THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 234616, June 20, 2018
PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MANU GIDWANI, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO JR., J.:
Respondent Manu, together with his wife Champa Gidwani and eighty-six (86) other individuals, represented themselves to be owners of four hundred seventy-one (471) deposit accounts with the Legacy Banks and filed claims with PDIC. The claims were processed and granted, resulting in the issuance of six hundred eighty-three (683) Landbank of the Philippines (Landbank) checks in favor of the 86 individuals, excluding the spouses Gidwani, in the aggregate amount of P98,733,690.21.
Name of Bank MB Resolution No. Date of ClosureNation Bank, Inc. 1691 12/19/08Rural Bank of Carmen, Inc. 1695 12/19/08Dynamic Rural Bank, Inc. 1652 12/16/08San Pablo Development Bank, Inc. 1653 12/16/08Bank of East Asia, Inc. 1647 12/12/08First Interstate Bank, Inc. 1648 12/12/08Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, Inc. 1649 12/12/08Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc. 1637 12/11/08Pilipino Rural Bank, Inc. 1638 12/11/08Rural Bank of Bais, Inc. 1639 12/11/08Rural Bank of Paranaque, Inc. 1616 12/09/08Rural Bank of DARBCI, Inc. 1692 12/19/08Rural Bank of Polangui, Inc. 353 02/26/10
In their counter-affidavits, the Gidwani spouses denied the charges against them, particularly on being owners of the accounts in question.6 In brief, they claimed that there was no falsification committed by them since what was stated about the 86 individuals being the owners of their respective accounts was true. Manu merely had a fund management agreement with the depositors who got into investing with the Legacy Banks because of him. They sought his help in setting up investment portfolios and in managing them. The funds that were remitted for him to manage were then placed in the different Legacy Banks under their names to prevent co-mingling of funds.7
- 683 crossed-checks "for payees account only," representing deposit insurance aggregating P98,733,690.21, were issued to the 86 individuals. Of the amount stated, P97,733,690.21 was deposited to an account controlled by the Spouses Manu and Champa Gidwani;
- The funds used to open the questioned deposit accounts were from a single source;
- Advance interests on deposits not in the name of the Gidwani spouses were paid to Manu;
- 55 of the 86 individual respondents used as their mailing addresses either or both the home and business addresses of the principal respondents.5
WHEREFORE, on premises considered, the above-entitled complaint is recommended DISMISSED for lack of probable cause.The DOJ Task Force's rationale in dismissing the complaint is that the voluminous records of the case allegedly do not support the theory that Manu owned all of the accounts in question, much less falsified commercial and official documents in claiming insurance deposits. It found that less than half of the accounts in question were funded by Manu through his RCBC account while the rest were funded by the account holders themselves.
SO RESOLVED.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED.Based on the Justiniano Resolution, PDIC failed to overcome the presumption of ownership over the subject deposits. On the contrary, the respondents bolstered their position by proffering a practical and plausible set-up, pursuant to an internal fund management agreement, that resulted in Manu's relation with the subject deposits.13
SO ORDERED.12
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The Resolution of this Office dated 11 September 2015, and the Resolutions dated 14 January 2014 and 03 December 2014 of the DOJTask Force on Financial Fraud, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.In so ruling, SOJ Caparas ratiocinated that, on the charge of estafa through falsification, the individual depositors committed false pretenses when they made it appear that they were the legitimate owners of the subject bank accounts with the Legacy Banks, which information was used in the processing of the insurance claims with PDIC, even when in truth and in fact, the accounts were owned and controlled by Manu. Had the depositors truthfully divulged to PDIC that the true and beneficial owner of the subject bank accounts was Manu, PDIC would not have been duped into treating the bank accounts individually and separately. It would have only paid the Gidwani Spouses P250,000.00, and not P98,733,690.21.16
The Prosecutor General is hereby directed to: (1) file separate informations for the complex crime of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) in relation to Articles 172(1) and 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code against each of the respondents pursuant to the attached Annex "A"; (2) file the corresponding informations for violation of Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code against the respondents, except as to respondents RCBC and Andrew Jereza and respondents Manu and Champa Gidwani; (3) file the corresponding informations for violation of Section 4(a) of the AntiMoney Laundering Act of 2001 or R.A. 9160 against the 86 respondents and respondents Spouses Manu and Champa Gidwani, and for violation of Section 4(c) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act against respondent Andrew Jereza; and (4) to report the action taken thereon within ten (10) days from receipt hereof
SO ORDERED.15
WHEREFORE, petition is GRANTED. The Resolution dated June 3, 2016 of then DOJ Secretary Emmanuel L. Caparas is ANNULED and SET ASIDE. Resultantly, the DOJ Resolutions dated September 11, 2015, dismissing the Complaint of Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation is REINSTATED.According to the CA, SOJ Caparas gravely abused his discretion when he reversed and set aside the earlier resolutions of the DOJ Task Force and of SOJ Justiniano even though no new evidence was offered by PDIC to support its allegations against Manu and his co-respondents.
