THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233638. June 21, 2021.]
MARY CATHERINE LIM KOO, petitioner, vs.NELSON L. TI, BERNICE JOAN TI AND ROSEMARIE LEE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 21, 2021, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 233638 (Mary Catherine Lim Koo v. Nelson L. Ti, Bernice Joan Ti and Rosemarie Lee). — This case stemmed from the complaint filed by the petitioner accusing herein respondents of committing estafa with abuse of confidence, as defined Under Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Before the respondents could submit their Counter-Affidavits, Assistant City Prosecutor Ma. Dinna J. Paulino rendered her Resolution 1 dated November 18, 2011 finding that there is a well-founded belief that respondents committed the said charge and are probably guilty thereof. Consequently, an Information was filed before Branch 160 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City charging respondents with estafa with abuse of confidence under Article 315 (1) (b) of the RPC. The Information 2 indicting respondents reads, viz.:
xxx xxx xxx
That, on or about the 15th day of September 2011, in the City of San Juan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, defrauded complainant Mary Catherine Lim Koo, in the following manner, to wit: the three (3) accused received in trust from complainant Mary Catherine Lim Koo the amount of P6,764,000.00 which the latter deposited, upon the instruction of accused Nelson Ti, to the account of Wing on Sales International Company owned by accused Bernice Joan T. Ti and Rosemarie Lee[,] with the obligation to deliver and remit the equivalent amount of 1,000,000 RMB (a China Currency) to the latter's supplier in China[,] but the three accused, once in possession of the said amount, acting in conspiracy with one another, with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, reposed upon them by the complainant, with intent to gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misapply, misappropriate and/or convert to their own use and benefit the said amount of P6,764,000.00 and despite repeated demands for them to return the same, the three (3) accused failed and refused, and still fail and refused to do so, to the damage and prejudice of Mary Catherine Lim Koo, in the aforementioned amount of P6,764,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
On December 19, 2011, Judge Myrna V. Lim-Verano of Branch 160 of the RTC, Pasig (San Juan City Station) issued an Order 3 finding probable cause against the three respondents. Accordingly, a warrant was issued for their arrest. Aggrieved, respondents filed separate motions for a reconsideration of the resolution of the Office of the Prosecutor and for the suspension of the proceedings before the RTC. 4
On February 10, 2012, Judge Lim-Verano rendered an Order 5 denying the motions filed by the respondents. Respondents were then scheduled for arraignment on March 13, 2012. Five days before the scheduled date of arraignment, respondents filed a Manifestation with Motion to Defer the Arraignment. 6 Consequently, none of the respondents appeared in court on the day of arraignment. Nonetheless, the arraignment was cancelled, because the prosecutor was allegedly sick.
On March 16, 2012, Assistant Prosecutor Julphinir U. Jalambo filed a Motion 7 praying for the withdrawal of the information. Prosecutor Jalambo examined the pieces of evidence that were presented by the respondents and found that the elements of the crime of estafa with abuse of confidence, as defined under Article 315 (1) (b) of the RPC were not present in the instant case. 8 The RTC, however, denied the Motion in its Order 9 dated July 3, 2012. SaCIDT
Disagreeing with the ruling of the RTC, respondents Nelson and Bernice Joan Ti filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a separate Motion 10 praying for the recusal of the Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 160. In an Order dated October 18, 2012, the RTC granted the Motion to Recuse. Consequently, the case was re-raffled to Branch 264 of the RTC of San Juan City.
On November 14, 2012, the RTC, Branch 264 issued an Order 11 denying respondents Nelson and Bernice Joan Ti's motion for reconsideration. Also, the RTC set the date for the arraignment of the respondents to November 14, 2012. Undeterred, respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, insisting therein that no crime was committed. 12
On December 17, 2012, the RTC Branch 264 issued an Order 13 granting respondents' motion for reconsideration. The RTC found no probable cause for the respondents' indictment for the crime of estafa with abuse of confidence as defined under Article 315 (1) (b) of the RPC. Specifically, it held that petitioner failed to show that respondent Nelson Ti received the sum of Six Million Seven Hundred Sixty-Four Thousand Pesos (P6,764,000.00) in trust for the petitioner. Accordingly, there was no obligation on the part of respondent Nelson Ti to return the amount to petitioner. As regards respondents Bernice Ti and Rosemarie Lee, the RTC found no proof that they had any agreement or understanding with respondent Nelson Ti to defraud the petitioner in the amount of Six Million Seven Hundred Sixty-Four Thousand Pesos (P6,764,000.00). Neither was there any proof that petitioner released the same sum of money to respondents for the latter to remit or deliver the Renminbi (RMB) equivalent thereof to her or her supplier in China. The RTC further ruled that as regards respondent Rosemarie Lee, her purported participation in the commission of the crime merely dwelt on the allegation that she is a partner of Wing on Sales. Noting, however, that the Office of the City Prosecutor of San Juan found that her signatures in the partnership papers of Wing on Sales were forged, it ruled to dismiss the case against her. Thus, the RTC disposed as follows:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court resolves to GRANT accused's Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause.
Accordingly, the instant case against [the] three (3) accused, namely: NELSON TI, BERNICE JOAN TI and ROSEMARIE LEE is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. 14
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the RTC in its Order 15 dated April 18, 2013. Aggrieved, petitioner appealed before the Court of Appeals.
