G.R. No. 152429 - Lim vs. Ang

Case Summary (G.R. No. 152429)

Factual Background

On December 12, 2000, Edilberto D. Ang filed a criminal complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against Elizabeth Lim before the MTCC. The accusatory portion alleged that on or about September 10, 2000, Lim issued Allied Bank Check No. 0089099 for P2,208,398.40 and that the check, when deposited with the Bank of the Philippine Islands in Cauayan for collection/payment, was dishonored on October 2, 2000 on the ground that the account was closed. The complaint further alleged that Lim issued the check knowing she had no funds with the bank. An affidavit of Ang was attached, subscribed and sworn before the public prosecutor. On December 13, 2000, the MTCC issued an order finding sufficient ground to hold Lim for trial.

Lim then filed a motion to quash, contending, among others, that the facts did not constitute a violation of B.P. Blg. 22 because notice of dishonor had not been sent to her as the drawer of the check; that the supporting affidavit lacked the required certification by the public prosecutor; that the December 13, 2000 order violated her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; and that there was no probable cause. The public prosecutor opposed the motion and filed an amended criminal complaint, including an affidavit of Ang with certification by an assistant provincial prosecutor stating that he personally examined the affiant and was satisfied that the affidavit was voluntarily executed and understood.

MTCC Rulings and the Amended Pleadings

On July 20, 2001, the MTCC issued an order denying the motion to quash and setting arraignment for August 17, 2001, which was later reset to October 3, 2001. Lim sought reconsideration, but the MTCC denied it in an order dated September 7, 2001. Lim then challenged the MTCC order in the RTC through a petition for certiorari, reiterating the same grounds raised in her motion to quash.

While the RTC petition was pending, Ang reported that he filed a second amended criminal complaint on December 20, 2001 before the MTCC. In that second amended complaint, Ang alleged that on or about September 16, 2000, Lim issued the check to him for value and that, after dishonor on October 2, 2000 on the ground of account closed, notice of dishonor and demand for payment within five days were made, but Lim failed and refused to pay, to his damage.

RTC Decision and Denial of Reconsideration

On January 14, 2002, the RTC dismissed Lim’s petition for certiorari. The RTC reasoned that although the amended criminal complaint lacked all essential elements of B.P. Blg. 22, the second amended criminal complaint contained all the essential elements; hence, the RTC case had become moot and academic. Lim moved for reconsideration, arguing that dismissal was premature because the MTCC had not yet determined probable cause under the second amended criminal complaint. The RTC denied reconsideration on February 20, 2002, holding that because the amended criminal complaint had been superseded by the second amended criminal complaint, there was no longer a complaint whose validity could still be the subject of quashal in the pending certiorari petition.

The RTC’s own evaluation recognized that the criminal complaint and amended complaint had initially failed to allege key elements: there was no allegation that the check was issued on account or for value, and there was no allegation that the drawee bank notified the accused of the dishonor. Nonetheless, the RTC held that the second amended complaint remedied these omissions, and because Lim had not yet been arraigned, the amendment was permissible without leave of court under the rules on amendment prior to plea.

Issues Raised on Review

Before the Supreme Court, Lim maintained that under Section 3(b), in relation to Section 3(a) of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the MTCC was required to determine the presence or absence of probable cause by personally examining the complainant and his witnesses in writing and under oath. Lim argued that until such determination was made, the second amended criminal complaint could not be considered filed, and the RTC thus acted prematurely in dismissing the certiorari petition on mootness grounds. Lim also relied on Guillen v. Nicolas in support of her position.

Lim further argued that the RTC should have granted the petition for certiorari and quashed the amended criminal complaint, allowing the second amended complaint to proceed in due course.

Respondent’s Contentions

Ang countered that his second amended criminal complaint cured the substantial defects that had caused the amended complaint to be insufficient. He asserted that the petition for certiorari had already become moot and academic because the challenged pleading was superseded. He also argued that if Lim found the second amended complaint defective, the proper remedy was to file the appropriate motion before the MTCC rather than pursue certiorari premised on defects in the superseded complaint. Ang further maintained that, since B.P. Blg. 22 was within the MTCC’s exclusive original jurisdiction, the MTCC could find probable cause or dismiss the complaint after personally evaluating the evidence, or through personal examination of the complainant and witnesses in writing and under oath using searching questions.

