G.R. No. 45520; October 11, 1938
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CLOTILDE REYES DE VALENZUELA, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Aniceta Borja Vda. de Reyes was found by the Anti-Usury Board to have engaged in usurious lending. To avoid prosecution, her son, Atty. Pio Reyes, admitted the charge and formally offered a compromise, which was accepted by the Board. A compromise agreement was executed on November 11, 1935, wherein Aniceta acknowledged the usurious loans and paid a P500 compromise fee to the Board. The Secretary of Justice, as chairman of the Board, approved the compromise, and the contemplated charges were dropped. Subsequently, however, Aniceta filed a civil case to enforce the terms of the usurious contract and refused to return the alleged usurious interest collected. The Anti-Usury Board then referred the matter to the City Fiscal, who filed a criminal information not against Aniceta but against her daughter, Clotilde Reyes de Valenzuela, as the transactions appeared in her name. The accused moved to dismiss the case, citing the prior compromise. The lower court granted the dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the criminal case against Clotilde Reyes de Valenzuela based on the compromise agreement entered into with the Anti-Usury Board.

RULING

No, the lower court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The compromise was validly entered into under Act No. 4168, which empowered the Anti-Usury Board to settle cases extrajudicially subject to specific conditions, all of which were met. The Board accepted the offer and received the P500 compromise fee. Consequently, the penal action against the accused was extinguished. The Court noted that the return of the alleged usurious interest was not a condition incorporated into the compromise agreement and that this matter was pending determination in a separate civil case.

AI Generated by Armztrong.