SECOND DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
141624
August 17, 2004
-versus-
HERNANDO B. DELIZO,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Before us is a Petition
for Review on
Certiorari of
the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 50995 granting the Petition
for
Certiorari of Respondent Dr. Hernando B. Delizo and nullifying the
December
18, 1998 and February 1, 1999 orders[2]
of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City in Criminal Case No.
167-MD
for Estafa. The Antecedents
Arsenio T. Ng filed
a criminal complaint for estafa against the respondent with the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City, docketed as Inv. Slip No.
97-10288.
After the requisite preliminary investigation, First Assistant City
Prosecutor
Esteban A. Tacla, Jr. signed an Information dated October 10, 1997,
charging
the respondent with estafa. The accusatory portion of the
Information
reads:
That on or
about the 24th day of October, 1996, in the City of Mandaluyong,
Philippines,
a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named
accused, being then President and Chairman of Mediserv, Inc., by means
of deceit, false pretenses and fraudulent representation, executed
prior
to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, succeeded in
inducing
herein complainant, Arsenio T. Ng to give the amount of P12 Million, to
the accused on his pretext that said amount will be converted by him
into
shares of stock (120,000 shares of stocks) and in order to complement
such
false pretenses or fraudulent acts, he (respondent) even showed a Board
Resolution defining his authority to contract loan from the complainant
and the conversion of such loan into shares of stock, which, on the
strength
by said manifestations and representations, the complainant gave said
amount
and duly received by the accused, he knowing fully well that the same
were
false and fraudulent and were only made to entice complainant into
believing
that he, indeed, is empowered and in a position to issue the equivalent
number of shares of stocks (120,000) in order to obtain, as in fact, he
(accused) obtained the total amount of P12 Million from the complainant
and the accused, once in possession of the money, far from complying
with
his obligation to release the 120,000 shares of stocks into
complainant’s
name, despite demands made on him and, with intent to defraud, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate,
misapply
and convert said amount, to his own personal use and benefit, to the
damage
and prejudice of Arsenio T. Ng, in the aforementioned amount of P12
Million.chanrobles virtual law library
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
Before the Information
was filed, the Ambulatory Health Care Institute, Inc. (AHCII), also
known
as Clinica Manila (CM), and the Health Check, Inc. (HCI) filed a
Complaint
on October 22, 1997 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
against
the respondent and a certain “John Doe” for injunction and
damages.
The case was docketed as SEC Case No. 10-97-5794. The petitioners
therein alleged, inter alia, that a special meeting of the stockholders
of CM was held on October 9, 1997 after due notice to the respondent
two
weeks before the said date. During the said meeting, the
stockholders
elected a new board of directors, replacing the respondent as CM
president.
Thereafter, at 3:00 p.m. of October 13, 1997, the respondent and an
unidentified
companion arrived at the CM office at SM Megamall, announced that he
was
still the president, and rallied the officers and employees against the
new board of directors. Despite the security guards’ request for
him to leave the premises, the respondent refused to do so. He,
thereafter,
wrote the China Banking Corporation, the depository bank of CM,
requesting
it not to honor any change in the authorized signatories for CM, and
appended
thereto a falsified General Information Sheet (GIS) to show that he was
still a member of the board of directors and president of CM. It
was prayed that, after due proceedings, judgment be rendered:
WHEREFORE,
it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Commission to adjudge that
respondent be ordered:
1. Not to do any
act
or deed that will disturb or interfere with the operations and business
of the petitioners, and not to cause any alarm, scandal, disturbance,
intrigue,
disloyalty, disorder, or defiance on the part of any (sic) employees,
officers,
contractors, workers of CLINICA MANILA and HEALTH CHECK, INC.;chanrobles virtual law library
2. Not to do any
act
that will interfere with or disturb the management and operation of the
funds, bank accounts, receivables, and all other property transactions
of the petitioners, and to stop representing themselves as having any
kind
of power and authority over any asset of the two companies and their
management;chanrobles virtual law library
3. Not to do any
act
or deed, directly or indirectly, that will dishonor the name and
reputation
of the petitioners;
4. To pay actual
damages
of P1,000,000; moral damages of P2,000,000; and exemplary damages of
P500,000;
and to pay the costs of suit.[4]
On October 23, 1997,
AHCII,
Mediserv, Inc. (MI) and the respondent, filed a Complaint with the SEC
against Arsenio T. Ng, Kelly S. Salvador, Antonio Roberto M. Abaya,
Bartolome
C. Felipe, Jr., Joel Abanilla and Nonette C. Mina. The
complainants
alleged, inter alia, that they had been stockholders of AHCII since
August
1995, and represented a majority of the outstanding capital stock,
owning
52.37% and 6.08%, respectively, as shown by the GIS dated October 15,
1997
filed with the SEC; the respondent was the incumbent chairman of the
board
of directors and president of AHCII; and there was no quorum during the
stockholders’ meeting of October 9, 1997; as such, the said meeting
where
a new set of board of directors and officers were, elected was in
violation
of the by-laws of the complainant AHCII and, consequently,
illegal.
