Case Summary (G.R. No. L-50550-52)
Nature of the Petition
The petitioners sought relief through certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with a preliminary injunction, challenging actions taken by the Municipal Judge of Jolo, Sulu, Hon. Nabdar J. Malik. The judge was accused of acting without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, and with grave abuse of discretion by: (a) finding a prima facie case of estafa against the petitioners during preliminary investigation; (b) issuing warrants of arrest; and (c) attempting to proceed with the trial of the cases on the merits.
Grounds for the Petition
The petitioners asserted that the judge erred because the facts described in the complaints did not legally constitute the crime of estafa. Alternatively, even if the facts amounted to estafa, the Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction over cases involving such amounts.
Temporary Restraining Order and Proceedings
A temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued on May 23, 1979, enjoining the Municipal Judge from proceeding with the cases or enforcing the arrests. Respondents submitted their comments, with the Solicitor General supporting the petition except in respect to damages, which the petitioners also sought. The Court found the petition meritorious and granted due course accordingly.
Analysis of the Criminal Complaints – Absence of Estafa
The Criminal Cases Nos. M-111 and M-183 involved allegations by Rosalinda Amin and Tan Chu Kao, respectively, that petitioners misappropriated funds amounting to P50,000.00 and P30,000.00. However, both complaints expressly stated that the sums were received as "simple loans." Corresponding civil cases for collection confirmed this characterization.
In Criminal Case No. M-208, while the complaint did not explicitly state the amount was a loan, the supporting sworn statement submitted by the complainant expressly described it as such.
Under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, estafa by misappropriation requires that the offender had received money or property "in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same."
The Court emphasized that for estafa to exist under this provision, the accused must have had a legal obligation to return the same money or property received. Because the transactions here were loans, the petitioners acquired ownership of the sums and were only obligated to return an equivalent amount, not the identical bills or coins. As such, mere refusal to pay does not constitute estafa.
Legal Distinction Between Types of Loans
Articles 1933 and 1953 of the Civil Code distinguish between commodatum (loan for use, requiring return of the same property) and mutuum or simple loan (fungible loan, requiring only return of an equivalent amount). Ownership passes to the borrower in mutuum, who may legally dispose of the property. Therefore, failure to return the same money does not amount to misappropriation.
The court found that respondent Judge Malik erroneously equated the transactions to commodatum, thus mistakenly imposing a duty on petitioners to return the identical funds.
Jurisdictional Issue of the Municipal Court
Section 87 of the Judiciary Act limits the jurisdiction of the Municipal Courts of provincial capitals, such as that of Jolo, to criminal cases punishable by prision correccional (not exceeding six years) or fines not exceeding P6,000.00.
The amounts involved—ranging from P20,000.00 to P50,000.00—would, if constituting estafa, attract penalties exceeding this jurisdictional threshold, thereby placing the cases under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. Thus, even if any estafa were proven, the Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction to try the cases.
Claims for Damages and Immunity
The petitioners sought damages against respondents. The Court clarified that the People of the Philippines, as a sovereign entity, are immune from such suits. Further, it noted that the Court of Appeals was not a proper forum for claims against private respondents in this matter, specifically within the certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus proceedings invoked.
Final Disposition and Reprimand
The Court granted the petition, making permanent the TRO and declaring the criminal complaints
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-50550-52)
Nature and Procedural Posture of the Case
- This case is a petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and a preliminary injunction filed by the petitioners.
- Petitioners allege that the respondent, Municipal Judge Nabdar J. Malik of Jolo, Sulu, acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, and with grave abuse of discretion.
- The questioned acts include: (a) holding a preliminary investigation that found a prima facie case of estafa against petitioners; (b) issuing warrants of arrest; and (c) conducting trial on the merits in Criminal Cases No. M-111, M-183, and M-208.
- The Supreme Court initially issued a temporary restraining order on May 23, 1979, stopping the respondent judge’s proceedings and enforcement of arrest warrants.
- Respondents opposed the petition while the Solicitor General, representing the People of the Philippines, had no objection except on the matter of damages.
- The Court considered the petition with full due course and evaluated the legality and jurisdiction of the respondent judge’s actions.
Facts and Charges in the Criminal Complaints
Criminal Case No. M-111: Rosalinda M. Amin charged petitioners Yam Chee Kiong and Yam Yap Kieng with estafa involving the amount of P50,000.00, which was alleged misappropriated.
The complaint explicitly stated that the money was received “as a loan.”
A corresponding civil case filed by Rosalinda M. Amin confirmed the transaction as a “simple business loan” earning interest and temporarily demandable.
Criminal Case No. M-183: Tan Chu Kao charged petitioners Yam Chee Kiong, Jose Y.C. Yam, Ampang Mah, and Anita Yam with estafa involving P30,000.00.
The complaint similarly described the amount as “a simple loan.”
The civil complaint corroborated the loan characterization.
Criminal Case No. M-208: Augusto Sajor charged petitioners Jose Y.C. Yam, Anita Yam, Chee Kiong Yam, and Richard Yam with estafa for misappropriating P20,000.00.
The criminal complaint did not mention that the amount was a loan.
However, a sworn statement submitted by Augusto Sajor to the respondent judge clearly stated the amount was a “loan.”