FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 219325, February 17, 2021
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK Petitioner, v. ATTY. HENRY S. OAMINAL, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
GAERLAN, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, assailing the Decision2 dated June 1, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 05378-MIN.
Thereafter, respondent filed a Motion for Reinvestigation with the Department of Justice (DOJ).13 This prompted Regional State Prosecutor Antonio B. Arellano (RSP Arellano) to issue Regional Order No. 02-023 dated April 16, 2002, directing Prosecutor Marave to inhibit himself from the case and to forward to his office the entire records thereof. Thereafter, the case was assigned to Prosecutor Carlos M. Rubin (Prosecutor Rubin). Pending the resolution of the Motion for Reinvestigation, the Informations were provisionally withdrawn upon the instance of respondent and Prosecutor Rubin.14Criminal Case No. 5671-MTC
That on November 30, 1999, in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, failing to maintain sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank as payment in full upon presentment of the check, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly make or draw and issue Metro bank, Ozamiz Branch, Check No. 1180025128 dated November 30, 1999 covering the amount of P2,398,883.60 in favor of Philippine National Bank, Ozamiz Branch represented herein by EPIFANIA C. ANIMAS which check was issued in payment of accused [sic] obligation from said private offended party but when the check was presented for payment with the drawee bank within 90 days from date thereof, the same was dishonored for the reason: "DRAWN AGAINST INSUFFICIENT FUNDS" (DAIF) and despite due notice of dishonor being made and demands to make good and pay the check, accused failed and continuously fails to make good and pay the holder of the said check the amount due thereon or to deposit the necessary amount to cover the same and also failed to make an arrangement for the payment of the check in full by the drawee within five (5) banking days after receiving the notice of dishonor, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party, in the aforesaid sum of P2,398,883.60. Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY to and in Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.7Criminal Case No. 5672-MTC
That on February 28, 2001, in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, failing to maintain sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank as payment in full upon presentment of the check, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly make or draw and issue Metrobank, Ozamiz Branch, Check No. 1180041378 dated February 28, 2001 covering the amount of P2,000.000.00 in favor of Philippine National Bank, Ozamiz Branch represented herein by EPIFANIA C. ANIMAS which check was issued in payment of accused [sic] obligation from said private offended party but when the check was presented for payment with the drawee bank within 90 days from date thereof, the same was dishonored for the reason: "DRAWN AGAINST INSUFFICIENT FUNDS" (DAIF) and despite due notice of dishonor being made and demands to make good and pay the check, accused failed and continuously fails to make good and pay the holder of the said check the amount due thereon or to deposit the necessary amount to cover the same and also failed to make an arrangement for the payment of the check in full by the drawee within five (5) banking days after receiving the notice of dishonor, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party, in the aforesaid sum of P2,000,000.00, Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY to and in Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.8Criminal Case No. 5673-MTC
That on November 30, 2000, in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, failing to maintain sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank as payment in full upon presentment of the check, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly make or draw and issue Metrobank, Ozamiz Branch, Check No. 1180041377 dated November 30, 2000 covering the amount of P2,000,000.00 in favor of Philippine National Bank. Ozamiz Branch represented herein by EPIFANIA C. ANIMAS which check was issued in payment of accused [sic] obligation from said private offended party but when the check was presented for payment with the drawee bank within 90 days from date thereof, the same was dishonored for the reason: "DRAWN AGAINST INSUFFICIENT FUNDS" (DAIF) and despite due notice of dishonor being made and demands to make good and pay the check, accused failed and continuously fails to make good and pay the holder of the said check the amount due thereon or to deposit the necessary amount to cover the same and also failed to make an arrangement for the payment of the check in full by the drawee within five (5) banking days after receiving the notice of dishonor, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party, in the aforesaid sum of P2,000,000.00, Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY to and in Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.9Criminal Case No. 5674-MTC
