Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21937)
Facts:
In Teodoro C. Borlongan, Jr. v. Magdaleno M. PeAa, decided on May 5, 2010, petitioners Teodoro C. Borlongan, Jr., Corazon M. Bejasa, Arturo E. Manuel, Jr., Eric L. Lee, P. Siervo H. Dizon, Benjamin de Leon, Delfin C. Gonzales, Jr., and Ben Yu Lim, Jr. (all officers of Urban Bank) were charged with the crime of introducing falsified documents under Article 172, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. The case arose when respondent Atty. Magdaleno M. PeAa, as plaintiff in Civil Case No. 754 before the RTC of Negros Occidental, alleged that petitioners submitted falsified letters and memoranda of Isabela Sugar Company (ISC) to support their motion to dismiss his claim for agency fees. After the City Prosecutor of Bago City found probable cause, Informations were filed in MTCC Criminal Case Nos. 6683–6686, and warrants of arrest issued. Petitioners moved to quash, recall the warrants, or reinvestigate, contending lack of due process, absence of a preliminary investigation, and insuffCase Digest (G.R. No. L-21937)
Facts:
- Civil Case No. 754 (RTC, Bago City)
- Atty. Magdaleno M. PeAa sued Urban Bank and its board members (petitioners) for agent’s compensation, expenses, damages, and attorney’s fees based on an alleged Contract of Agency with Isabela Sugar Company, Inc. (ISCI).
- Petitioners moved to dismiss, attaching four documents (two letters from “Herman Ponce” and “Julie Abad,” two communications by “Marilyn G. Ong,” and a memorandum by Enrique Montilla III) to show PeAa’s agency was with ISCI, not them.
- Criminal Complaint and Preliminary Investigation
- PeAa filed a complaint-affidavit with the City Prosecutor, alleging the four documents were falsified, that the purported ISCI signatories did not exist or hold the offices claimed, and that petitioners used those documents in Civil Case No. 754.
- The City Prosecutor found probable cause for four counts of Introducing Falsified Documents (Art. 172, RPC) and filed Informations in MTCC (Criminal Case Nos. 6683–6686). Arrest warrants were issued.
- Omnibus Motion and CA Petition
- Petitioners filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash, Recall Warrants, and/or for Reinvestigation, arguing lack of due process (no counter-affidavits, improper procedure), no probable cause, inclusion of Ben Yu Lim, Jr. (not a bank director), and a prejudicial question in the pending civil case.
- MTCC denied the motion (13 November 1998). Petitioners secured certiorari relief from the CA, which dismissed their petition (20 June 2000). They then filed a Rule 45 petition with the SC; the SC issued a TRO (2 August 2000).
Issues:
- Procedural Issues
- When an offense is not cognizable by the RTC, is a finding of probable cause required before filing an information, and must the prosecutor dismiss or require counter-affidavits if allegations lack probable cause?
- Can a complaint-affidavit that contains hearsay or matters beyond the affiant’s personal knowledge support a finding of probable cause?
- Should the judge refuse to issue a warrant of arrest or require counter-affidavits where no probable cause appears in the preliminary investigation record?
- Jurisdictional and Miscellaneous Issues
- Can a criminal prosecution be restrained by certiorari?
- Can the Supreme Court itself determine the existence of probable cause?
- Did petitioners’ posting of bail and arraignment moot the issues or waive their right to challenge the arrest warrants?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)