Case Digest (G.R. No. 191718)
Facts:
Ramon H. Debuque v. Matt C. Nilson, G.R. No. 191718, May 10, 2021, the Supreme Court Third Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Ramon H. Debuque; respondent is Matt C. Nilson, the private complainant.In the early 1990s respondent Nilson, then Managing Director of Tongsat, advanced repeated loans to Atty. Ignacio D. Debuque, Jr. (Atty. Debuque). Atty. Debuque promised Nilson that the loans and other payments would be converted into shares in a corporation to be formed, Investa Land Corporation (ILC), and induced Nilson to pay sums for property purchases and operational capital (including payments of P6 million, P3 million, and P8 million). Nilson alleged the shares were never issued, some titles pledged as security were questionable, and ILC’s SEC registration was revoked; he filed a Complaint-Affidavit for Syndicated Estafa against Atty. Debuque, petitioner Ramon and several others before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City (I.S. No. 05-5856). The accused filed counter-charges for Falsification and Perjury.
On May 10, 2006, Assistant City Prosecutor Florante R. Ramolete issued a Joint Resolution finding probable cause for Syndicated Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1689 (PD 1689), against Atty. Debuque and the other accused, and dismissed the counter-charges. An Information for Syndicated Estafa was subsequently filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, Branch 105 (Crim. Case No. Q‑06‑141941).
Atty. Debuque and the other accused appealed the Joint Resolution to the Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ) pursuant to the DOJ’s internal rules. On March 12, 2007 the DOJ Secretary reversed the Joint Resolution and ordered withdrawal of the Information for Syndicated Estafa, directing instead that an Information for Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) be filed solely against Atty. Debuque. Nilson moved for reconsideration, upon which the DOJ Secretary on June 25, 2007 reversed his March 12 disposition and reinstated the City Prosecutor’s finding of probable cause for Syndicated Estafa against all accused. The accused again sought reconsideration; on August 23, 2007 the DOJ Secretary again reversed himself and ordered withdrawal of the Syndicated Estafa information and directed that Estafa be charged only against Atty. Debuque.
Nilson filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the August 23, 2007 DOJ Resolution; the CA treated the petition as a Rule 65 petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion and, in its June 30, 2009 Decision, reversed the DOJ Secretary and reinstated the City Prosecutor’s May 10, 2006 Joint Resolution finding probable cause for Syndicated Estafa against all accused. Ramon’s motion for reconsideration to the CA was denied in a March 23, 2010 Resolution.
Ramon filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing the CA decision. While the petition was pending here, the RTC on February 22, 2013 granted a demurrer to evidence and dismissed the c...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court rendered moot and academic by the RTC’s dismissal of the criminal case (demurrer to evidence) and by the death of the principal accused?
- Was there probable cause to indict petitioner Ramon for Syndicated Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC, as amende...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)