G.R. No. L-50550-52 - Chee Kiong Yam vs. Malik

Petitioners: Chee Kiong Yam, Ampang Mah, Anita Yam, Jose Y.C. Yam, and Richard Yam.
Respondents: Hon. Nabdar J. Malik (Municipal Judge of Jolo, Sulu, Branch I), the People of the Philippines, Rosalinda Amin, Tan Chu Kao, and Lt. Col. Agosto Sajor.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with a preliminary injunction.
They alleged that respondent judge acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, and with grave abuse of discretion in:

Finding a prima facie case of estafa against petitioners during the preliminary investigation.
Issuing warrants of arrest against petitioners based on that finding.
Attempting to conduct trial on the merits of said criminal cases docketed as Criminal Cases No. M-111, M-183, and M-208.

Petitioners contended that the facts in the complaints do not constitute the crime of estafa.
Even if they did, the cases were beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Jolo.

Criminal Case No. M-111: Rosalinda M. Amin accused Yam Chee Kiong and Yam Yap Kieng of estafa through misappropriation of P50,000.00. The complaint states the amount was given as a "loan."

She also filed a civil case (Civil Case No. N-5) seeking collection of the same amount described as a "simple business loan."

Criminal Case No. M-183: Tan Chu Kao charged Yam Chee Kiong, Jose Y.C. Yam, Ampang Mah, and Anita Yam with estafa through misappropriation of P30,000.00, described as "a simple loan."

There was also a civil case (Civil Case No. N-8) for the same amount described as a loan.

Criminal Case No. M-208: Augusto Sajor charged Jose Y.C. Yam, Anita Yam, Chee Kiong Yam, and Richard Yam with estafa over P20,000.00.

Unlike the other two, the complaint did not state the amount was a loan, but a sworn statement from Sajor admitted it was a loan.

Estafa through misappropriation requires the offender to have received the property in trust or on commission with an obligation to return the same money or property.
Loan (mutuum) differs from commodatum (gratuitous loan of non-consumable things) in that ownership of the money passes to the borrower, who is only bound to return an equivalent amount, not the original bills or coins.
The municipal court has jurisdiction only over cases where the penalty does not exceed prision correccional (six years imprisonment), which was not the case here given the amount involved.

Whether the respondent Municipal Judge acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion by:

Finding a prima facie case of estafa against petitioners during the preliminary investigation.
Issuing warrants of arrest against petitioners.
Trying to conduct trial on the merits of the estafa charges.

Whether the crime charged (estafa through misappropriation) was properly constituted under the facts alleged.

Whether the Municipal Court of Jolo had jurisdiction to try the criminal charges filed against the petitioners.

Whether the People of the Philippines or private respondents can be held liable for damages in this case.