That on August 31, 2000, in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, failing to maintain sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank as payment in full upon presentment of the check, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly make or draw and issue Metrobank, Ozamiz Branch, Check No. 1180041376 dated August 31, 2000 covering the amount of P2,000,000.00 in favor of Philippine National Bank. Ozamiz Branch represented herein by EPIFANIA C. ANIMAS which check was issued in payment of accused [sic] obligation from said private offended party but when the check was presented for payment with the drawee bank within 90 days from date thereof, the same was dishonored for the reason: "DRAWN AGAINST INSUFFICIENT FUNDS" (DAIF) and despite due notice of dishonor being made and demands to make good and pay the check, accused failed and continuously fails to make good and pay the holder of the said check the amount due thereon or to deposit the necessary amount to cover the same and also failed to make an arrangement for the payment of the check in full by the drawee within five (5) banking days after receiving the notice of dishonor, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party, in the aforesaid sum of P2,000.000.00. Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY to and in Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.10Criminal Case No. 5675-MTC
That on May 31, 2000. in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, failing to maintain sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank as payment in full upon presentment of the check, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly make or draw and issue Metrobank, Ozamiz Branch, Check No. 1180041375 dated May 31, 2000 covering the amount of P2,000.000.00 in favor of Philippine National Bank. Ozamiz Branch represented herein by EPIFANIA C. ANIMAS which check was issued in payment of accused [sic] obligation from said private offended party but when the check was presented for payment with the drawee bank within 90 days from date thereof, the same was dishonored for the reason: "DRAWN AGAINST INSUFFICIENT FUNDS" (DAIF) and despite due notice of dishonor being made and demands to make good and pay the check, accused failed and continuously fails to make good and pay the holder of the said check the amount due thereon or to deposit the necessary amount to cover the same and also failed to make an arrangement for the payment of the check in full by the drawee within five (5) banking days after receiving the notice of dishonor, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party, in the aforesaid sum of P2,000,000.00, Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY to and in Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.11Criminal Case No. 5676-MTC
That on February 28, 2000 in the City of Ozamiz, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, failing to maintain sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank as payment in full upon presentment of the check, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly make or draw and issue Metrobank, Ozamiz Branch. Check No. 1180025129 dated February 28. 2000 covering the amount of P2.398.883.60 in favor of Philippine National Bank. Ozamiz Branch represented herein by EPIFANIA C. ANIMAS which check was issued in payment of accused [sic] obligation from said private offended party but when the check was presented for payment with the drawee bank within 90 days from date thereof, the same was dishonored for the reason: "DRAWN AGAINST INSUFFICIENT FUNDS" (DAIF) and despite due notice of dishonor being made and demands to make good and pay the check, accused failed and continuously fails to make good and pay the holder of the said check the amount due thereon or to deposit the necessary amount to cover the same and also failed to make an arrangement for the payment of the check in full by the drawee within five (5) banking days after receiving the notice of dishonor, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended party, in the aforesaid sum of P2.398.883.60, Philippine Currency.
CONTRARY to and in Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.12chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated August 8, 2011 is SET ASIDE. The proceedings before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities is DECLARED NULL AND VOID for having been conducted without jurisdiction.Hence, the present recourse.
SO ORDERED.36chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
xxx Even assuming for the sake of argument that such prior authority, approval or signature is required, this Court in its recent en banc ruling in People v. Solar where all prosecutors were "instructed to state with sufficient particularity not just the acts complained of or the acts constituting the offense, but also the aggravating circumstances, whether qualifying or generic, as well as any other attendant circumstances, that would impact the penalty to be imposed on the accused should a verdict of conviction be reached," held that failure of the accused to question the insufficiency of an Information as to the averment of aggravating circumstances with specific constitutes a waivable defect. Logically, if the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation may be waived by the accused, then it is with more reason that the absence of the requirement pertaining to a handling prosecutor's duty to secure a prior written authority or approval from the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor in the filing of an Information may also be waived.Here, the records show that respondent raised the validity of the subject Informations signed by Prosecutor Marave to the CA on two separate occasions.
Consistent with the foregoing observations, if some grounds for the quashal of an Information with serious constitutional implications may be waived, it is with more reason that the ground on securing a prior written approval or authority from the provincial, city or chief state prosecutor, which has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights or with the trial court's jurisdiction to take cognizance of a case, can also be waived by the accused.48 (Emphasis and citations omitted; underscoring Ours.)
When a court or tribunal having jurisdiction over an action renders judgment and the same becomes final and executory, res judicata sets in Norkis Trading Corp. v. Buenavista explains:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryIndeed, the CA transgressed the limits of its authority when it made a pronouncement that starkly departs from a matter that is already the subject of a prior judgment which had long attained finality. The moment respondent withdrew his petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 86534, he had already waived his right to question the propriety of the subject Informations.x x x Res judicata is defined as a matter adjudged; a thing judicially acted upon or decided; a thing or matter settled by judgment. Under this doctrine, an existing final judgment or decree rendered on the merits, and without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon any matter within its jurisdiction, is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies, in all other actions or suits in the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction on the. points and matters in issue in the first suit To state simply, a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on all points and matters determined in the former suit.Res judicata and immutability of final judgments are closely intertwined. Jurisprudence teaches:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Res judicata has two aspects: bar by prior judgment and conclusiveness of judgment as provided under Section 47 (b) and (c), Rule 39, respectively, of the Rules of Court. Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, facts and issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot be raised in any future case between the same parties, even if the latter suit may involve a different cause of action.The settled and firmly established rule is that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. This quality of immutability precludes the modification of the judgment, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law. The orderly administration of justice requires that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments/resolutions of a court must reach a point of finality set by the law. The noble purpose is to write finis to disputes once and for all. This is a fundamental principle in our justice system, without which no end to litigations will take place. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who exercise the power of adjudication. Any act that violates such principle must immediately be struck down. Indeed, the principle of conclusiveness of prior adjudications is not confined in its operation to the judgments of courts, but extends as well to those of all other tribunals exercising adjudicatory powers.53 (Emphasis and citations omitted.)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 21-46.
2 Id. at 10-18; penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Pablito A. Perez.
3 Id. at 11.
4 Id. at 51-54.
5 Id. at 53.
6 Id. at 55-56.
7 Id. at 55.
8 Id. at 57.
9 Id. at 59.
10 Id. at 61.
11 Id. at 63.
12 Id. at 65.
13 Id. at 11.
14 Id. at 24-25.
15 Id. at 25.
16 Id. at 67; rendered by Judge Rio Concepcion Achas.
17 Id. at 68.
18 Id. at 69-76.
19 Id. at 77.
20 Id. at 159-181.
21 Id. at 180.
22 Id. at 171.
23 Id. at 182.
24 Id. at 78-81; rendered by Judge Ma. Nimfa Penaco-Sitaca.
25 Id. at 82-83; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A, Camelio and concurred in by Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Edgardo T. Lloren.
26 Id. at 84.
27 Id. at 183-186.
28 Id. at 184.
29 Id.
30 Id. at 27-28.
31 Id. at 187-217.
32 Id. at 218-224; rendered by Judge Edmundo P. Pintac.
33 Id. at 225-232; rendered by Judge Sylvia A, Singidas-Machacon.
34 Id. at 233-234.
35 Id. at 10-18.
36 Id. at 18.
37 Id. at 31.
38 348 Phil. 190 (1998).
39 434 Phil. 670 (2002).
40 470 Phil. 211, (2004).
41Rollo, pp. 16-17.
42 REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 110, Section 4.
43People v. Manansala, 708 Phil. 66, 68 (2013).
44Miguel v. Sandiganbayan, 690 Phil. 147, 155-156 (2012). Citing Section 6, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
45 REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Rule 110, Section 6.
46Abugotal v. Hon. Tiro, 160 Phil. 884 (1975); People v. Hon, Montesa, Jr. 318 Phil. 764 (1995); Joaquin, Jr. v. Hon. Drilon, 361 Phil. 900 (1999); Abdula v. Hon. Guiani, 382 Phil. 757 (2000); Turingan v. Hon. Guiani, 549 Phil. 903 (2007); Quisay v. People, 778 Phil. 481 (2016); Maximo v. Villapando, Jr., 809 Phil. 843 (2017).
47 G.R. No. 216824, November 10, 2020.
48 Id.
49Rollo, p. 84.
50 Id. at 78-81.
51Southwestern University v. Hon. Salvador, 179 Phil. 252 (1979).
52 G.R. No. 238671, June 2, 2020.
53 Id.
54Rollo, p. 68.
55Villa Gomez v. People, supra note 47.
56 Id.cralawredlibrary