Case Digest (G.R. No. 65418)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 65418)
Facts:
Raul H. Sesbreno v. Court of Appeals and Hermilo Rodis, Sr., G.R. No. 84096, January 26, 1995, First Division, Quiason, J., writing for the Court.Private respondent Hermilo Rodis, Sr. (with Douglas Sandiego and Ricardo Silverio, Sr.) was charged with estafa in Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 20, Cebu, in Criminal Case No. CU-10568 based on an alleged failure to return a P300,000 money market placement placed by petitioner Raul H. Sesbreno. The information alleged that the accused received the placement for 32 days at 20% interest and thereafter misappropriated and converted the sum, refusing to account despite demands.
Respondent Rodis moved to quash the information, arguing that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), not regular courts, had jurisdiction over money market transactions and that the facts did not constitute an offense; the RTC denied the motion. Rodis sought certiorari in the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) (AC-G.R. SP No. 15448), which dismissed the petition on August 16, 1983; the IAC denied reconsideration. Rodis then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court (docketed G.R. No. 65477), which was denied on February 6, 1984.
Trial proceeded in the RTC. After the prosecution rested, Rodis filed a motion to dismiss on demurrer to evidence, asserting that non-payment of a money market placement did not constitute estafa (noting prior advice from the Minister of Justice that such placement partook of the nature of a loan). The RTC denied the motion on March 13, 1985, and later found that Rodis had waived his right to present evidence because of dilatory motions (June 21, 1985). Rodis then filed a certiorari/prohibition petition in the Court of Appeals (AC-G.R. SP No. 6315).
On December 29, 1987, the Court of Appeals granted Rodis' petition, relying on Perez v. Court of Appeals, and held that a money market transaction is in the nature of a loan (involving transfer of ownership of the money) so that nonpayment is civil, not criminal; it ordered the RTC to dismiss the criminal case. On motion for reconsideration the Court of Appeals modified its disposition to dismiss Criminal Case No. CU-10568 "as against petitioner Hermilo Rodis, Sr. only" and directed the trial judge to determine any civil liability from the extant record. Petitioner then filed the present petition to the Supreme Court (docketed G.R. No. 84096) challenging, among other things, the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction to decide the legal question raised.
The Court of Appeals and the parties litigated related civil actions arising from the same placement; this Court later decided G.R. No. 89252 in which it ordered Pilipinas Bank to pay Sesbreno damages arising from the loss of his assigned portion of the promissory note evidencing the placement.
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals without jurisdiction to entertain Rodis' petition for certiorari/prohibition because the question it resolved was one of law (properly for the Supreme Court)?
- On the merits, did the facts of the money market placement constitute the crime of estafa or merely give rise to civil liability?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)