FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 235059. September 14, 2021.]
BIENVIN CEASAR SOMBREO, petitioner, vs.ANSUICO, INC. AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 235059 — Bienvin Ceasar Sombreo v. Ansuico, Inc. and People of the Philippines
We affirm.
A prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. A prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court but the jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another court or tribunal. It is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. 1 A prejudicial question may also exist between an intra-corporate case and a criminal action. 2
For a civil or intra-corporate action to be considered prejudicial to a criminal case as to cause the suspension of the criminal proceedings until the final resolution of the civil or intra-corporate case, the following requisites must concur:
(1) the civil or intra-corporate case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal prosecution would be based;
(2) in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the civil or intra-corporate action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined; and
(3) jurisdiction to try said question must be lodged in another tribunal. 3
xxx xxx xxx
Here, as correctly held by the Court of Appeals, the issues raised in Civil Case No. 34,419-2012 and Intra-corporate Case No. 34,736-2012 are irrelevant to the estafa case filed by Elmor D. Basadre (Basadre) against petitioner Bienvin Ceasar Sombreo. 4
First. The subject matter of Civil Case No. 34,419-2012 is the recovery of Ansuico, Inc.'s (Ansuico) properties which petitioner and other defendants supposedly took custody of and subsequently failed to return upon demand. It is not in any way related to the subject matter in the estafa case involving petitioner's purported failure to return the money representing the cash bond which he received in trust for Ansuico.
As for Intra-corporate Case No. 34,736-2012, petitioner is not even a party to that case which basically assails the constitution of Ansuico's present board of Directors. Further, he is neither a stockholder, officer, or member of Ansuico's board of directors. In fact, he is not even an employee of Ansuico, but an employee of Ansuico's affiliate company, Batangas Logistics, Inc. In fine, petitioner is a total stranger to the intra-corporate case in question.
Second. A crime is an offense against the State, hence, prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines. In any event, for purposes of preliminary investigation by the prosecutor, a criminal complaint need not be filed by the "offended party" but by any competent person, unless the offense subject thereof cannot be prosecuted de oficio. 5 The offended party's participation is limited to being a witness against the accused and pursuing his civil claims against the latter. 6
Estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), paragraph 1 (b) 7 is a public crime which may be prosecuted de oficio. It can be initiated by "any competent person" with personal knowledge of the acts committed by the offender. 8
The Court in Mobilia Products, Inc. v. Umezawa9 held that since a criminal action is between the State and the defendant, the legality or illegality of the constitution of the board of directors which authorized the filing of the complaint does not materially affect the Informations filed against the accused.
Third. The complaint for estafa is not affected by the variance in the membership of Ansuico's Board of Directors since Basadre filed the estafa on the basis of his personal knowledge of Ansuico's transactions, including the alleged failure or refusal of petitioner to turn over to Ansuico the money he received representing the refund of the cash bond posted by and belonging to Ansuico. Clearly, Basadre's complaint was not hinged at all on the composition of Ansuico's board of directors.
Finally, Omictin is not on all fours with the present case. 10
In Omictin, respondent George I. Lagos filed an intra-corporate case for declaration of nullity of the respective appointments of Atty. Alex Tan and Vicente Omictin as President Ad Interim and Operations Manager Ad Interim, respectively, of Saag Phils., Inc. Omictin later filed a complaint for two (2) counts of estafa against Lagos for the latter's refusal to surrender two company owned vehicles, despite repeated demands by Omictin and Atty. Tan on behalf of the company. The Court ruled that because a valid demand is an element of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b), the question on the legality of Omictin's appointment is a prejudicial question to the estafa case. If the supposed authority of Omictin is found to be defective, it is as if no demand was ever made, hence, the prosecution for estafa cannot prosper. 11
Here, Basadre is not even a member of Ansuico's board of directors. The validity of the demand to return served on petitioner is not in issue either. As it was, Basadre initiated the complaint for estafa in his capacity as Ansuico's accounting manager, not as member of the board of directors. Hence, a ruling by the commercial court that the present members of Ansuico's incumbent board of directors was illegally constituted shall not in any way affect Basadre's legal capacity or competence to file the estafa case as the company's accounting manager. As such, it is his duty to ensure that all company properties and funds are properly accounted for at all times. Should any of these properties and funds go missing, it is also his bounden duty to seek the recovery thereof and pursue appropriate actions in court, including civil or criminal cases. So must it be.
All told, the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the denial of petitioner's motion to suspend proceedings in Criminal Case No. 150784.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 14, 2016 and Resolution dated October 19, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 137627 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See People v. Arambulo, 760 Phil. 754, 761 (2015).
2.Id. at 758.
3. See Domingo v. Spouses Singson, 808 Phil. 488, 498 (2017).
4.Rollo, pp. 45-46.
5. See Francisco v. People, 599 Phil. 262 (2009).
6. See Montelibano v. Yap, 822 Phil. 262 (2017).
7. The elements of Estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, paragraph 1 (b) are as follows: (1) that money, goods, or other personal properties are received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or a denial of the receipt thereof; (3) that the misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender.
8. See Soriano v. People, 625 Phil. 33, 48 (2010).
9. 493 Phil. 85, 118 (2005).
10. See Omictin v. CA, 541 Phil. 68 (2007).
11.Id.