Failure to Implead the People of the Philippines

In disposing of the petition, the Supreme Court first noted that Lim failed to implead the People of the Philippines in both the RTC and Supreme Court petitions. The Court treated this omission as fatal because the Solicitor General needed to be afforded the opportunity to comment on the petition, consistent with the role of the People in criminal prosecutions.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit. The Court agreed with the RTC that the filing of the second amended criminal complaint superseded the earlier amended criminal complaint and rendered the certiorari petition moot and academic. The Court explained that the second amended criminal complaint was deemed filed with the MTCC on December 12, 2001 and that it contained the essential elements of B.P. Blg. 22, along with the certification of the public prosecutor required under Section 3(a), Rule 112.

The Court rejected the relevance of the argument derived from Guillen v. Nicolas. It held that the cited ruling had no bearing in this case because the procedural situation differed: in Guillen v. Nicolas, the Court had ruled on the applicability of the ordinary procedure versus a summary procedure in a context where a complaint was filed with the MTCC having original jurisdiction over the charged offense.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reasoned that once the second amended criminal complaint replaced the challenge

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 152429)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Elizabeth Ed. Lim filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure to assail the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cauayan City, Isabela, Branch 20 decisions and related order.
Edilberto D. Ang (private complainant) initiated the underlying criminal prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22 against Lim before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Cauayan City, Isabela.
Lim’s petitions in the RTC sought certiorari to annul the MTCC’s order denying her motion to quash her then-existing criminal complaint.
The RTC dismissed Lim’s certiorari petition as moot and academic after Ang filed a second amended criminal complaint.
The Supreme Court denied Lim’s petition for lack of merit, affirming the RTC’s dismissal.

Key Factual Allegations

Ang alleged that on or about September 10, 2000, Lim issued to him Allied Bank Check No. 0089099 in the amount of P2,208,398.40.
Ang alleged that the check was issued when Lim had no funds with the drawee bank, and that when deposited for collection/payment it was dishonored on October 2, 2000 on the ground of account closed.
Ang alleged that dishonor caused damage and prejudice to him in the same amount.
The first criminal complaint attached a xerox copy of the check and was supported by an affidavit of Ang subscribed and sworn before Public Prosecutor Fausto Cabantac.
Lim challenged the sufficiency of the complaint and its supporting affidavit on multiple grounds, including the alleged absence of notice of dishonor and the alleged lack of required public prosecutor certification.
Ang later filed, pendente lite, a second amended criminal complaint, alleging that the accused issued the check on or about September 16, 2000 to apply on account or for value, that the accused failed to pay within the statutory period after notice, and that the check was dishonored.
The RTC found that the second amended criminal complaint included the essential elements missing from the earlier complaint(s).

Statutory Framework

The prosecution invoked B.P. Blg. 22, the Bouncing Checks Law, which requires allegations of the statutory elements necessary to establish criminal liability.
The procedural controversy involved Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, particularly Section 3(a) and Section 3(b) on preliminary investigation requirements.
Lim argued that under Rule 112, Sec. 3(b) in relation to Rule 112, Sec. 3(a), the MTCC had to first determine probable cause by personally examining the complainant and witnesses in writing and under oath before the information/complaint could be deemed properly filed for purposes of proceeding.
The RTC relied on Rule 110, Sec. 14 governing amendment or substitution of a complaint before plea without leave of court.
The Court applied mootness principles consistent with its ruling in Ocampo v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal to assess justiciability once the challenged pleading was superseded.
The Supreme Court addressed whether Guillen v. Nicolas applied to the procedural posture of a case where a complaint filed in the MTCC is later amended.

Issues Raised

Lim contended that the MTCC should have quashed the complaint because it allegedly failed to allege essential elements of B.P. Blg. 22.
Lim argued that the notice of dishonor was not properly alleged to have been sent to her as the drawer.
Lim challenged the supporting affidavit on the basis that it allegedly lacked the required public prosecutor certification.
Lim claimed that the MTCC’s challenged order violated her constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
Lim also argued that there was no probable cause to charge her with any crime.
After the filing of the second amended criminal complaint, Lim argued that the RTC’s dismissal of her certiorari petition was premature because the MTCC had not yet determined probable cause as required by Rule 112.
The parties also raised the effect of Ang’s second amended complaint on the existence of a live controversy for certiorari review.