G.R. No. 156337 - United Coconut Planters Bank vs. Looyuko

Case Digest (G.R. No. 156337)
Advanced

Facts:

Parties and their roles

United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) was the complainant and petitioner.
Alberto T. Looyuko (Looyuko) and Jimmy T. Go (Go) were respondents accused of estafa.
Angelo Manahan and Francisco Zarate, Senior Vice-President and First Vice-President, respectively, acted for UCPB in filing the complaint-affidavit.

Filing of the complaint-affidavit and preliminary investigation

UCPB filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Makati City Prosecutors Office accusing Looyuko and Go of violation of Article 315(1-b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Section 13 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 115 (Trust Receipts Law).
After preliminary investigation, the investigating prosecutor issued a Resolution dated February 16, 2000 recommending dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency of evidence.
The Assistant Chief State Prosecutor, Officer-in-Charge approved the February 16, 2000 resolution on February 22, 2000.

Motion for reconsideration and filing of the Information

UCPB filed a motion for reconsideration.
The Assistant Chief State Prosecutor approved on April 10, 2000 the investigating prosecutor’s resolution recommending the filing of an Information for Estafa against Looyuko and Go.
Accordingly, an Information for Estafa under Article 315(1-b) of the RPC, in relation to P.D. No. 115, was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City.

Remedies by respondents and DOJ disposition

Looyuko filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ) assailing the April 10, 2000 resolution of the Makati City Prosecutors Office.
Go filed a Motion for Reinvestigation with the RTC of Makati City.
On August 29, 2000, the DOJ Secretary Artemio G. Tuquero issued a resolution directing withdrawal of the Information.

The dispositive portion ordered reversal and setting aside of the assailed resolution.
It directed the City Prosecutor of Makati City to move for withdrawal of the Information for estafa against Looyuko and Go filed before RTC Makati City, Branch 139.

UCPB filed a motion for reconsideration, but the DOJ Secretary denied it in a Resolution dated November 9, 2000.
Meanwhile, the Makati City Prosecutors Office filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Information dated September 14, 2000.

CA proceedings for certiorari and prohibition; dismissal

UCPB filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition in the Court of Appeals (CA) to nullify the DOJ Secretary’s August 29, 2000 and November 9, 2000 resolutions for grave abuse of discretion.
In a Decision dated March 15, 2002, the CA denied the petition, holding that the DOJ Secretary did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling against probable cause to prosecute.
UCPB’s motion for reconsideration was denied by CA in a Resolution dated November 29, 2002.

Issues raised before the Supreme Court

UCPB filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the CA rulings, arguing:

The CA decided in a way not in accord with law and jurisprudence.
The CA sanctioned deviation from the accepted course of proceedings.
The CA seriously erred in not finding that the DOJ Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion.

UCPB claimed, in substance:

The DOJ Secretary capriciously disregarded evidence and ruled based on bare allegations.
The DOJ Secretary violated UCPB’s right to procedural due process.
The DOJ Secretary gravely abused discretion by accepting as true matters of defense allegedly requiring proof at trial.

UCPB’s evidentiary contentions and the matters supposedly lacking proof

UCPB contended that the DOJ Secretary’s conclusions lacked evidentiary support, specifically that there was no evidence proving:

Looyuko offered to return the trust receipt goods and UCPB refused the offer.
A “new loan” by UCPB extinguished Looyuko’s obligation under the trust receipt.

UCPB asserted that certiorari before the CA was proper despite the general rule against reviewing evaluation of evidence, because the alleged grave abuse consisted of a total disregard of material evidence.

Respondents’ positions in the Supreme Court

Looyuko argued that the petition required review of factual findings by the DOJ and the CA, which a Rule 45 petition proscribes.
Go echoed that re-evaluation of evidence was beyond the province of Rule 45.
Go argued further that the CA did not err because the petition sought re-examination of evidence, while certiorari corrects jurisdictional errors and grave abuse of discretion, not factual re-weighing.
Go also maintained that determination of probable cause is an executive function, and courts should refrain from interfering with preliminary investigations absent clear grave abuse.

The DOJ Secretary’s reasoning quoted in the decision

The DOJ Secretary accepted the narrative that:

UCPB is a banking corporation.
Through UCPB’s senior vice president Angelo V. Manahan, UCPB alleged that Looyuko represented himself as the sole proprietor/owner of Noah’s Ark Sugar Refinery (Noah), part of the Noah Group owned by Looyuko.
Go was Noah’s general manager.

The credit and trust receipt transactions described included:

On July 28, 1995, UCPB and Noah Group entered into a credit agreement with a letter of credit/trust receipt line.
Noah Group could avail of up to P50 million, with a duty to reimburse UCPB whatever amounts UCPB paid under the credit/trust receipt line.
The trust receipt had a term of sixty (60) days.
On September 17, 1996, UCPB and Noah Group renewed the credit agreement, valid until August 31, 1997, for P175.0 million, to finance purchase of raw sugar.
On July 3, 1997, Looyuko/Noah availed of the letter of credit/trust receipt facility.
UCPB opened a letter of credit for US$82,280.00 to finance importation of forty (40) metric tons of granular activated carbon.
On August 25, 1997, the letter of credit was drawn and UCPB paid US$82,280.00 to its correspondent bank.
Respondents received and took possession of the goods.
On August 27, 1997, respondents executed a trust receipt...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

Whether the CA erred in sustaining the DOJ Secretary’s finding of no probable cause and directing withdrawal of the estafa Information

Whether the DOJ Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when directing withdrawal.

Whether the CA correctly limited review and declined to disturb the DOJ Secretary’s assessment of probable cause absent “clear” grave abuse.

Whether the DOJ Secretary’s resolutions were issued with grave abuse of discretion

Whether the DOJ Secretary ruled based on bare allegations and disregarded the record by failing to cite evidence supporting material conclusions concerning:

The alleged offer to return trust goods and refusal by UCPB.

The alleged new loan secured by real estate mortgage.

The alleged application of loan proceeds to discharge trust receipt obligations.

Whether such omissions constituted gross misapprehension of facts and grave abuse in preliminary investigation.

Whether the DOJ Secretary violated UCPB’s procedural due process

Whether failing to consider UCPB’s evidence and relying on unsubstantiated allegations violated due ...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (G.R. No. 156337)
Concise Detailed

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 156337)
Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 156337) Concise Detailed

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 156337) Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 156337)
Concise Detailed

Case Digest (G.R. No. 156337)
Advanced