Chua v. Chiok
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Rufina Chua met respondent Wilfred Chiok in 1989, who represented himself as a licensed stockbroker. Trusting him, she invested substantial amounts, including ₱9,563,900.00 in June 1995 for bulk stock purchases. Respondent admitted spending the money and issued checks that were dishonored for insufficient funds. Petitioner discovered respondent was not a licensed stockbroker but a telephone clerk. An information for estafa was filed. Procedural History: Respondent pleaded not guilty. The trial court convicted him of estafa and sentenced him to 12 years of prision mayor to 20 years of reclusion temporal, ordering him to pay petitioner ₱9,563,900.00 with interest. Respondent and his counsel failed to appear during the promulgation of judgment on January 26, 1999, and again on February 1, 1999. The trial court issued an Omnibus Order on May 28, 1999, denying respondent's motion for reconsideration, canceling his bail, and ordering his arrest if he failed to appear within five days. Respondent appealed the conviction and the Omnibus Order (insofar as it denied reconsideration) to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR No. 23309). He also filed a separate petition for certiorari with application for TRO and preliminary injunction assailing the Omnibus Order canceling his bail (CA-G.R. SP No. 53340). The Petition: The CA issued a TRO and later a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the arrest of respondent, holding that the offense was non-capital and the probability of flight was conjectural. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's resolutions for grave abuse of discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the arrest of respondent. Whether a petition for certiorari is the proper remedy to assail an order canceling bail.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the assailed Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dismissed respondent's petition for certiorari, and affirmed the trial court's Omnibus Order canceling respondent's bail.
Ratio Decidendi
On the grant of the writ of preliminary injunction: The Court found the assailed Resolution of the Court of Appeals granting the writ of preliminary injunction to be bereft of factual or legal basis. To be entitled to an injunctive writ, the applicant must show a clear existing right to be protected and that the acts against which the injunction is directed are in violation of such right. In this case, the respondent had no right to be freed on bail pending his appeal because his conviction carried a penalty exceeding six years, which justified the cancellation of his bail. Furthermore, his inexcusable failure to appear during the promulgation of judgment demonstrated a probability of flight or commission of another crime. The Court emphasized that the rule authorizing promulgation in absentia is intended to prevent the subversion of the judicial process by accused persons jumping bail. On the propriety of the certiorari petition: The Court held that a petition for certiorari was not the proper recourse to assail the trial court's Omnibus Order canceling respondent's bail. Section 5, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure clearly states that the appropriate remedy is a motion to review the order within the same regular appeal proceedings that the accused himself initiated. Filing a separate petition for certiorari constitutes forum shopping and contravenes the rule against multiplicity of suits. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing outright the respondent's petition for certiorari.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari is not the proper recourse to assail an order canceling bail; the appropriate remedy is a motion to review the order within the regular appeal proceedings. Furthermore, a writ of preliminary injunction will not be granted absent a clear existing right to be protected and a violation thereof.