On August 30, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution 16 denying petitioner's appeal for failure to present an authority from the State, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Insisting that she has the personality to file the instant appeal, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution 17 dated August 16, 2017.
Thus, the present petition for review on certiorari before this Court.
Issues
I. Whether the Honorable Court of Appeals seriously erred in holding that petitioner has no personality to appeal the Order of the RTC Branch 264 of the City of San Juan that found the absence of probable cause against the respondents' indictment for the crime of estafa with abuse of confidence;
II. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the RTC Branch 264 of the City of San Juan seriously erred in requiring the prosecution to prove by overwhelming evidence the guilt of the accused when in truth and in fact, the prosecution has not even started presenting its evidence considering that this case has not yet even reached the trial stage;
III. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the RTC Branch 264 of the City of San Juan seriously erred in entertaining the motions for judicial determination of probable cause filed by the respondents despite the fact that the same is procedurally defective;
IV. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the RTC Branch 264 of the City of San Juan seriously erred in finding the absence of probable cause against the respondents.
Discussion
At the outset, the Court notes that the present petition was filed by petitioner without the required authority from, or conformity of, the OSG. In the old but oft-cited case of People v. Santiago, 18 this Court ruled that: cHECAS
It is well-settled that in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General. Only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. The private offended party or complainant may not take such appeal.
This judicial pronouncement is in accordance with Section 35 (1), Chapter 12, Title III, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code, which reads as follows:
Section 35. Powers and Functions. — The Office of the Solicitor General shall represent the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer. When authorized by the President or head of the office concerned, it shall also represent government owned or controlled corporations. The Office of the Solicitor General shall constitute the law office of the Government and, as such, shall discharge duties requiring the services of a lawyer. It shall have the following specific powers and functions:
(1) Represent the Government in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals in all criminal proceedings; represent the Government and its officers in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and all other courts or tribunals in all civil actions and special proceedings in which the Government or any officer thereof in his official capacity is a party. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
This rule is also in conformity with the principle that the real party-in-interest, who is affected by the dismissal of the criminal action, is the State and not the private complainant or the offended party, whose role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. 19 As the real party-in-interest, the State, through the OSG, is the only one who can file an appeal before the CA or in this Court. 20
Nevertheless, there are two instances when the offended party may file an appeal without the intervention of the Solicitor General. First, when the State and the offended party are deprived of due process because the prosecution was remiss in its duty to protect their interest or when the order of dismissal was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In such cases, the offended party would have a standing to file a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 against the dismissal of the criminal case. Second, when the trial court has decided on the merits of the criminal case but the offended party is not satisfied with the outcome of the case. Jurisprudence provides that the offended party may file an appeal to question the amount of the grant or denial of damages made by the trial court, without the participation of the Solicitor General. 21
The instant case does not fall under any of the exceptions. For one, there was no allegation that the petitioner or the State was deprived of due process of law. Another, petitioner's appeal before the CA and the petition before this Court essentially assail the criminal aspect of the RTC Decision. From the above disquisition, the instant petition should have been filed only by the State through the Solicitor General.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the instant petition is DENIED. The Resolutions dated August 30, 2016 and August 16, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 36762 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.(Leonen, J., on wellness leave; Hernando, J., Acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 2828 dated June 21, 2021).
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 58-60.
2.Id. at 61-62.
3.Id. at 63.
4.Id. at 64-69, 70-73 and 74-77.
5.Id. at 87-89.
6.Id. at 93-95.
7.Id. at 97-99.
8.Id. at 100-106.
9.Id. at 121-124.
10.Id. at 134-139 and 125-133.
11.Id. at 168-169.
12.Id. at 171-184 and 185-196.
13.Id. at 209-217.
14.Id. at 217.
15.Id. at 233-235.
16. Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam, with Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring; id. at 43-44.
17.Id. at 45-46.
18. 255 Phil. 851 (1989), as cited in Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc. v. Reyes, G.R. No. 236686, February 5, 2020; Cabral v. Bracamonte, G.R. No. 233174, January 23, 2019; BDO Unibank, Inc. vs. Choa, G.R. No. 237553, July 10, 2019; Bautista v. Cuneta-Pangilinan, 698 Phil. 110 (2012); BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Pua, G.R. No. 230923, July 8, 2019; Rural Bank of Mabitac, Laguna, Inc. v. Canicon, 834 Phil. 346 (2018); People v. Alapan, 823 Phil. 272 (2018); Cu vs. Ventura, G.R. No. 224567, September 26, 2018; Salvador vs. Chua, 764 Phil. 244 (2015); Dela Rosa v. Court of Appeals, 323 Phil. 596 (1996).
19.Cu v. Ventura, supra note 18; Yokohama Tire Philippines, Inc. v. Reyes, et al., supra note 18; Cabral Bracamonte, supra note 18; Rural Bank of Mabitac, Laguna, Inc. v. Canicon, supra note 18.
20.Cu vs. Ventura, supra note 18.
21.Cabral v. Bracamonte, supra note 18; BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Pua, supra note 18; Rural Rank of Mabitac, Laguna, Inc. v. Canicon, supra note 18; Dee v. Court of Appeals, 257 Phil. 661 (1989); Perez v. Hagonoy Rural Bank, Inc., 384 Phil. 322 (2000); Cu v. Ventura, supra note 18; Salvador v. Chua, supra note 18; Rodriguez v. Gadiane, 527 Phil. 691 (2006); People v. Hon. Pedro T. Santiago, supra note 18.