United Coconut Planters Bank v. Looyuko
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) filed a complaint-affidavit against Alberto T. Looyuko and Jimmy T. Go for violation of Article 315 (1-b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to Section 13 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 115, the Trust Receipts Law. The complaint stemmed from an alleged failure to pay an indebtedness under a credit agreement and trust receipt, and to turn over the proceeds of the sale of goods or return the goods themselves, to the damage and prejudice of UCPB. Procedural History: A preliminary investigation by the Makati City Prosecutor's Office initially recommended dismissal but later, upon motion for reconsideration, recommended the filing of an Information for Estafa. An Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. Respondent Looyuko filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ), while respondent Go filed a motion for reinvestigation. The DOJ Secretary reversed the prosecutor's resolution and directed the withdrawal of the Information. UCPB's motion for reconsideration was denied. Subsequently, UCPB filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to nullify the DOJ Secretary's resolutions. The CA denied UCPB's petition, holding that the DOJ Secretary did not commit grave abuse of discretion. UCPB's motion for reconsideration was also denied by the CA. The Petition: Petitioner UCPB filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. UCPB contends that the CA erred in not finding that the DOJ Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion. Specifically, UCPB argues that the DOJ Secretary capriciously and whimsically disregarded the evidence on record, arbitrarily ruled based on bare allegations, and violated UCPB's right to procedural due process by failing to consider the evidence presented. UCPB asserts that the DOJ Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion in accepting matters of defense as truth without evidentiary basis, which should have been proven at trial. The petition seeks to reinstate the resolution finding probable cause against the respondents.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing his Resolutions dated August 29, 2000 and November 9, 2000; and whether the Secretary of Justice's findings regarding Looyuko's offer to return goods, UCPB's refusal, and the loan secured by a mortgage were supported by evidence. Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in directing the withdrawal of the information for estafa against respondents, considering the evidence presented by UCPB and the respondents' failure to substantiate their defenses.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and consequently reversed and set aside the Resolutions of the Secretary of Justice dated August 29, 2000 and November 9, 2000 for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. The Resolution of the Makati City Prosecutor's Office dated April 10, 2000, finding probable cause against the respondents, was reinstated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion by the Secretary of Justice and the evidentiary basis of his findings: The Court found the petition meritorious, noting exceptions to the rule that only questions of law are reviewable, including grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts or when findings of fact are conclusions without specific evidence. Judicial review is limited to determining grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The Court found it necessary to examine the DOJ Secretary's reasons. The Court noted that the DOJ Secretary's findings—that Looyuko offered to return the goods, UCPB refused, and instead gave a loan secured by a mortgage whose proceeds were applied to the obligation—were not supported by any evidence on record, and the respondents also failed to cite any evidence to substantiate these conclusions. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion in directing the withdrawal of the information for estafa: UCPB presented documentary evidence supporting its allegations. The Court concluded that based on the DOJ Secretary's findings, UCPB's allegations, and the respondents' failure to substantiate their defenses, there existed sufficient grounds to believe that estafa under Article 315 (1-b) of the RPC, in relation to Section 13 of P.D. No. 115, was committed, and that respondents were probably guilty. Therefore, the DOJ Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion in directing the withdrawal of the information. The Court emphasized that the presence or absence of the elements of the crime is evidentiary and a matter of defense to be passed upon during trial proper, not at the preliminary investigation level.
Main Doctrine
The Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the withdrawal of an Information for estafa when the evidence presented by the prosecution, coupled with the failure of the respondents to substantiate their defenses, established a sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that the crime was committed and that the respondents were probably guilty thereof.