ricaforte v. jurado (2007)

7/26/2019 Ricaforte v. Jurado (2007)

1/9


2/9

ad2itted in his Co2plaint*!ffidavit that petitioner had no transaction with hi2 b& alleging that !guilar handed tohi2 petitioners two checks in pa&2ent of rice procure2ent representing these as !guilars collection checksand with assurance that the& are good7 that when !guilar replaced petitioners checks with her own, petitionerschecks had no 2ore consideration since these were issued upon agree2ent that the real debtor, !guilar, willalso issue her own checks.

Respondent appealed the dis2issal of his co2plaint to the Depart2ent of %ustice. 9he ecretar& of %usticeissued a Resolution1dated epte2ber ", "$$$ 2odif&ing the Resolution of the Cit& Prosecutor and directinghi2 to file an infor2ation against petitioner for violation of B.P. Blg. "".

9he %ustice ecretar& found that while the dis2issal of estafa is correct, petitioner should be indicted for B.P.Blg. "". uire the arrange2ent surrounding the issuance of the checks be first looked intoand thereafter e?e2pt such issuance fro2 the punitive provisions of B.P. Blg. "" on the basis of thatarrange2ent would frustrate the ver& purpose for which the law was enacted, i.e.to stop the proliferation of

unfunded checks7 that B.P. Blg. "" applies even when dishonored checks were issued 2erel& in the for2 ofdeposit or guarantee.

9he %ustice ecretar& denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution ;dated Ma& $, "$$.

Petitioner filed with the C! a Petition for Certiorariunder Rule #5 assailing the resolutions of the ecretar& of%ustice for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.

/n !pril "#, "$$", the C! issued its assailed Decision den&ing the petition for lack of 2erit. 9he C! found nograve abuse of discretion co22itted b& the %ustice ecretar& in his assailed Resolutions. uired under B.P. Blg."" which will onl& bedeter2ined during trial.

Petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated %ul& "', "$$". 9he C! ruled that2ere issuance of a bouncing check constitutes a probable cause for violation of B.P. Blg. ""7 that whether ornot the accused is guilt& thereof is deter2ined in the trial proper7 that preli2inar& investigation is not a trial andis not intended to usurp the function of the trial court7 that Sales, which is invoked b& petitioner, is not applicableto the instant case, since the issue in that case was whether or not the /2buds2an followed the properprocedure in conducting a preli2inar& investigation and the corollar& issue of whether or not petitioner wasafforded an opportunit& to be heard and to sub2it controverting evidence which are not the issues in this case.

6ence, herein petition on the following grounds:

uestion whether or not an accused can be bound over for trial can alread& be deter2ined7 if it wasdeter2ined at the preli2inar& investigation that an accused had not co22itted the cri2e charged, then it isuseless to still hold a trial to deter2ine the guilt of the accused, since it can alread& be deter2ined at thepreli2inar& investigation.

Fe are not persuaded.

uires2ore than bare suspicion but less than evidence which would @ustif& a conviction."! finding of probable causeneeds onl& to rest on evidence showing that 2ore likel& than not, a cri2e has been co22itted b& thesuspect.uires after trial on the 2erits.4

9he co2plainant need not present at this stage proof be&ond reasonabledoubt. ! preli2inar& investigation does not re>uire a full and e?haustive presentation of the partiesevidence.5


5/9

9he grava2en of the offense punished b& B.P. Blg. "" is the act of 2aking and issuing a worthless check7 thatis, a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for pa&2ent.1uired a te2porar& reprieve on her obligation.

9he validit& and 2erits of a part&s defense and accusation, as well as ad2issibilit& of testi2onies andevidence, are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preli2inar& investigation level."4! finding ofprobable cause does not ensure a conviction or a conclusive finding of guilt be&ond reasonable doubt. 9heallegations adduced b& the prosecution will be put to test in a full*blown trial in which evidence shall beanal&ed, weighed, given credence or disproved."5


6/9

obligation or @ust as a guarant& of an obligation. BP "" does not appear to concern itself with what2ight actuall& be envisioned b& the parties, its pri2ordial intention being to instead ensure the stabilit&and co22ercial value of checks as being virtual substitutes for currenc&. uer& then is whether the law has been breached, i.e., b& the2ere act of issuing a bad check, without so 2uch regard as to the cri2inal intent of the issuer."'