The complainants prayed that the following reliefs be granted after due
proceedings:
(a)
Declaring the Writ of Preliminary Injunction earlier issued as
permanent;
(b)
Adjudging the Special Stockholders’ Meeting purportedly held on October
9, 1997 as null and void ab initio;
(c)
Adjudging any action, proceeding, resolution, and/or election made in
the
alleged stockholders’ meeting purportedly held on October 9, 1997 as
null
and void ab initio;
(d)
Adjudging respondents Arsenio T. Ng, Kelly S. Salvador, Antonio Roberto
M. Abaya, Bartolome C. Felipe, Jr., Joel Abanilla and Nonette C. Mina,
jointly and severally, liable to pay to complainant Delizo moral
damages
of not less than P1,000,000.00;
(e)
Adjudging respondents Arsenio T. Ng, Kelly S. Salvador, Antonio Roberto
M. Abaya, Bartolome C. Felipe, Jr., Joel Abanilla and Nonette C. Mina,
jointly and severally, liable to pay to the complainants, as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
i. Exemplary
damages
of not less than P500,000.00;chanrobles virtual law library
ii. Actual damages
not
less than P250,000.00;chanrobles virtual law library
iii. Attorney’s
fee
of P200,000.00;chanrobles virtual law library
iv. Costs of
litigation.
Other equitable
reliefs
are prayed for.[5]
The case was docketed
as
SEC Case No. 10-97-5796.
In the meantime, Mediserv,
Inc., represented by its president, the respondent, and its treasurer,
Marissa D. Delizo, filed a complaint with the RTC of Manila, Branch 29,
against the China Banking Corporation, the Landheights (Iloilo)
Development
Corporation, Notary Public Romeo A. Ignacio, Jr. and the Registrar of
Deeds
for the City of Manila. An amended complaint was later filed,
where
it was alleged, inter alia, that MI received a loan from the bank in
the
amount of P9,820,000, later increased to P11,200,000. To secure
the
payment of the said loan, MI executed a real estate mortgage and
amendment
to real estate mortgage over its property covered by Transfer
Certificate
of Title (TCT) No. 205824 of the Register of Deeds of Manila. MI
also executed a promissory note on October 5, 2000 in favor of the bank
in the amount of P11,200,000. The bank, thereafter, foreclosed
the
mortgage and sold the property at public auction in favor of the bank
for
P15,649,023.29, through defendant Notary Public Romeo A. Ignacio,
Jr.
It was prayed that, after due proceedings, it be granted the following
reliefs:
WHEREFORE,
it is most respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court that:
1. Immediately
upon
filing of this Complaint, this Honorable Court issues a Writ of
Preliminary
Injunction, or at least a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining and
restraining
defendant Register of Deeds from effecting/allowing the registration or
annotation of the purported auction sale of plaintiff’s property
covered
by TCT No. 205824 of the Register of Deeds for the City of Manila in
favor
of defendant Landheights, or any transaction, dealing or incident
arising
from the purported auction sale allegedly conducted by defendant
Ignacio
until further orders from this Honorable Court.
