G.R. No. 111153 November 21, 1994
GILBERT DEE, PETER DEE, ROBERTO UYQUIENCO and OSCAR BLAZA, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, JOSE CHUA and BETTY CHUA, respondents.

FACTS

On March 21, 1990, spouses Jose and Betty Chua filed a complaint with the Office of the Prosecutor of Pasay City accusing several individuals, including petitioners Gilbert Dee, Peter Dee, Roberto Uyquienco, and Oscar Blaza, of estafa through falsification of a commercial document. They alleged that the accused fraudulently made it appear that the Chuas signed a promissory note for P14,000,000.00 when, in fact, the note was signed in blank for the purpose of obtaining a “bills purchase line” not exceeding P2,000,000.00. After investigation, First Assistant City Prosecutor Francisco Beron issued a resolution dated September 30, 1991, finding a prima facie case for estafa. The investigation revealed that the Chuas had signed blank promissory notes, sent a letter on June 7, 1990, to China Banking Corporation withdrawing authority to fill them up, and that the notes were nonetheless filled up on July 5, 1990, for P14 million to cover an overdraft of Benison Chua without the Chuas’ knowledge or a guaranty agreement. The prosecutor found that the accused, as bank officers, acted pursuant to a board resolution and implicated the board members. Consequently, an information was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City on October 3, 1991, docketed as Criminal Case No. 91-1633. The accused filed a petition for review with the Department of Justice, which was initially denied. However, upon motion for reconsideration, then Acting Secretary of Justice Silvestre Bello III directed the city prosecutor to move for the dismissal of the information. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on February 10, 1992. The Chuas filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which set aside the dismissal order and remanded the case for arraignment and further proceedings. The accused then filed the instant petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the petition for certiorari and ordering the reinstatement of the information for estafa through falsification of a commercial document.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal case based solely on the Secretary of Justice’s directive, without making an independent evaluation of the evidence to determine probable cause. The trial court’s role is not to merely rely on the prosecutor’s or the Secretary’s findings but to satisfy itself that probable cause exists. The Court found that the prosecutor’s resolution established a prima facie case, detailing how the blank promissory note was filled up after the authority was withdrawn and used for a purpose different from the agreed bills discounting line. The ambivalence of the Department of Justice officials, initially denying then granting the petition for review, did not serve the interest of justice, especially with a prima facie case existing. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly set aside the dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings.