G.R. No. 277067, May 07, 2025
DINA C. BUENAFLOR, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE THROUGH HON. REGIONAL PROSECUTOR JANET GRACE B. DALISAY-FABRERO, IN HER CAPACITY AS THE REGIONAL PROSECUTOR OF THE REGIONAL PROSECUTION OFFICE XI OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DAVAO CITY, PURSUANT TO DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 70-A, SERIES OF 2000 AND DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 003-A, SERIES OF 2017 IN RELATION TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10951; EDMUND E. BERNARDO, VICENTE A. CASIÑO, JR., ATTY. MICHAEL P. MILLARES, ATTY. RONALD E. HUBILLA, AND ATTY. FLOR ANASTACIO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Dina Buenaflor alleged that in 1989, she personally paid PHP 950,000.00 to respondent Edmond Bernardo, then general manager of UCPB-Magsaysay, to settle a loan. She claimed Bernardo accepted the cash payment but issued no receipt and later denied receiving it. Due to the alleged non-payment, Quedancor, the loan guarantor, paid the bank and subsequently filed a collection case against Buenaflor in 1993, which was eventually dismissed in 2007. Buenaflor filed an administrative complaint with the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) in 2011, which was dismissed for lack of merit, a finding affirmed by the BSP Monetary Board. She then filed a criminal complaint for Estafa and Other Deceits against the private respondents (bank and Quedancor officers) with the Regional Prosecution Office (RPO) in 2019.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the RPO’s dismissal of Buenaflor’s criminal complaint on the grounds of prescription and lack of probable cause.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals was correct. The petition was denied. On prescription, the crimes alleged prescribe in fifteen years. The prescriptive period commenced from the discovery of the alleged fraud in 1989 when the receipt was not issued. Buenaflor’s filing of the administrative case in 2011 did not toll the criminal prescription, as administrative and criminal proceedings are distinct. The complaint filed in 2019 was clearly beyond the prescriptive period. On probable cause, the investigating prosecutor correctly found none. The claim of a cash payment of a substantial sum without demanding a contemporaneous receipt was deemed contrary to ordinary human experience. This finding was bolstered by the prior dismissal of her administrative case by the BSP, which found her claims lacking credibility. The elements of Estafa under Article 315(1)(b) were not established, as there was no evidence of misappropriation or conversion by the respondents. The Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause is primarily an executive function, and absent grave abuse of discretion, its findings are accorded respect.