The Prosecutor General is hereby DIRECTED to cause the withdrawal of any Information that might have been filed in court against the petitioner, if any, based on the Resolution dated June 3, 2016.
SO ORDERED.
As can be gleaned, PDIC stated purely procedural issues in its petition for review. Nevertheless, the allegations in the petition are sufficient for Us to delve into the issue of whether or not the CA erred in finding that SOJ Caparas acted in grave abuse of discretion in overturning the Justiniano Resolution even though no additional evidence was adduced by PDIC to support its claim.I.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF RESPONDENT MANU GIDWANI'S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TO ASSAIL THE CAPARAS RESOLUTION DESPITE HIS FAILURE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WITH THE DOJ PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARIII.
WHETHER OR NOT THE CAPARAS RESOLUTION BECAME FINAL AND EXECUTORY INSOFAR AS RESPONDENT MANU GIDWANI IS CONCERNED FOR FAILURE TO ASSAIL THE CAPARAS RESOLUTION THROUGH A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
[t]he rationale behind the general rule rests on the principle of separation of powers, dictating that the determination of probable cause for the purpose of indicting a suspect is properly an executive function; while the exception hinges on the limiting principle of checks and balances, whereby the judiciary, through a special civil action of certiorari, has been tasked by the present Constitution "to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."Grave abuse of discretion had been defined in jurisprudence to mean a "capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross so as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law.23 The underlying principle behind the courts' power to review a public prosecutor's determination of probable cause is to ensure that the latter acts within the permissible bounds of his authority or does not gravely abuse the same. This manner of judicial review is a constitutionally-enshrined form of check and balance which underpins the very core of our system of government.24
There is nothing new in the evidence revisited, reviewed and reassessed by Secretary Caparas from those initially studied and examined by the investigating panel who have the opportunity to sift first hand these evidence. Considering that the fact finding panel of the DOJ found no prima facie case against the petitioner, a fact affirmed by the DOJ Secretary through Undersecretary Justiniano, great restraint should have been exercised by Secretary Caparas in reversing the findings of the investigating panel during the preliminary investigation. There were no new evidence presented in the motion for reconsideration of PDIC that would compel Secretary Caparas to rule otherwise. It must be stressed that the panel had already determined an independent finding or recommendation that no probable cause exists against the petitioner. In overturning the said findings and recommendations of the [DOJ Task Force], he acted in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.The Court strongly disagrees with this pronouncement.
x x x x
x x x It must be pointed out that the petition for review was already resolved by the DOJ Secretary through Undersecretary Justiniano. In other words the power of the DOJ Secretary to review, approve, reverse or modify acts and decisions of his subordinate officials or unit had already been performed as in fact, the then Secretary believed on the theory of the petitioner through Undersecretary Justiniano. The question therefore may be asked - after he assumed the position of Acting Secretary of Justice, can Caparas again make a second look on the said complaint and act favourably on PDIC's motion for reconsideration taking into account that what the latter had presented in its motion are the same arguments and theories already threshed out by his predecessor making its motion as a pro forma motion? Since a resolution had already been promulgated by the investigating panel and reviewed by the previous Secretary of Justice, the motion for reconsideration has to be denied if only to write finis to this controversy, otherwise it will open gates to endless litigation and probable miscarriage of justice.25 (words in brackets added)
As can be gleaned, a motion for reconsideration may be granted if (1) the damages awarded are excessive, (2) the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order, or (3) the decision or final order is contrary to law. The judicial or quasi-judicial body concerned may arrive at any of the three enumerated conclusions even without requiring additional evidence. To be sure, the introduction of newly discovered additional evidence is a ground for new trial or a de novo appreciation of the case, but not for the filing of a motion for reconsideration. Judicial proceedings even prohibit the practice of introducing new evidence on reconsideration since it potentially deprives the opposing party of his or her right to due process. While quasi-judicial bodies in administrative proceedings may extend leniency in this regard and allow the admission of evidence offered on reconsideration or on appeal,30 this is merely permissive and does not translate to a requirement of attaching additional evidence to support motions for reconsideration.RULE 37
New Trial or Reconsiderations
Section 1. Grounds of and period for filing motion for new trial or reconsideration. - Within the period for taking an appeal, the aggrieved party may move the trial court to set aside the judgment or final order and grant a new trial for one or more of the following causes materially affecting the substantial rights of said party:
(a) Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against and by reason of which such aggrieved party has probably been impaired in his rights; or
(b) Newly discovered evidence, which he could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the trial, and which if presented would probably alter the result.
Within the same period, the aggrieved party may also move for reconsideration upon the grounds that the damages awarded are excessive, that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision or final order, or that the decision or final order is contrary to law. (emphasis added)
Article 315. Swindling (estafa). - x x xJurisprudence elucidates that the elements of estafa or swindling under paragraph 2 (a) of Article 315 of the RPC are the following:33
x x x x
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
x x x x
Section 4. Money Laundering Offense. - Money laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted, thereby making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources. It is committed by the following:
a. Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to the proceeds of any unlawful activity, transacts or attempts to transact said monetary instrument or property.
According to PDIC, the crime charged was committed when the 86 other individuals fraudulently declared that they are the bona fide owners of 471 deposits with the legacy banks; that the purported depositors, in conspiracy with Manu, falsified official documents by making the untruthful statement of ownership in their deposit insurance claims; that PDIC relied on the representations of the claimants when it released to them the deposit insurance proceeds amounting to P98,733,690.21, of which P97,733,690.21 was deposited to the RCBC account of Manu Gidwani; and that the government suffered damage when PDIC discovered upon investigation that Manu was the sole beneficial owner of the bank accounts.
- That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;
- That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;
- That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means;
- That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
Moreover, the helpers and rank-and-file employees who reside and are employed in Bacolod City maintained bank accounts in Legacy Banks located in different parts of the country:36
Respondent Occupation No. of Bank Accounts/Checks Received Insurance Received (Php)Julie Alib Helper 27 3,980,054.55Erlyn Aragon Helper 22 3,106,040.63Lorlyn Arellano Helper 27 3,891,289.95Faith Jabagat Sales Girl at Glory Bazar 6 978,063.16Kenny Matani Sales Manager at Glory Bazar 24 3,513,734.40Lourdes Matani Sales Girl at Glory Bazar 12 1,812,057.21Rodin Mixdon Technician at Glory Bazar 2 250,000.00Gerline Molines Sales Girl at Glory Bazar 6 938,803.69Francisca Talatala Sales Clerk at Glory Bazar 6 908,242.61Emily Taleon Sales Girl at Glory Bazar 10 1,588,152.94 Total 142 20,966,439.09
That these individuals reported either respondent Manu's office or business address as their own further arouses serious suspicion on the true ownership of the funds deposited. It gives the impression that they had been used by respondent as dummies, and their purported ownership mere subterfuge, in order to increase the amount of his protected deposit.
Respondent Banks LocationJulie Alib
(27 accounts)Rural Bank of Bais, Inc.
Rural Bank of DARBCI, Inc.
Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc.
San Pablo Development Bank, Inc.
Bank of East Asia, Inc.
Nation Bank, Inc.
Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, Inc.
Pilipino Rural Bank, Inc.
Rural Bank of Carmen, Inc.
Rural Bank of Polangui, Inc.Mandaue City, Cebu
South Cotabato
San Jose, Batangas
San Pablo, Laguna
Minglanilla, Cebu
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu
Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental
West Cogon, Cebu
Polangui, AlbayErlyn Aragon
(22 accounts)Pilipino Rural Bank, Inc.
Rural Bank of Bais, Inc. (Home Office)
Rural Bank of Bais, Inc. (Mandaue)
Rural Bank of Polangui, Inc.
Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc.
San Pablo Development Bank, Inc.
Nation Bank, Inc.
Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, Inc.
Rural Bank of Carmen, Inc.
Rural Bank of Paranaque, Inc. (Pasig)Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
Bais City, Negros Oriental
Mandaue City, Cebu
Polangui, Albay
San Jose, Batangas
San Pablo, Laguna
Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu
West Cogon, Cebu
Pasig City, Metro ManilaLorlyn Arellano
(27 accounts)Nation Bank, Inc.
Rural Bank of Bais, Inc. (Home Office)
Rural Bank of Bais, Inc. (Mandaue)
Rural Bank of Polangui, Inc.
Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc.
San Pablo Development Bank, Inc.
Bank of East Asia, Inc.
Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, Inc.
Pilipino Rural Bank, Inc.
Rural Bank of DARBCI, Inc.
Rural Bank of Paranaque, Inc. (Pasig)Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
Bais City, Negros Oriental
Mandaue City, Cebu
Polangui, Albay
San Jose, Batangas
San Pablo, Laguna
Minglanilla, Cebu
Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu
Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental
South Cotabato
Pasig City, Metro ManilaFaith Jabagat
(2 accounts)Nation Bank, Inc.
Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, Inc.Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
Lapu-Lapu City, CebuKenny Matani
(24 accounts)Nation Bank, Inc.
Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, Inc.
Rural Bank of Bais, Inc. (Mandaue)
Rural Bank of DARBCI, Inc.
Rural Bank of Carmen, Inc.
Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc.
San Pablo Development Bank, Inc.
Bank of East Asia, Inc.
Rural Bank of Paranaque, Inc. (Pasig)Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
Liloan, Cebu
Mandaue City, Cebu
South Cotabato
West Cogon, Cebu
San Jose, Batangas
San Pablo, Laguna
Minglanilla, Cebu
Pasig City, Metro ManilaLourdes Matani
(12 accounts)Nation Bank, Inc.
Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, Inc.
Rural Bank of Bais, Inc. (Mandaue)
San Pablo Development Bank, Inc.
Rural Bank of Paranaque, Inc. (Pasig)Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu
Mandaue City, Cebu
San Pablo, Laguna
Pasig City, Metro ManilaRodin Mixdon
(2 accounts)Rural Bank of Bais, Inc. (Mandaue) Mandaue City, Cebu Gerline Molines
(6 accounts)
Nation Bank, Inc.
Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, Inc.
Rural Bank of Bais, Inc. (Mandaue)Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu
Mandaue City, CebuFrancisca Talatala
(6 accounts)
Nation Bank, Inc.
Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, Inc.
Rural Bank of Bais, Inc. (Mandaue)Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu
Mandaue City, CebuEmily Taleon
(10 accounts)
Nation Bank, Inc.
Rural Bank of Bais, Inc. (Home Office)
Rural Bank of Bais, Inc. (Mandaue)
San Pablo Development Bank, Inc.
Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, Inc.Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
Bais City, Negros Oriental
Mandaue City, Cebu
San Pablo, Laguna
Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.
2Rollo, p. 80.
3 Id. at 11.
4 Id. at 100.
5 Id. at 611.
6 Id. at 567.
7 Id. at 568.
8 Id. at 568-570.
9 Id. at 559.
10 Id. at 609.
11 Id. at 658.
12 Id. at 672.
13 Id. at 663.
14 Id. at 693.
15 Id. at 701-702.
16 Id. at 698.
17 Id. at 698-699.
18 Id. at 800.
19 Id. at 73.
20 Id. at 76.
21Aguilar v. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 197522, September 11, 2013.
22 Id.
23Chua v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 195248, November 22, 2017.
24Aguilar v. Department of Justice, supra note 21.
25Rollo, pp. 69-70.
26National Housing Authority v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144275, July 5, 2001.
27 Id.
28 Section 1. Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of fits or his] jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
29Government Service insurance System v. Villaviza, G.R. No. 180291, July 27, 2010.
30Scisan v. NLRC, G.R. No. 176240, October 17, 2008
31Article 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. - x x x
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumemted in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document; x x x
32Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. - The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:
x x x x
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
33Sy v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010.
34Claridad v. Esteban, G.R. No. 191567, March 20, 2013.
35Rollo, p. 17.
36 Id. at 17-19.
37Gov. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. 168842, August 11, 2010.
38Gov. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. 168842, August 11, 2010.