Lim v. Ang
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Edilberto D. Ang filed a criminal complaint against Elizabeth Lim for violation of Batas Pangsana Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). The complaint alleged that Lim issued Allied Bank Check No. 0089099 for P2,208,398.40 on September 10, 2000, knowing she had insufficient funds. The check was dishonored on October 2, 2000, due to an "account closed" status, causing prejudice to Ang. 2. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) found sufficient ground to hold Lim for trial. Lim's motion to quash the complaint, citing defects such as lack of notice of dishonor and improper certification of the affidavit, was denied. She then filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). While the RTC petition was pending, Ang filed a second amended criminal complaint with the MTCC, which included all essential elements of the offense. The RTC dismissed Lim's petition, deeming it moot and academic due to the filing of the second amended complaint. Lim's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading her to file the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Elizabeth Lim seeks the nullification of the RTC's decision and order, arguing that the MTCC should have first determined probable cause under the second amended complaint before the RTC dismissed her certiorari petition. She contends that the RTC's dismissal was premature. The Supreme Court, however, denied the petition, holding that the filing of the second amended criminal complaint superseded the earlier one, rendering the certiorari petition moot and academic. The Court also noted the fatal defect of failing to implead the People of the Philippines as a respondent.
Issue(s)
Whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari as moot and academic; and whether the filing of a second amended criminal complaint, which cured defects in a prior complaint, rendered the petition for certiorari moot and academic despite the absence of a determination of probable cause by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). Whether the petitioner correctly impleaded the necessary parties in her petition before the RTC and the Supreme Court.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's dismissal of the petition for certiorari, holding that the filing of the second amended criminal complaint superseded the previous one and rendered the petition moot and academic. The Court also noted the fatal defect of failing to implead the People of the Philippines.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the petition for certiorari as moot and academic and the effect of the second amended complaint: The Supreme Court agreed with the RTC that the filing of the second amended criminal complaint rendered the petition for certiorari moot and academic. The original and first amended complaints were found to be deficient in alleging essential elements of the violation of B.P. Blg. 22, specifically the issuance of the check on account or for value and the notice of dishonor to the accused. However, the second amended criminal complaint corrected these deficiencies by including all the necessary allegations for the offense. According to Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, an amended complaint may be amended as to matter of form or substance even without leave of court before the accused is arraigned. Therefore, the second amended complaint effectively superseded the earlier ones, making the challenge to the earlier complaints moot. The Court reiterated the principle that courts will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved and decline jurisdiction of moot cases. As stated in Ocampo v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, where an issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. In this case, the petition assailed the order denying the motion to quash the amended complaint. With the filing of the second amended complaint, which contained all essential elements, the basis for the petition for certiorari ceased to exist, thus rendering it moot and academic. It was of no moment that the MTCC had not yet determined probable cause under the second amended complaint; what was before the MTCC was a valid complaint. On the failure to implead the People of the Philippines: The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner failed to implead the People of the Philippines in her petition before the RTC and the Supreme Court. This omission is considered fatal to the petitioner's cause, as it is incumbent upon the petitioner to implead the People of the Philippines as respondent to enable the Solicitor General to comment on the petition. This procedural defect alone could have been sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a second amended criminal complaint, which cures defects in a prior amended complaint by including all essential elements of the offense charged, renders a petition for certiorari assailing the prior complaint moot and academic, even if the court has not yet determined probable cause under the new complaint.