2. After hearing,
to
render Judgment, as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
a. Declaring the
Writ
of Preliminary Injunction earlier issued as permanent;chanrobles virtual law library
b. Declaring the
alleged
public auction sale conducted by defendant Ignacio over the subject
plaintiff’s
property, as null and void;
c. Ordering and
commanding
Defendant China Bank to comply and to reduce into writing and/or to
document
its agreement with plaintiff to consolidate the first P5 million loan
of
plaintiff with it with the plaintiff’s second loan of P1,800,000.00;chanrobles virtual law library
d. Adjudging
defendants
China Banking Corporation, Landheights (Iloilo) Development Corporation
and Romeo A. Ignacio, Jr., jointly and severally, liable to pay to
plaintiff
the following:
1. Attorney’s Fees
in
the amount of P200,000.00; and
2. Costs of suit.
Other equitable
reliefs
are prayed for.[6]
The case was docketed
as
Civil Case No. Q-97-86152.
On December 3, 1997,
the Information for estafa against the respondent was filed with the
RTC
of Mandaluyong City and raffled to Branch 214. The case was
docketed
as Criminal Case No. 167-MD. The private prosecutor filed an
ex
parte motion for preliminary attachment, which was opposed by the
respondent.
On December 18, 1998, the trial court issued an Order[7]
directing the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment on a bond of
P8,000,000. The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of
the order with a prayer for the suspension of the proceedings on the
ground
of the existence of a prejudicial question on December 23, 1998.chanrobles virtual law library
As early as January
13, 1998, the trial court in Branch 213 issued an Order denying the
motion
to suspend proceedings on the ground that the private complainant,
Arsenio
T. Ng, was not a stockholder of MI; hence, the pendency of the two (2)
SEC cases was not a ground for the suspension of the case. On
February
1, 1999, the trial court issued the assailed Order denying the motion
for
reconsideration.cralaw:red
On February 19, 1999,
the respondent filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of
Appeals,
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 50995, for the nullification of the Orders
of
the trial court, contending as follows:
6.A.)
THE RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION AND ACTED IN EXCESS
AND/OR WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN ORDERING THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY
ATTACHMENT GROSSLY IGNORING THE ESTABLISHED RULE THAT APPLICATIONS FOR
A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AGAINST THE
APPLICANT AND LIBERALLY IN FAVOR OF THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM IT IS
DIRECTED.
6.B.)
THE RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION AND ACTED IN EXCESS
AND/OR WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN ORDERING THE ISSUANCE OF THE PRELIMINARY
ATTACHMENT DESPITE THE CLEAR SHOWING THAT THE CIVIL ASPECT OF THE
CRIMINAL
CASE IS ALREADY COVERED BY CASES BEFORE THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
AND THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA; HENCE, THERE IS NO CIVIL ASPECT
ATTACHED AND/OR DEEMED INSTITUTED WITH THE CRIMINAL CASE.
6.C.)
THE RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION AND ACTED IN EXCESS
AND/OR WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN ORDERING THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY
ATTACHMENT ON A P12 MILLION CLAIM PER THE INFORMATION WITH ONLY P8
MILLION
BOND; HENCE, GROSSLY INSUFFICIENT, IMPROPER AND UNREASONABLE.
6.D.)
THE RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION AND ACTED IN EXCESS
AND/OR WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN MERELY RELYING ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE
EX PARTE MOTION FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY ATTACHMENT WHICH
ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT/S AS REQUIRED UNDER THE RULES.
6.E.)
THE RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION AND ACTED IN EXCESS
AND/OR WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN NOT SUSPENDING THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE
SUBJECT
CRIMINAL CASE IN VIEW OF THE PRESENCE OF PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONS IN THE
SEC
CASES AND THE RTC CASE WHICH ARE DETERMINATIVE OF THE INNOCENCE OR
GUILT
OF THE ACCUSED, THE HEREIN PETITIONER.
6.F.)
THE RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION AND ACTED IN EXCESS
AND/OR WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN DENYING THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PRIVATE
PROSECUTOR BEFORE THE SAID MOTION CAN BE HEARD; HENCE, A CLEAR AND
PALPABLE
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS.
6.G.)
