G.R. No. 193250; April 25, 2012
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, vs. AMELIO TRIA and JOHN DOE, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Amelio Tria was the Branch Manager of PNB-MWSS. In April 2004, the branch received a letter-request from the Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) to debit a dormant current account and issue a manager’s check for PhP 5.2 million payable to “Atty. Rodrigo A. Reyes.” The request bore signatures purportedly from authorized MWSS signatories. Bank personnel evaluated the documents and found them in order, leading to the issuance of Manager’s Check No. 1165848. Days later, Tria, who was no longer operationally involved, personally accompanied Atty. Reyes to another PNB branch to encash the check. He identified Reyes to the teller and signed the check with the note “PAYEE IDENTIFIED.” The transaction was completed.
Subsequently, MWSS disowned the withdrawal request, stating it was fraudulent, as the required signatures were forged. An investigation revealed the supporting documents for the transaction were missing from the branch files. PNB initiated a criminal complaint for Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents against Tria and others. The City Prosecutor dismissed the case against Tria, a ruling affirmed by the Department of Justice and the Court of Appeals, prompting PNB’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the City Prosecutor committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the criminal complaint for Estafa through Falsification against respondent Amelio Tria for lack of probable cause.

RULING

No, the prosecutor did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding no probable cause to indict Tria for the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification. The legal logic rests on the distinct elements of the alleged offenses and the absence of evidence directly linking Tria to the falsification. For Estafa through Falsification to exist, the falsification must be the means to commit the fraud. The evidence showed the falsified letter-request was prepared and submitted to the bank by persons other than Tria. Bank personnel independently verified and processed the transaction based on these documents before Tria’s involvement.
Tria’s act of accompanying the payee and identifying him occurred after the check was legitimately issued by the bank based on the falsified documents. This subsequent act did not constitute participation in the falsification itself. His actions, while suspicious and a possible violation of internal bank rules, did not establish that he conspired in crafting the falsified authorization or that he had knowledge of the forgery at the time the check was issued. Without proof that he participated in the falsification, which was the essential means to defraud, no probable cause for the complex crime exists. The determination of probable cause is primarily an executive function, and absent a clear showing of arbitrariness, the Court will not disturb the prosecutor’s finding.