of Appeals,[6]
we ruled that where the creditor had collected more than a sufficient amount to
cover the value of the checks, charging the debtor with a criminal offense
under the Bouncing Checks Law, two years after the collection, is no longer
tenable nor justified by law or equitable consideration.
While indeed the gravamen of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is
the act of issuing worthless checks, nonetheless, courts should not apply the
law strictly or harshly. Its spirit and purpose must be considered.
In Lozano
v. Martinez,[7] we held that
the Bouncing Checks Law is aimed at putting a stop to or curbing the practice
of issuing worthless checks or those that end up being dishonored for payment
because of the injury it causes to the public interests. In Sia v. People,[8] we
explained that the law is intended to safeguard the interests of the banking
system and the legitimate checking account users.
Considering
that petitioner had paid the amount of the check even before respondent filed his complaint, we believe and
so hold that no injury was caused to the public interests or the banking system,
or specifically to herein respondent.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 57275 is REVERSED. The Resolution of the Secretary of Justice
dated
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
(On leave) RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
Chief
Justice
* On leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 19-24. Penned by Presiding Justice Maria Alicia Austria-Martinez (now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justice Hilarion L. Aquino (retired) and Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.
[2] Rollo, p. 33. Per Associate Justice Hilarion L. Aquino (retired) and concurred in by Associate Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis (retired) and Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.
[3] Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 113216,
[4] Rollo, p. 35.
[5]
[6] G.R. No. 129764,
[7] G.R. Nos. L-63419, L-66839-42, L-71654,
L-74524-25, L-75122-49, L-75812-13, L-75765-67 & L-75789,
[8] G.R. No. 149695,