THE RESPONDENT JUDGE GRAVELY ABUSED HIS DISCRETION AND ACTED IN EXCESS
AND/OR WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN NOT DISQUALIFYING THE PRIVATE PROSECUTOR
DESPITE THE CLEAR SHOWING THAT THE CIVIL ASPECT OF THE SUBJECT CRIMINAL
CASE IS PRESENTLY LITIGATED AND/OR THE SUBJECT OF SEPARATE ACTIONS
BEFORE
THE SEC AND THE RTC.[8]
On January 18, 2000,
the CA rendered a Decision granting the petition and nullifying the
assailed
Orders of the trial court, as well as the writ of preliminary
attachment
it issued. The fallo of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
the petition is given due course. The assailed Orders of December
18, 1998 and February 1, 1999, as well as the writ of attachment are
hereby
set aside. The respondent Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Mandaluyong
City, Branch 214, is hereby directed to suspend proceedings of Criminal
Case No. 167-MD considering the existence of a prejudicial question in
SEC Cases Nos. 10-97-5794 and 10-97-5796 and Civil Case No. 97-86152.
SO ORDERED.[9] The Present
Petition
The People of the Philippines,
now the petitioner, filed its petition for review on certiorari with
this
Court, on the following grounds:
Public interest requires
that all criminal acts be immediately investigated and prosecuted for
the
protection of society (Gorospe vs. Pana Florida, 101 SCRA 445).
Thus,
the suspension of criminal proceedings must be avoided unless the basis
and grounds thereof are clear and unmistakable.cralaw:red
The finding of the trial
court that the criminal case, the civil case filed with the Regional
Trial
Court (RTC) at Manila and the cases filed with the Securities and
Exchange
Commission (SEC) are based on the same transaction is grounded entirely
on speculation. The complaints filed with the RTC and SEC cases
do
not support such finding.chanrobles virtual law library
Moreover, in ruling
that a prejudicial question exists, the court based its finding solely
on its conclusion that the criminal, civil and SEC cases arose out of
the
same transaction. This is contrary to Sec. 5, Rule 111 of the
Rules
of Court and the ruling of the Supreme Court that for a civil case to
be
considered prejudicial to a criminal action, it must appear not only
that
the civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal
prosecution
is based, but also that the resolution of the issues raised in said
civil
action would be necessarily determinative of the guilt or innocence of
the accused (Ras vs. Rasul, 100 SCRA 125).[10]
The petitioner, thus,
raises the following issues for resolution:
I
WHETHER OR NOT THE
CRIMINAL,
CIVIL AND SEC CASES ARE BASED ON THE SAME TRANSACTION.
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE
CASES
FILED WITH THE SEC AND THE CIVIL CASE FILED WITH THE RTC RAISE
PREJUDICIAL
QUESTIONS WHICH WOULD NECESSITATE THE SUSPENSION OF THE CRIMINAL ACTION
FOR ESTAFA.
Central to the issues
in the case at bar are Sections 5 and 6, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court,[11]
which read:
Sec.
5.
Elements of prejudicial question. – The two (2) essential elements of a
prejudicial question are: (a) the civil action involves an issue
similar
or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and
(b)
the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal
action
may proceed.chanrobles virtual law library
Sec. 6.
Suspension
by reason of prejudicial question. – A petition for suspension of the
criminal
action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a civil
action
may be filed in the office of the fiscal or the court conducting the
preliminary
investigation. When the criminal action has been filed in court
for
trial, the petition to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal
action
at any time before the prosecution rests.[12]
The petitioner asserts
that the issues involved in Criminal Case No. 167-MD for estafa are
entirely
different from and unrelated to the issues in the SEC cases and in
Civil
Case No. 97-86152 pending before the RTC of Manila. It asserts
that,
contrary to the rulings of the appellate court, the said cases are
based
on facts and transactions different from those in the criminal
case.
According to the petitioner, the resolution of the issues in the SEC
and
the civil cases are not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the
respondent in the criminal case; hence, the suspension of the
proceedings
in the criminal case was barren of factual and legal bases.
On the other hand, the
CA held that the P12,000,000 subject of the transaction in the criminal
case was the same amount involved in the SEC cases and the civil
case.
