G.R. No. 167571 - Panaguiton, Jr. vs. Department of Justice

Case Summary (G.R. No. 167571)

Factual Background

In 1992 Rodrigo G. Cawili borrowed various sums amounting to P1,979,459.00 from Luis Panaguiton, Jr. On 8 January 1993, Cawili and his business associate Ramon C. Tongson jointly issued three checks in favor of Panaguiton, each check bearing the signatures of both Cawili and Tongson. The checks were presented for payment on 18 March 1993 and were dishonored for insufficiency of funds or because the account had been closed. Petitioner made formal demands upon Cawili and Tongson in May and June 1995, without success.

Preliminary Investigation and Early Resolutions

Petitioner filed a complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 with the Quezon City Prosecutor on 24 August 1995. During preliminary investigation only Tongson appeared and denied responsibility, asserting forgery of his signatures and that he had been improperly included as a respondent. Petitioner produced documents purporting to show matching signatures and an affidavit of adverse claim in which Tongson allegedly described himself as a business associate. On 6 December 1995, the City Prosecutor found probable cause only against Cawili and dismissed charges against Tongson. Petitioner appealed administratively to the Department of Justice.

Department of Justice Proceedings

By letter-resolution dated 11 July 1997, the Chief State Prosecutor directed reinvestigation of the matter against Tongson and referral of questioned signatures to the NBI. Tongson sought reconsideration but his motion was denied. On 15 March 1999 Assistant City Prosecutor Ma. Lelibet S. Sampaga dismissed the complaint against Tongson on the ground of prescription under Act No. 3326, ruling the four-year prescriptive period began on the dates the checks were dishonored. ACP Sampaga also held that the Chief State Prosecutor's order to refer signatures to the NBI could not be sanctioned under Section 3, Rule 112 because the initiative should come from the complainant. The DOJ, through Undersecretary Manuel A.J. Teehankee, initially dismissed petitioner’s appeal, reiterating the prescription ground.

Subsequent DOJ Action and Conflicting Rulings

Petitioner sought reconsideration and on 3 April 2003 the DOJ, through Undersecretary Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, reversed and ruled that the offense had not prescribed, invoking Ingco v. Sandiganbayan and directing the City Prosecutor to file three separate informations against Tongson for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The City Prosecutor’s Office then filed an information docketed I.S. No. 95-12212. Nevertheless, in a resolution dated 9 August 2004 the DOJ again ruled that the offense had prescribed under Act No. 3326 and ordered withdrawal of the informations, explaining that Act No. 3326 applies to special acts that do not provide their own prescriptive periods and citing Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals assailing the DOJ resolution of 9 August 2004. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for failure to attach a proper verification and a certification of non-forum shopping, and for attaching only a photocopy of the DOJ resolution dated 3 April 2003. Petitioner moved for reconsideration and supplied an amended Verification/Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, but the Court of Appeals denied the motion, stating that subsequent compliance with formal requirements did not warrant reconsideration and that the petition was patently without merit and raised unsubstantial questions.

Issues Presented

The principal question was whether the filing of a complaint with the prosecutor’s office for preliminary investigation tolled the four-year prescriptive period under Act No. 3326 as applied to violations of B.P. Blg. 22, or whether prescription was tolled only by the institution of judicial proceedings by filing of an information in court, as the DOJ’s 9 August 2004 resolution maintained.

Parties' Contentions

Petitioner argued that his verification before the Court of Appeals substantially complied with the rules and that any technical defect should be excused to serve justice. Substantively, he relied on Ingco v. Sandiganbayan to contend that filing a complaint for preliminary investigation interrupted prescription. The DOJ defended the Court of Appeals' dismissal on procedural grounds and contended that the filing of a complaint with the prosecutor did not interrupt prescription under Act No. 3326, which, it maintained, contemplated interruption only by judicial proceedings. Respondents Tongson and Cawili similarly argued for dismissal and asserted that the offense had prescribed and that delay violated their right to speedy disposition.

