G.R. No. L-32849 - Abela vs. Golez

Title: Abela vs. Golez

Case: G.R. No. L-32849

Decision Date: Jul 31, 1984

Business partners' pre-signed blank checks dishonored; estafa claim dismissed as no deceit found; fiscal's discretion upheld, mandamus denied.

Font Size:

Dark Mode

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32849)
Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Background and Initiation of Proceedings

In December 1968, private respondent Agustin Almalbis filed a complaint for estafa with the Office of the City Fiscal of Roxas City against Virginia P. Anisco.

The complaint arose from a business arrangement between Almalbis and Anisco involving the shipment and sale of fish, where Almalbis supplied the fish and Anisco was responsible for selling them in the Divisoria Market in Manila.

The Business Arrangement and Check Issuance

Under the agreed arrangement:

Almalbis, the owner and operator of fishing boats and fishponds, would ship fish in bulk to Anisco.

Anisco was paid a commission of 4% on the gross proceeds from fish sales, plus reimbursement for any expenses advanced.

After deducting her commission and expenses, Anisco was obligated to remit the net proceeds to Almalbis.

With remittances becoming irregular, Almalbis proposed an alternative method:

Anisco provided him with a check book containing checks pre-signed in blank.

Almalbis would later fill in the date, payee, and amount corresponding to the actual net proceeds from each sale.

The Bounced Checks

Several checks prepared and later filled in by Almalbis from the pre-signed check book were subsequently presented at the Prudential Bank and Trust Company of Manila.

These checks (identified as Exhibits B, C, D, E, and F) were dishonored for lacking sufficient funds or for reasons such as “Exceeds Arrangements.”

Testimonies indicated that:

The first check (No. 378389, dated September 16, 1968) was delivered by an intermediary, while subsequent checks were similarly processed.

The checks were intended to represent the net proceeds from fish sales, not immediate payment for an existing debt.

The Role of the City Fiscal and Subsequent Litigation

City Fiscal Quirico A. Abela conducted a preliminary investigation on the complaint filed by Almalbis and dismissed it for lack of merit.

In response to the dismissal, Almalbis instituted a mandamus action in the Court of First Instance of Roxas City to compel the fiscal to file the proper estafa information.

The lower court, presided over by Judge Cesario C. Golez, rendered a decision on August 27, 1970, directing that the fiscal file the proper action for estafa arising from the bouncing checks, though without pronouncing costs.

The case was directly appealed by the petitioner, City Fiscal Quirico A. Abela, leading to its review en banc.

Contextual Testimony and Evidence

The record contains detailed narratives of the business relationship, the practice of remittances via personal checks, and the transition to pre-signed blank checks.

Evidence showed that:

The checks were not issued at the moment of the transaction and were filled in later by the complainant.

The arrangement was primarily for business convenience.

The requisite element of concurrent issuance—where payment is made simultaneously with contracting the obligation—was absent.

Relevant exhibits (B through F) documented the specifics of each check, including dates, amounts, and endorsements, which were critical in understanding the dispute.

Relief Sought and the Two-Fold Action

The petition sought two main remedies:

A certiorari to review the fiscal’s dismissal of Almalbis’ original estafa complaint, arguing that such dismissal deprived the aggrieved party of his right in a criminal transaction.

A mandamus to compel the fiscal to file the corresponding criminal information for estafa.

The relief was grounded on established precedents regarding the proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion and the circumstances under which mandamus is available.

Issue:

Criminal Liability for Estafa

Was the issuance of pre-signed blank checks—which were later filled in by the complainant and eventually dishonored—a criminal act amounted to estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2-d of the Revised Penal Code?

Does the act involve the necessary element of deceit or trickery if the checks were prepared by the complainant and not concurrently with the contracting of the obligation?

Appropriateness of Mandamus

Can the petitioner, the City Fiscal, be compelled by mandamus to file the proper estafa information despite the discretionary nature of his prosecutorial functions?

In the context of fiscal discretion, what constitutes a grave abuse of discretion justifying the issuance of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus?

Nature of the Transaction

Was the business arrangement between the parties merely a commercial convenience rather than a simultaneous contracting of an obligation that would require immediate payment—the absence of which negates the requisite condition for estafa?

Should the arrangement be interpreted as a series of separate transactions, thus disassociating the presigning of checks from the immediate discharge of the corresponding obligation?

Discretion and Judicial Review of Fiscal Action

To what extent may the court review or control the fiscal’s exercise of discretion in filing or dismissing criminal charges based on the sufficiency of the evidence?

Under what circumstances does the law allow for mandamus in compelling a prosecuting officer to act, particularly when issues of evidence evaluation and discretionary judgment are involved?

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

END