The CA then concluded that the issues raised or involved in such cases
were determinative of the guilt or innocence of the respondent in the
criminal
case, warranting the suspension of the latter case.chanrobles virtual law library
The Ruling
of
the Court
The petition is meritorious.cralaw:red
In case the civil action
is instituted ahead of the criminal action, under Section 2, Rule 111
of
the Rules of Court, the civil action shall be suspended in whatever
stage
it may be found before judgment on the merits upon the commencement of
the criminal action. Such criminal action has precedence over the
civil action to enforce the civil liability of the accused arising from
the delict. An exception is where the prejudicial question
exists,
under Sections 5 and 6, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court, as amended.cralaw:red
If the issues raised
in a civil action are so similar or intimately related to those in the
criminal case such that the resolution of the said issues in the civil
case are determinative of the juris et de jure of the guilt or
innocence
of the accused in the criminal case, the proceedings in the latter case
shall be suspended and the civil action shall proceed until judgment on
its merits.[13]
A prejudicial question is one based on a fact distinct and separate
from
the crime because if both actions arose from the same fact or
transaction,
the civil case does not constitute a prejudicial question to the
determination
of the criminal action.[14]
Neither is there a prejudicial question if the civil and the criminal
actions
can, according to the law and rules, proceed independently of each
other.[15]
The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid
two
conflicting decisions.[16]chanrobles virtual law library
In this case, the transaction
subject of the criminal case for estafa against the respondent is the
receipt
of the amount of P12,000,000 from the private complainant, Ng, which
was
intended for the purchase of 120,000 shares of stocks of MI.
According
to the Information in Criminal Case No. 167-MD, the respondent used the
money for his personal benefit instead of purchasing the said shares in
behalf of Ng. The event or occurrence subject of SEC Case No.
97-5794
filed by the AHCII and the HCI against the respondent was the latter’s
refusal to vacate the office of the president, and his insistence on
performing
and exercising the duties and powers of the said office, as well as the
chairmanship of the board of directors of the said corporation despite
his alleged ouster from the said positions. The plaintiff
corporations
sought a writ of injunction and relief for damages against the
respondent.
Neither Ng nor the MI were parties in the said case. On the other
hand, SEC Case No. 97-5796 was filed by the respondent and several
others,
for and in representation of the AHCII and the MI, as the plaintiffs,
to
nullify the October 9, 1997 stockholders’ meeting and the election of
the
board of directors and officers held thereon, anchored on their claim
that
they owned majority of the outstanding capital of the AHCII, and that
the
said meeting and election subsequently held were null and void.
As
in SEC Case No. 97-5794, Ng’s projected investment of P12,000,000 in
the
MI which, as alleged in the Information, the respondent had misused for
his personal benefit, was not the subject of SEC Case No.
97-5796.
There is even no showing in the SEC cases that Ng claimed to be a
stockholder
of the MI on account of the respondent’s receipt of the P12,000,000 for
the intended purchase of 120,000 shares of stocks therein.chanrobles virtual law library
These issues are not,
in any way, determinative of the guilt or innocence of the respondent
in
the criminal case for estafa. Whether the said meeting and
elections
will be declared null and void by the SEC will not result in the
conviction
or acquittal of the respondent for estafa, for swindling Ng of
P12,000,000.
Furthermore, the SEC cases involve intra-corporate disputes between the
respondent, on the one hand, and Ng and the other stockholders of the
AHCII,
on the other, for the control of the said corporation’s
management.