!lso, in Cru" v. Court of Appeals,$we held:

uestion does not 2ake an&distinction as to whether the checks within its conte2plation are issued in pa&2ent of an obligation or2erel& to guarantee the said obligation. ualif&ing proviso deliberatel& for the purpose of 2aking the enforce2ent of the act 2ore effective(Batasan Record, 0irst Regular ession, Dece2ber 4, '1;, olu2e uestion to cover accounts and that the checks were dishonored upon present2ent regardless ofwhether or not the accused 2erel& issued the checks as a guarantee.

Petitioner invokes our ruling in Magno v. Court of Appeals"where the accused therein was ac>uitted of B.P.Blg. "" for issuing checks to collateralie an acco22odation and not to cover the receipt of actual account orfor value. uip2ents. !s part of their arrange2ent, = 0inance re>uired a $L warrant& depositof the purchaseJlease value of the e>uip2ents to be transacted upon. !ccused then asked the = 0inanceice President %oe& +o2e to look for a third part& who could lend hi2 the e>uivalent a2ount of the warrant&deposit as he did not have such a2ount, however, unknown to the accused, it was Coraon 9eng (icePresident of M!-C/R) who advanced the deposit in >uestion on condition that the sa2e would be paid as ashort ter2 loan at L interest. 9he accused subse>uentl& issued checks to collateralie an acco22odation2ade b& 9eng a2ounting to 9went& -ine 9housand even 6undred Pesos (P"',1$$.$$) as warrant& deposit.ubse>uentl&, the said checks bounced7 thus the accused was prosecuted and the lower courts convicted hi2of B.P. Blg. "". /n a Petition for Review on Certiorari, we however ac>uitted the accused and held that thecash out 2ade b& 9eng was not used b& the accused who was @ust pa&ing rental on the e>uip2ents. 9ocharge hi2 for the refund of a warrant& deposit he did not withdraw, because it was not his own account andit re2ained with = 0inance, would be to 2ake hi2 pa& an un@ust debt, to sa& the least, since he did notactuall& receive the a2ount involved. Fe also held that this is a sche2e whereb& 9eng as the supplier of thee>uip2ent in the na2e of Mancor, would be able to sell or lease its goods as in this case, and at the sa2e ti2eprivatel& finance those who desperatel& needed pett& acco22odations as obtaining in said case7 thatthis mousoperani%in so 2an& instances, victi2ied unsuspecting business2en who likewise neededprotection fro2 the law b& availing the2selves of the deceptivel& called warrant& deposit, not realiing thatthe& would fall pre& to a leasing e>uip2ent under the guise of a lease*purchase agree2ent, when it was asche2e designed to ski2 off a business client.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_154438_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_154438_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_154438_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_154438_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_154438_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_154438_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_154438_2007.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_154438_2007.html#fnt29http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_154438_2007.html#fnt30http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_154438_2007.html#fnt31http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/sep2007/gr_154438_2007.html#fnt32


7/9

uisitorial, and itis often the onl& 2eans of discovering the persons who 2a& be reasonabl& charged with a cri2e, to enable thefiscal to prepare his co2plaint or infor2ation.


8/9

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

'naresSantiago% Chairperson% Chico#a"ario% #achura% $ees% **.%concur.

$oot*ote+

Penned b& %ustice 8lieer R. delos antos, concurred in b& %ustices Cancio C. +arcia (now!ssociate %ustice of this Court) and Marina =. Buon7 C! rollo, pp. 55*5'.

"


9/9

'

ricaforte v. jurado (2007)

Documents