Case Summary (G.R. No. L-61323-24)
Procedural Background
Following preliminary investigations into complaints filed by Hoey, the fiscal found probable cause and subsequently filed informations in court. Accused Leveriza, Jr. later sought reconsideration of the fiscal's decision, arguing that the checks in question were guarantees and thus not covered by the Bouncing Check Law. As a result, the fiscal’s office filed motions to dismiss, citing the insufficiency of the charges.
Contentions of the Parties
Petitioner Hoey opposed the motions to dismiss, asserting that Leveriza, Jr. and Unson engaged in fraudulent activities by issuing checks that later bounced due to insufficient funds in a closed account. Hoey described Leveriza, Jr.'s actions as a diversion of public funds, asserting that he had misappropriated substantial amounts belonging to investors, including himself, under the guise of legitimate corporate operations.
Legal Representation and Motion for Reconsideration
Before the lower court could address the motion to dismiss, Hoey filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus. He requested that the Provincial Fiscal be compelled to proceed with the prosecution of the two criminal cases against Leveriza, Jr. and Unson and to withdraw the motions to dismiss.
Jurisdictional and Procedural Issues
The court analyzed the jurisdictional aspects surrounding the filing of informations. It emphasized that once an information is lodged in court, the latter acquires jurisdiction over the case and the discretion to adjudicate beyond the fiscal's control. The court underscored the importance of proceeding with the trial despite the motions to dismiss, as the authority to adjudicate lies with the court once jurisdiction is established.
Court’s Conclusion
The petition for mandamus was denied on the grounds of lack of merit. The court concluded that the motions to dismiss should be resolved by the trial court, which now had the requisite authority to determine the case's outcome. The ruling aligned with prior decisions confirming that courts must maintain control over ongoing cases until conclusively resolved, thereby allowing for due process and thorough examination of the issues raised.
Concurring Opinion
Justice Teehankee concurred, reiterating that th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-61323-24)
Case Background
- In October and November 1980, Richard C. Hoey lodged complaints against Raul Leveriza, Jr. and Henry Unson, Jr., officers of Manotoc Securities, citing violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Check Law).
- Following a preliminary investigation, the Provincial Fiscal found probable cause to file criminal cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 44548 and 44549) in the Court of First Instance of Rizal.
- Raul Leveriza, Jr. filed a Motion for Reconsideration, leading to a reinvestigation and subsequent Motions to Dismiss based on claims that the checks in question were guarantee checks, thus not covered by the Bouncing Check Law.
Legal Proceedings and Challenges
- The Provincial Fiscal, after reviewing allegations and oppositions, determined that the checks were indeed guarantee checks and recommended the dismissal of the cases against both accused.
- Richard C. Hoey opposed the Motion to Dismiss, asserting that Leveriza and Unson misappropriated public funds through their roles in Manotoc Securities and issued checks that bounced due to a closed ac