Case Digest (G.R. No. 172142)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 172142)
Facts:
David B. Campanano, Jr. v. Jose Antonio A. Datuin, G.R. No. 172142, October 17, 2007, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner David B. Campanano, Jr. (president of Seishin International Corporation) was the private complainant in an estafa prosecution that resulted in the conviction of respondent Jose Antonio A. Datuin by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 71, Pasig City, in a May 3, 1999 Decision; the appeals were dismissed and the conviction became final and executory on October 24, 2003.Claiming he discovered new evidence (a cash voucher showing payment for two roadrollers), respondent filed on August 28, 2003 a complaint-affidavit for the crime of Incriminating Innocent Persons under Article 363 of the Revised Penal Code before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City against petitioner and Yasunobu (Yasonobu) Hirota. The affidavit alleged that Campanano’s complaint and testimony in the estafa case were false, unfounded and malicious in light of the cash voucher found later.
The Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City dismissed respondent’s complaint by Resolution dated January 20, 2004, on the ground that the estafa case and the testimony occurred in Pasig City and therefore the Quezon City prosecutor lacked jurisdiction; it also stated, alternatively, that it found no basis to indict. Respondent elevated the matter to the Department of Justice (DOJ), which dismissed the petition for review by Resolution dated August 20, 2004, and denied reconsideration on April 11, 2005.
The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the DOJ by Decision dated December 9, 2005 and remanded the case to the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office for further investigation, reasoning principally that petitioner’s counter-affidavit was executed in Quezon City and thus that office had acquired jurisdiction. Petitioner sought relief in the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, assailing the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the DOJ resolutions and arguing lack of jurisdiction and absence of probable cause under Article 363.
Issues:
- Did the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City have jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigation of respondent’s complaint for incriminating innocent person?
- Did respondent’s complaint-affidavit allege a clear probable cause to charge petitioner with the crime of incriminating an innocent person under Article 363 of the Revised Penal Code?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)