Case Digest (G.R. No. 167571)
Facts:
Luis Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of Justice, Ramon C. Tongson and Rodrigo G. Cawili, G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.
In 1992 Rodrigo Cawili borrowed P1,979,459.00 from Luis Panaguiton, Jr. On January 8, 1993, Cawili and his business associate Ramon C. Tongson supposedly issued three checks payable to petitioner; all three checks bore both Cawili’s and Tongson’s signatures and were dishonored upon presentment in March 1993. Petitioner made formal demands in 1995 but received no payment and on August 24, 1995 filed a complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office.
During preliminary investigation only Tongson answered, denying issuance of the checks and claiming forgery of his signatures; he also asserted he was not Cawili’s business associate. Petitioner presented documentary evidence of signatures and an affidavit of adverse claim by Tongson. On December 6, 1995, the City Prosecutor found probable cause only against Cawili and dismissed charges against Tongson. Petitioner filed a partial appeal to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
On July 11, 1997, Chief State Prosecutor Zuno ordered reinvestigation and referral of the questioned signatures to the NBI. Tongson’s motion for reconsideration was denied, but on March 15, 1999 Assistant City Prosecutor Sampaga dismissed the complaint against Tongson, ruling the offense had prescribed under Act No. 3326 (four-year prescription for special acts) and that filing with the prosecutor’s office did not interrupt prescription. The DOJ, through Undersecretary Teehankee, initially affirmed prescription.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration; on April 3, 2003 Undersecretary Gutierrez reversed, citing Ingco v. Sandiganbayan, held the filing for preliminary investigation interrupts prescription, and directed the City Prosecutor to file informations. On July 8, 2003 the City Prosecutor filed three informations against Tongson. However, on August 9, 2004 the DOJ again reversed course, concluding the offense had prescribed under Act No. 3326 and citing Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr., and ordered withdrawal of the informations.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the August 9, 2004 DOJ resolution. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for failure to attach a proper verification and certification against forum-shopping and for attaching only a photocopy of the April 3, 2003 DOJ resolution; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (with an amended verification) was denied. Petitioner then filed the present petition for review in the Supreme Court seeking annulment of the CA resolutions and the DOJ’s August 9, 2004 resolution.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals properly dismiss petitioner’s certiorari petition on technical grounds for defective verification and lack of a certified copy?
- Did the Department of Justice correctly rule that the offense under B.P. Blg. 22 had prescribed under Act No. 3326, i.e., that filing a complaint with the prosecutor’s office does not interrupt the running of prescription?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)