Supreme Court's Ruling on Technical Defects

The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition on technical grounds. The Court recognized that the verification requirement is formal and may be excused or corrected to serve justice. Petitioner’s attachment of a proper verification to his motion for reconsideration satisfied the requirement. The Court also observed that petitioner had attached a certified true copy of the DOJ resolution of 9 August 2004 to his petition and that the Court of Appeals incorrectly faulted him for attaching only a photocopy of the 3 April 2003 resolution.

Supreme Court's Substantive Ruling on Prescription

On the substantive issue the Court agreed that Act No. 3326 applied to offenses under B.P. Blg. 22, and that such offenses prescribed in four years. However, the Court rejected the DOJ’s narrow reading that only the filing of an information in court tolled prescription. The Court held that the filing of a complaint for preliminary investigation before the prosecutor's office constituted the commencement of proceedings sufficient to interrupt prescription under Act No. 3326.

Legal Basis and Precedents

The Court examined the historical context of Act No. 3326, noting that when the Act was enacted in 1926 preliminary investigations were conducted by justices of the peace and thus the phrase “institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment” had been construed to include filing of complaints for preliminary investigation. The Cour

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 167571)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Luis Panaguiton, Jr. was the petitioner who sought review of appellate resolutions dismissing his certiorari petition.
Department of Justice was the primary respondent whose 9 August 2004 resolution ordered withdrawal of informations against respondent Tongson.
Ramon C. Tongson and Rodrigo G. Cawili were co-respondents in the underlying criminal matters involving alleged violations of B.P. Blg. 22.
The petition challenged the Court of Appeals resolutions dated 29 October 2004 and 21 March 2005 which dismissed petitioner’s certiorari petition on procedural grounds and as patently without merit.
The Court of Appeals had dismissed the petition for failure to attach a proper verification and a certified true copy of the DOJ resolution appealed from.
The petition reached the Court by way of a petition for review under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court contesting alleged grave abuse of discretion by the DOJ.

Key Factual Allegations

Petitioner advanced various sums totaling PHP 1,979,459.00 to Rodrigo G. Cawili in 1992.
On 8 January 1993, Cawili and Ramon C. Tongson issued three checks in favor of petitioner, each bearing the signatures of both co-respondents.
The three checks were presented for payment on 18 March 1993 and were dishonored for insufficiency of funds or account closure.
Petitioner made written demands for payment on 23 May 1995 to Cawili and on 26 June 1995 to Tongson, but payment was not made.
Petitioner filed a complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 with the Quezon City Prosecutor on 24 August 1995.
During preliminary investigation only Tongson appeared and denied issuing the checks and alleged forgery of his signatures, while petitioner presented documents and an adverse-claim affidavit purporting to show Tongson’s association with Cawili.
The City Prosecutor found probable cause only against Cawili on 6 December 1995 and dismissed charges against Tongson.
The DOJ initially directed reinvestigation and referral of questioned signatures to the NBI in a 11 July 1997 letter-resolution, but subsequent prosecutorial action dismissed the complaint against Tongson on grounds of prescription under Act No. 3326.

Procedural History

The City Prosecutor issued a resolution on 6 December 1995 finding probable cause only against Cawili.
The DOJ issued a letter-resolution on 11 July 1997 directing reinvestigation and NBI referral of signatures concerning Tongson.
Assistant City Prosecutor Ma. Lelibet S. Sampaga dismissed the complaint against Tongson on 15 March 1999 on the ground of prescription under Act No. 3326.
The DOJ under Undersecretary Teehankee upheld the dismissal on petition appeal, also citing prescription.
The DOJ under Undersecretary Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez reversed on 3 April 2003 and ordered filing of informations against Tongson, citing Ingco v. Sandiganbayan.
The Metropolitan Trial Court received informations on 8 July 2003 charging three counts under B.P. Blg. 22.
The DOJ issued a new resolution on 9 August 2004 withdrawing the three informations against Tongson on prescription grounds.
The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s certiorari petition on 29 October 2004 for procedural defects and again denied reconsideration on 21 March 2005.
The petition for review by certiorari to the Court was thereafter brought before the Court.

Issues Presented

Whether the filing of a complaint-affidavit with the prosecutorial office interrupted