Facts:
Respondents
Rodrigo Padillo and
Marietta Padillo were the owners of Padillo Lending Investor, a money lending business in Lucena City, and in September 1999 a post-audit disclosed that their manager, Marissa Padillo‑Chua, had engaged in fraudulent activities that resulted in the embezzlement of approximately P7 million; Marissa, who was married to petitioner
Wilson Chua and was the niece of respondents, had allegedly altered payee names on checks and caused alternative payees to encash the checks and turn the proceeds over to her or her husband, some of which were deposited into the bank accounts of
Wilson Chua and petitioner
Renita Chua. The Padillos filed complaints with the National Bureau of Investigation, which forwarded them to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Lucena City and the City Prosecutor, in a Resolution dated March 18, 1999, found sufficient evidence to warrant filing an Information for estafa through falsification of commercial documents against Marissa, Wilson, and Renita while provisionally dismissing several other respondents; the City Prosecutor thereafter filed an Information in the Regional Trial Court, Lucena City, as Criminal Case No. 99‑182. Complainants appealed to the Secretary of Justice, who issued a Resolution dated January 3, 2000 directing the filing of an Information only against Marissa for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents and ordering the withdrawal of the Information against Wilson and Renita; the Secretary denied reconsideration on November 6, 2000. Complainants then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals in CA‑G.R. SP No. 62401, which initially dismissed the petition on January 24, 2001 but, on reconsideration, amended its Decision on May 15, 2003 to grant the motion for reconsideration and ordered the Department of Justice, City Prosecutor of Lucena City to include
Wilson Chua and
Renita Chua as accused; the Court of Appeals denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration on May 28, 2004 and petitioners brought the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.
Issues:
Whether the
Secretary of Justice committed
grave abuse of discretion in directing the Lucena City Prosecutor to file an Information only against Marissa Padillo‑Chua and to withdraw the Information against
Wilson Chua and
Renita Chua. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in directing the Lucena City Prosecutor to include
Wilson Chua and
Renita Chua in the Information for the complex crime of
estafa through falsification of commercial documents.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: