GR 224121; (October, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 224121 , October 02, 2019
Young An Cho and Ma. Cecilia S. Cho, Petitioners, v. Young Joo Lee, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Young Joo Lee and her husband owned corporations where petitioners Young An Cho and Ma. Cecilia S. Cho were employed as general manager and accounting/finance manager, respectively. Petitioners were entrusted with transfer application forms for the owners’ joint dollar savings account to facilitate corporate transactions, with instructions to clear withdrawals with the husband. After petitioners resigned, an audit revealed two unauthorized withdrawals ($100,000 in 2009 and $500,000 in 2010) effected by petitioners forging the respondent’s signature on transfer forms and moving the funds to their own account. Two Informations for qualified theft were filed. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) doubted probable cause and directed the prosecutor to submit additional evidence. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) subsequently recommended modifying the charge to estafa through falsification of commercial documents and moved to substitute the Informations. The RTC granted the substitution. Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which nullified the RTC’s orders, holding that qualified theft was the proper offense because the money was taken, not received. Meanwhile, on March 3, 2015, the RTC dismissed the criminal cases against petitioners for failure to prosecute and violation of their right to a speedy trial.
ISSUE
Whether the petition presents a justiciable controversy after the criminal cases against petitioners have already been dismissed.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition for being moot and academic. The existence of an actual case or controversy is a prerequisite for judicial adjudication. A case becomes moot when a supervening event renders the conflicting issue nonexistent. The dismissal of the criminal cases against petitioners operated as such a supervening event. Any resolution on the propriety of downgrading the offense from qualified theft to estafa would no longer serve any useful purpose, as there is no longer any Information to substitute. The Court found none of the exceptional circumstances present that would justify assuming jurisdiction over a moot case, such as grave constitutional violations, paramount public interest, or the case being capable of repetition yet evading review.