1.

BUN TIONG v BALBOA

Facts:

Vicente Balboa filed 2 cases against Caroline Siok Ching Teng: a civil case for Collection of Sum of Money on Feb
24, 97 based on the post dated checks issued by Caroline with RTC. The RTC ruled in favor of Balboa affirmed by
the CA. Secondly, a criminal cases for violation of B.P. 22 on July 21, 97. The MTC acquitted Tend but held her
civilly liable. The RTC on appeal deleted the award of civil damages.

The Spouses Ching Teng now comes to court charging Balboa with forum shopping.

Issue: Whether or not it constitutes forum shopping

Held: NO

Forum shopping is the institution of 2 or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the
supposition that one or the other court would render a favorable disposition.

In this case, the applicable rule was still Sec. 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules of Court Sec. 1. Institution of criminal and
civil actions. When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability is impliedly
instituted with the criminal action, unless the ofended party waives the civil action,reserves the right to institute it
separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. x x x

Since Balboa instituted the civil case prior to the criminal case, the civil case may proceed independently of the
criminal case and there is no forum shopping. Even under the amended rules, a separate proceeding for recovery of
civil liability in cases of violation of BP 22 is allowed when the civil case is filed of the criminal case. Even then the Rules
encourage consolidation.

2. JOSE v SUAREZ

FACTS:

Respondents had availed of petitioner Carolina Joses ofer to lend money at daily interest of 1% to 2% which the latter
increased to 5% and respondents were forced to accept due to their financial distress. They sought to nullify the 5%

interest per day fixing claiming that the same were contrary to morals and done under vitiated consent.
Thereafter, the petitioners filed cases of violation of BP 22 against respondents where the latter filed motions to
suspend hearings based on the existence of a prejudicial question. Respondents claimed that if the 5% interest
rates are nullified and loans are computed at 1% per month, it would mean that the checks which are objects of BP 22
cases are not only fully paid but in fact overpaid.

ISSUE:

W/N a prejudicial questions exists such that the outcome of the validity of the interest is determinative of the guilt or
innocence of the respondents in the criminal case? No

RULING:

No. Prejudicial questions have two elements: a) The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the
issue raised in the criminal action; b) The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed. The validity or invalidity of the interest rate is not determinative of the guilt of the respondents in the
criminal case. The cause or reason for issuance of a check is immaterial in determining criminal culpability under
BP22. The law punishes the issuance of the bouncing check, which is malum prohibitum, and not the purpose it was
issued for.

1. COMMUNITY RURAL BANK v TALAVERA (borrowed)

FACTS:

Community Rural Bank filed a complaint with the prosecutors office of Cabanatuan charging several
persons with Estafa. After preliminary investigation, 6 informations for estafa were filed, 2 of which
were raffled to the branch where respondent, Judge Talavera, presided.

The accused appealed the finding of the Fiscal to the DOJ, which the latter denied, so Judge Talavera
issued a warrant of arrest with no bail against the accused.Later, the accused filed with Judge
Talavera a motion for reinvestigation and to lift the warrant of arrest. Judge granted the motion
without any hearing thereon.. a motion to dismiss was filed with Judge, The reinvestigation was
conducted and a motion to dismiss was filed, which the Judge granted, and he also ordered the
release of the accused. The Bank was never notified of any of these proceedings.

Bank then filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing it was deprived of due process. It also asked that
the criminal information be reinstated. Judge denied this. Now, Bank filed the present case
charging Judge Talavera with serious misconduct and gross inefficiency.

Issue: Did Judge commit gross ignorance?

RULING: Yes
Judge should not have entertained the motion for reinvestigation, since DOJ Secretary Serafin Cuevas
already denied with finality the appeal of the accused, finding that there was prima facie evidence
against the accused. Under Dept Order No. 223 a motion for reinvestigation may be filed on the ground
of newly discovered evidence and this must be filed before the DOJ.
It was also error for the Judge to grant the Motion to Dismiss by relying merely on the resolution
of the prosecutor who conducted the reinvestigation. In his Order, he merely stated that the motion to
dismiss is meritorious, and nothing more. The Order failed to demonstrate an independent
evaluation or assessment of the evidence against the accused. The Judge acted with undue haste
when he granted the Motion only a day after the reinvestigation was concluded.

Finally, Judge granted both of the Motions despite the obvious lack of notice to the Bank and lack of
hearing. This lapse effectively deprived it of its day in court.

Case Digest: Soriano vs People and BSP

Soriano vs People and BSP

G.R. No. 162336

February 1, 2010

Facts:
Soriano was charged for estafa through falsification of commercial documents for allegedly securing
a loan of 48 million in the name of two (2) persons when in fact these individuals did not make any
loan in the bank, nor did the bank's officers approved or had any information about the said loan. The
state prosecutor conducted a Preliminary Investigation on the basis of letters sent by the officers of
Special Investigation of BSP together with 5 affidavits and filed two (2) separate information against
Soriano for estafa through falsification of commercial documents and violation of DORSI law.
Soriano moved for the quashal of the two (2) informations based on the ground that the court has
no jurisdiction over the offense charged, for the letter did not comply with Sec. 3(a), Rule 112 of the
Rules of Court. Secondly, that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, for the commission of
estafa uner par. 1(b) of Art. 315 of the RPC is inherently incompatible with the violation of DORSI
law.
Issue:
Whether or not the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is the proper remedy in an order denying a
Motion to Quash.
Ruling:
No. The proper procedure in such a case is for the accused to enter a plea, go to trial without
prejudice on his part to present special defenses he had invoked in his motion to quash and if after
trial on the merits, an adverse decision is rendered, to appeal therefrom in the manner authorized by
law.

SAMUEL U. LEE vs. KBC BANK, N.V.

G.R. No. 164673, January 15, 2010

Carpio, J.:

Facts: Midas Diversified Export Corporation (MDEC) obtained a $1,400,000 loan from
KBC Bank N.V and subsequently, a $ 65,000 loan.

Later on, MDEC was considered in default in paying the $65,000 loan on 30 January
1998. KBC Bank sent a letter to Otto Versand verifying the validity of Confirmed
Purchase Order Nos. MTC-548 and WC-128. Otto Versand sent a facsimile message
to KBC Bank stating that (1) it did not issue the purchase orders, (2) it did not order
or receive the items covered by the purchase orders, and (3) it would not pay MDEC
any amount.

Warrant of arrest were issued against Lee and Lim and they subsequently filed a
petition for review with the Department of Justice. In his Resolution, Secretary Perez
directed the withdrawal of the informations filed against Lee and Lim. Secretary
Perez held that the facsimile message constituted hearsay evidence. KBC Bank filed
a motion for reconsideration with the Department of Justice. In a motion filed with
the RTC, Dumayas granted the motion to withdraw the informations against Lee and
Lim filed by Assistant City Prosecutor Sibucaos. KBC Bank filed with the Court a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. In a Resolution,
the Court referred the petition to the Court of Appeals pursuant to Section 6, Rule
56 of the Rules of Court. In his Resolution Secretary Simeon A. Datumanong denied
KBC Banks 2 August 2002 motion for reconsideration. In its 10 February 2004
Decision, the Court of Appeals set aside Judge Dumayas 26 March 2003 Order
holding that the Court thereby acquires jurisdiction over the case, which is the
authority to hear and determine the case. Hence, this present petition.

Issue: Whether or not the trial court abdicate its duty to determine the sufficiency of
the prosecutions reason for withdrawing the informations.

Held: Yes. The admissibility of the evidences and the presence of the elements of
the crime of estafa are best ventilated in a full-blown trial, not in the preliminary
investigation.

Once a case is filed with the court, any disposition of it rests on the sound discretion
of the court. The trial court is not bound to adopt the resolution of the Secretary of
Justice, since it is mandated to independently evaluate or assess the merits of the
case The trial court may make an independent assessment of the merits of the case
based on the affidavits and counter-affidavits, documents, or evidence appended to
the Information; the records of the public prosecutor, which the court may order the
latter to produce before the court; or any evidence already adduced before the
court by the accused at the time the motion is filed by the public prosecutor.

Judge Dumayas failure to make his own evaluation of the merits of the case
violates KBC Banks right to due process and constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
Judge Dumayas order granting the Motion to Withdraw the information is void.

Okabe vs Gutierrez

FACTS: Cecilia Maruyama filed a complaint charging Lorna Tanghal and petitioner
Teresita Tanghal Okabe, a.k.a. Shiela Okabe, with estafa. Maruyama alleged, that on
December 11, 1998, she entrusted P3,993,500 to the petitioner, who was engaged
in the business of "door-to-door delivery" from Japan to the Philippines. It was
alleged that the petitioner failed to deliver the money as agreed upon, and, at first,
denied receiving the said amount but later returned only US$1,000 through Lorna
Tanghal.
Warrant of arrest was issued against Shiela Okabe. Petitioner posted a personal bail
bond. The petitioner left the Philippines for Japan on June 17, 2000 without the trial
courts permission, and returned to the Philippines on June 28, 2000. She left the
Philippines anew on July 1, 2000, and returned on July 12, 2000. On July 14, 2000,
the private prosecutor filed an urgent ex parte motion for the issuance of the hold
departure order. Trial court approved the same. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a
verified motion for judicial determination of probable cause and to defer
proceedings/arraignment, alleging that the only documents appended to the

Information submitted by the investigating prosecutor were respondent Maruyamas

affidavit-complaint for estafa and the resolution of the investigating prosecutor; the
affidavits of the witnesses of the complainant, the respondents counter-affidavit
and the other evidence adduced by the parties were not attached thereto. On July
19, 2000, the petitioner also filed a Very Urgent Motion To Lift/Recall Hold Departure
Order dated July 17, 2000 and/or allow her to regularly travel to Japan for the reason
that she have 3 minor children residing there relying on her for support. Petitioner
also questioned the irregularity of the determination of probable cause during the
preliminary investigation however the respondent judge ruled that the posting of
bail and the filing motions for relief estopped the petitioner from questioning the
same. Upon arraignment, petitioner refused to enter a plea and w/ leave of court
left the court room. Petitioner filed w/ CA a petition for Certiorari. CA set aside the
hold departure order however all the other motions were denied, hence this case.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent judge committed a reversible error in determining

existence of probable cause despite lack of affidavits of the witnesses of respondent
Maruyama and the latters documentary evidence, as well as the counter-affidavit of
the petitioner.

HELD: Yes, the rulings of this Court are now embedded in Section 8(a), Rule 112 of
the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which provides that an information or
complaint filed in court shall be supported by the affidavits and counter-affidavits of
the parties and their witnesses, together with the other supporting evidence and
the resolution on the case. The respondent judge is hereby directed to determine
the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the petitioner
based on the complete records, as required under Section 8(a), Rule 112 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

1. PEOPLE v DE LEON

FACTS

Rodante De Leon was convicted for violation of Secs. 5 & 11 of Art. 2 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Acts of 2002. A confidential informant went to the

office of the AntiIllegal Drug Special Operation Task Force of the Novaliches
Police in Quezon City reporting the illegal activities of De Leon. A buybust team was
then created with PO2 Magcalayo as poseurbuyer and PO2 Collado, et al. to assist
him. Later at night, the team went to Sta. Monica, Novaliches where the informant
introduced Magcalayo to De Leon as buyer of shabu. The policeman asked whether
De Leon had shabu, to which he said yes and asked how much he would buy.
Magcalayo gave the money and, in return, De Leon gave him 1 plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance. Magcalayo then scratched his
head, which was the signal for the others that the transaction has already been
consummated. Thereafter, De Leon was arrested. The buybust money was
recovered. De Leon was handcufed. Upon frisking, Collado found another plastic
satchet. De Leon was then brought to the police station for investigation.
Collado placed his initials on the sachet found. The evidence was then turned over
to another police, PO1 Estrelles, who prepared a request for laboratory examination.
Collado, Magcalayo, and 2 other police then brought the sachets to the PNP
Crime Laboratory in Mandaluyong.

De Leon questioned the legality of the buybust operation conducted. He

also claimed that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody of the
confiscated items.

ISSUE
Whether or not the buybust operation was valid.

Ruling
yes. A buybust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways
and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the
lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. In this jurisdiction, the operation
is legal and has been proved to be an efective method of apprehending drug
peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.
The defense has failed to show any evidence of ill motive on the part of the police
officers. Even appellant himself declared that it was the first time he met the police
officers during his cross

examination. There was, therefore, no motive for the police officers to frame up
appellant.

Absent any proof of motive to falsely accuse appellant of such a grave ofense, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the
trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over appellant's
bare allegation.