G.R. No. L-61323-24 - Hoey vs. Provincial Fiscal of Rizal

In October and November 1980, petitioner Richard C. Hoey filed complaints with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal against Raul Leveriza, Jr. and Henry Unson, Jr., officers of Manotoc Securities, for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the Bouncing Check Law).
The investigation fiscal conducted a preliminary investigation, found probable cause, and subsequently filed the informations in the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig, under Criminal Cases Nos. 44548 and 44549.

Accused Raul Leveriza, Jr. submitted a Motion for Reconsideration in both cases. Following reinvestigation, corresponding Motions to Dismiss (dated June 7, 1982) were presented in court, asserting that the subject matter of the case was a guarantee check, which, by their contention, is not covered by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
The Motion for Reconsideration included arguments that since the information did not charge an offense, the proceedings should be dismissed not only against Raul Leveriza, Jr. but also against his co-accused, Enrique (Henry) Unson, Jr.

Raul Leveriza, Jr. and Henry Unson, Jr., as officers of Manotoc Securities Inc., were involved in diverting and unlawfully converting public funds entrusted to the corporation by investors.
Leveriza, in his capacity as Executive Vice-President, diverted public funds amounting to P10,422,573.00 for personal and related projects, thereby harming public investors including petitioner Hoey.

Hoey further alleged that as part of the scheme, the accused caused two checks issued in his favor to bounce due to a “closed account”:

IBAA Check No. HO-01293423 dated November 6, 1979, for the amount of P59,508.00; and
IBAA Check No. HO-01293422 dated November 14, 1979, for the amount of P82,634.20.

The accused, particularly Leveriza, attempted to evade service by leaving his known residence without providing a forwarding address.
Delay tactics were further underscored by the sudden appearance of legal counsel in the Motion for Reconsideration after the termination of the preliminary investigation.

Before the court could rule on the Motion to Dismiss, petitioner Hoey filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with prohibition.
The petition sought to compel the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal to prosecute the cases for violation of the Bouncing Check Law and to withdraw or desist from pursuing the pending Motions to Dismiss, thus ensuring that the trial on the merits would continue.

Section 4, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that "all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal."
However, once the information is filed in court, jurisdiction over the case vests in the court itself, thereby limiting the continuing control of the prosecuting fiscal over the case.
Precedents, notably Lansang vs. Garcia and Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Bataan vs. Dollete, were cited to support the principle that once a formal complaint or information is filed, the court assumes control over the proceedings regardless of further fiscal actions.

Whether a guarantee check qualifies as a "check" under the Bouncing Check Law (Batas Pambansa Blg. 22).

The accused argued that the subject matter—a guarantee check—does not fall within the ambit of the said law.
The issue further extends to the interpretation of the legal definition of a "check" in the context of the statute.

The motion to dismiss essentially rested on the contention that even if the document in question is considered a check, its guarantee nature exempts it from criminal liability under the law.

Whether the filing of information by the Provincial Fiscal, which has transferred control of the case to the court, precludes mandamus relief to compel prosecution.

This issue questions the extent of the fiscal’s discretion versus the court’s jurisdiction once the case is properly filed.
It also examines the propriety of bypassing standard prosecutorial procedures through a petition for writ of mandamus.