Title
Dupasquier vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 112089
Decision Date
Jan 24, 2001
Banco Filipino officials challenged estafa charges; Supreme Court upheld prosecutorial discretion, reinstating charges against one official while affirming dismissal for others.

Case Digest (A.C. No. 7749)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Consolidation of Cases
    • The decision consolidates two separate cases:
      • G.R. No. 112089 – involving petitioners Remedios A. Dupasquier, Enrique M. Zalamea, Jr., Ramon Henares, Rodrigo Gatmaitan, Jr., Jesus Cordero, Benjamin Elizaga, and Eduardo Tacolod.
      • G.R. No. 112737 – involving respondent Fortunato M. Dizon, Jr. and petitioners who include high-ranking officials of the Department of Justice and the judiciary.
    • The cases challenge Court of Appeals’ decisions pertaining to the prosecution of Banco Filipino officials for estafa.
  • Background and Parties Involved
    • Plaintiff and Complainant:
      • Carlota P. Valenzuela, then deputy governor of the Central Bank and receiver/liquidator of Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, initiated the complaint by filing a case for estafa.
    • Accused-Officials from Banco Filipino:
      • The complaint targeted several officials for irregularities in granting commercial loans, including but not limited to Anthony C. Aguirre, Tomas B. Aguirre, and Fortunato M. Dizon, Jr., among others.
    • Government Officials Involved in Prosecution and Review:
      • The prosecution was carried out by officials such as Rizal’s Provincial Prosecutor Mauro M. Castro and various assistant prosecutors.
      • Respondents in the later stages included the Secretary of Justice, and specific Regional Trial Court judges who were erroneously impleaded as co-petitioners.
  • Chronological Sequence of Proceedings
    • Preliminary Investigation and Filing of Informations
      • After the initial complaint, Rizal’s 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Herminio T. Ubana, Sr. recommended the filing of estafa charges against most of the accused (excluding two persons).
      • Informations were filed on August 8, 1988, with the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 63.
    • Reinvestigation and Subsequent Resolutions
      • Some accused petitioners moved for a reconsideration or reinvestigation based on alleged irregularities in the preliminary investigation.
      • On April 10, 1989, a reinvestigation was granted, and a panel of investigators issued a memorandum recommending dismissal of the charges due to lack of probable cause.
      • Contrariwise, on July 11, 1991, Provincial Prosecutor Castro reversed the panel’s recommendation by ordering the prosecution of petitioners and respondent Fortunato Dizon, Jr.
    • Motions and Appeals
      • Petitioners filed multiple motions for reconsideration and appeals at various stages, including a motion for consolidation in the Court of Appeals.
      • Respondent Fortunato Dizon, Jr. also pursued relief by filing petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul prosecutorial resolutions and to obtain dismissal of the criminal cases filed against him.
      • Various decisions were rendered at the Court of Appeals level, with one decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit and another ordering the dismissal of charges against Dizon, Jr.
  • Central Allegations Presented by the Petitioners
    • Unequal Treatment
      • Petitioners claimed that they were treated oppressively by allowing the prosecution of some co-accused (e.g., Remedios Dupasquier) while excluding others under similar circumstances.
    • Abuse of Prosecutorial Discretion
      • The petitioners alleged that the Secretary of Justice and the Provincial Prosecutor acted with grave abuse of discretion by substituting their judgment for that of the investigative panel without proper notification.
      • The contention focused on whether such actions amounted to an excess of jurisdiction in the continuation of the prosecution against them, despite the absence of sufficient basis or damage to the bank.
    • Request for Judicial Intervention
      • Through multiple petitions and motions, the petitioners sought the dismissal of the criminal cases by challenging the propriety of the prosecutorial determinations, specifically regarding the existence of probable cause.

Issues:

  • Review of Probable Cause Determination
    • Whether the court may review and/or substitute its judgment for that of the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause sufficient to file a proper information in court.
    • Whether the evidence adduced during the preliminary investigation justified the decision to prosecute the petitioners for estafa.
  • Abuse of Discretion and Uneven Treatment
    • Whether the actions of the Secretary of Justice and the Provincial Prosecutor, in reversing the investigating panel’s recommendation, constituted grave abuse of discretion.
    • Whether the differential treatment wherein some co-accused were exonerated while others (the petitioners) continued facing prosecution is legally tenable.
  • Scope of Judicial Review on Prosecutorial Action
    • Whether the courts are empowered to second-guess the quasi-judicial discretion exercised by prosecutors in the filing or dismissal of criminal cases.
    • The extent to which courts can substitute their findings for those of the investigating prosecutor in evaluating the sufficiency of evidence to warrant prosecution.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms