Title
Basa vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 152444
Decision Date
Feb 16, 2005
Corporate officers charged with swindling and falsification for mortgaging encumbered property; RTC's reversal of MeTC's quashal deemed interlocutory, not appealable; SC upheld CA's dismissal, directing trial to proceed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 152444)

Applicable Law

The applicable legal framework includes the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, specifically Article 316 regarding swindling and Article 171 concerning the falsification of public documents. The case also falls under the provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the decision falls after its enactment.

Factual Background

On January 12, 2000, the petitioners were charged in two criminal cases, Criminal Cases Nos. 279220 and 279221, by the MeTC of Makati City for allegedly defrauding Pointer Construction International Corporation through misrepresentations about property title encumbrances and the falsification of Transfer Certificates of Title. The complaint alleged that the petitioners conspired to mislead the complainant about the status of the property titles, creating a financial loss due to fraudulent activities.

Quashing of the Informations

In response to the charges, the petitioners filed a Joint Motion to Quash on February 23, 2000, arguing that the facts charged did not constitute an offense. On March 27, 2000, the MeTC granted their motion, quashing the Informations on the basis that the allegations did not support a legally recognizable offense.

Appeal to the Regional Trial Court

Following the quashal, Ofelia Trinidad, now with the Public Prosecutor's consent, filed a motion for reconsideration, which was subsequently denied. Trinidad then appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which ruled in favor of the prosecution on June 15, 2000, thereby reversing the MeTC's order to quash and allowing the cases to proceed.

Petition for Review

Subsequently, the petitioners filed for a review with the Court of Appeals under the argument that the RTC's ruling was a final decision. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on October 30, 2001, stating that the ruling was interlocutory and did not resolve the case definitively.

Core Legal Issue

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners' appeal was proper given that they erroneously classified the RTC's decision as final when it was, in fact, an interlocutory order.

Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court evaluated whether the RTC decision disposed of the matter in entirety or merely allowed further proceedings. It concluded that the RTC’s decision was interlocutory as it did not term

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.