It must be stressed that the petitions before the SEC are bare of
allegations
relating to the alleged P12,000,000 received by the respondent from Ng,
and intended for the latter’s purchase of 120,000 shares of stocks in
the
MI.cralaw:red
In his petition with
the CA, the respondent alleged that in the SEC cases, the MI insisted
that
the P12,000,000 received by him was a mere loan; that he would not be
liable
of estafa if he could prove the same.[17]
According to the respondent, Ng alleged in the said SEC cases that he
and
the members of his group became the major and controlling stockholders
in AHCII because of the infusion of P12,000,000 by Ng. On the
other
hand, the respondent averred in his comment on the instant petition
that
the P12,000,000 he received from Ng referred to AHCII shares of stocks
owned by MI.[18]
A cursory reading of the Information will show that the P12,000,000 was
intended for the purchase of 120,000 shares of stocks of the MI, and
not
of the AHCII. Even the CA in its decision declared that the
P12,000,000
was intended for Ng’s purchase of shares of stocks in the MI:chanrobles virtual law library
As regards the motion
to suspend the proceedings in [the] questioned criminal case in view of
the presence of a prejudicial question in the SEC cases, petitioner
insists
in that the “nature of the subject transaction involving the alleged
P12
million of Mr. Cusencio (sic) T. Ng which is the subject of the case at
bar, is, likewise, the subject of the consolidated SEC cases.” A
perusal of the complaints (p. 79, Rollo) filed with the SEC (SEC Cases
Nos. 10-97-5794 and 10-97-5796) and the Regional Trial Court of Manila
shows that there really exists a prejudicial question. It
appears,
as claimed by private respondent, that the amount of P12 million
subject
of the instant Criminal Case for Estafa was given to petitioner to be
diverted
into shares of stocks from Mediserv, Inc., while the petitioner averred
that the amount was given as a loan. Thus, it is clear that the
nature
of the transaction involving the P12 million of private respondent in
the
criminal case is the same as the cases before the SEC and the Civil
Case
Q-97-88152 (sic) in the Regional Trial Court of Manila.[19]
Moreover, the respondent
failed to submit to the CA the answer and other pleadings filed by Ng
as
well as the pleadings of the stockholders of the AHCII in the SEC
cases,
containing allegations that they became the majority and controlling
stockholders
of the AHCII because of the infusion of P12,000,000. Such
pleadings
would have bolstered the respondent’s stance in this case, and
debilitated
that of the petitioner herein.chanrobles virtual law library
We agree with the petitioner’s
contention that the issue of whether or not the P12,000,000 was merely
a loan by Ng in favor of the MI is a matter of defense by the
respondent
in the criminal case.cralaw:red
The transaction subject
of the civil case is the loan procured by the MI in the amount of
P9,820,000,
later increased to P11,200,000, from the China Banking Corporation, the
payment of which was secured by a real estate mortgage and amended real
estate mortgage over its property in Sampaloc, Manila. The MI
sought
to nullify the extrajudicial foreclosure of the said mortgage and the
sale
of its property at public auction, on its allegation that it did not
breach
its contract with the bank. The respondent’s agreement with Ng
for
the purchase of 120,000 shares of stocks in the MI, as well as the
alleged
misappropriation of the amount of P12,000,000 by the respondent, is not
the subject matter of the civil case. Ng is not even a party
thereto;
neither was he privy to the said transaction between the respondent and
the MI, and the China Banking Corporation involving the said loan.chanrobles virtual law library
In sum, the outcome
of the civil case is not, in any way, determinative of the guilt or
innocence
of the respondent in the criminal case. The CA thus erred in
granting
the petition of the respondent and nullifying the assailed orders of
the
trial court.cralaw:red
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE
FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the
Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE. The Orders of the Regional Trial
Court
of Mandaluyong City dated December 18, 1998 and February 1, 1999 are
REINSTATED.
No costs.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Austria-Martinez, Tinga and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Corona Ibay-Somera (retired), with
Associate
Justices Oswaldo D. Agcaoili (retired) and Eloy R. Bello, Jr.,
concurring.
[2]
Penned by Judge Edwin D. Sorongon.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Rollo, pp. 41-42.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Id. at 53-54.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Id. at 67-68.
[6]
Id. at 79-81.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
CA Rollo, pp. 45-46.
[8]
Rollo, pp. 95-97.
[9]
Id. at 152.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Id. at 28.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Now Section 7, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as
amended.
[12]
Underscoring supplied.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Librado v. Coscolluela, Jr., 116 SCRA 303 (1982).
[14]
Jimenez v. Averia, 22 SCRA 1380 (1968).
[15]
Sabandal v. Tongco, 366 SCRA 567 (2001).
[16]
Tuanda v. Sandiganbayan, 249 SCRA 342 (1995).
[17]
Rollo, pp. 117-118.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
Id. at 197.
[19]
Id. at 151. (Underscoring ours.) |