Case Digest (G.R. No. L-50550-52)
Facts:
Chee Kiong Yam, Ampang Mah, Anita Yam, Jose Y. C. Yam and Richard Yam v. Hon. Nabdar J. Malik, the People of the Philippines, Rosalinda Amin, Tan Chu Kao, and Lt. Col. Agosto Sajor, G.R. No. L-50550-52, October 31, 1979, the Supreme Court Second Division, Abad Santos, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are several members of the Yam family who filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus (with preliminary injunction) against Municipal Judge Nabdar J. Malik of Jolo, Sulu (Branch I), and against private complainants Rosalinda Amin, Tan Chu Kao and Lt. Col. Augusto Sajor; the People of the Philippines was also named. Petitioners alleged that Judge Malik acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion when he (a) found a prima facie case in three preliminary investigations for estafa; (b) issued warrants of arrest; and (c) proceeded to conduct trial on the merits in Criminal Cases Nos. M-111, M-183 and M-208.
The petition recounted that in Criminal Case No. M-111 Rosalinda M. Amin charged petitioners Yam Chee Kiong and Yam Yap Kieng with estafa through misappropriation of P50,000; the complaint itself, and a related civil action (Civil Case No. N-5 filed in the Court of First Instance of Sulu), described the sum as a “simple business loan.” In Criminal Case No. M-183 Tan Chu Kao charged Yam Chee Kiong, Jose Y.C. Yam, Ampang Mah and Anita Yam (alias Yong Tay) with misappropriation of P30,000; the complaint likewise described the sum as “a simple loan,” and a civil action (N-8) for collection was pending in the Court of First Instance. In Criminal Case No. M-208 Augusto Sajor charged Jose Y.C. Yam, Anita Yam (alias Yong Tai Mah), Chee Kiong Yam and Richard Yam with misappropriation of P20,000; although that criminal complaint did not expressly recite a loan, Sajor submitted a sworn statement asserting the transaction was a loan.
By resolution dated May 23, 1979 the Court required respondents to comment and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the respondent judge from further proceeding in the three criminal cases or enforcing the arrest warrants. The respondent judge and the private respondents asked for dismissal of the petition; the Solicitor General...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the respondent Municipal Judge act without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in finding a prima facie case, issuing warrants, and proceeding to trial in Criminal Cases Nos. M-111, M-183 and M-208?
- Do the facts alleged in the three criminal complaints constitute the crime of estafa by misappropriation under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code?
- If estafa were established, did the Municipal Court of Jolo have jurisdiction to try the offenses given the amounts involved?
- Are the People of the Philippines and the private respondents properly subject to a claim for...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)