Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
prosecute civil and criminal cases before the Sandiganbayan and even the
regular courts.
Nonetheless, while we do not discount the authority of the
Ombudsman, we believe and so hold that the exercise of his correlative
powers to both investigate and initiate the proper action for the recovery of
ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth is restricted only to cases for the
recovery of ill-gotten and/or unexplained wealth which were amassed after
February 25, 1986. 18 Prior to said date, the Ombudsman is without authority
to initiate such forfeiture proceedings. We, however, uphold his authority
to investigate cases for the forfeiture or recovery of such ill-gotten and/or
unexplained wealth amassed even before the aforementioned date, pursuant
to his general investigatory power under Section 15(l) of Republic Act No.
6770.
In the case at bar, the alleged unexplained wealth of respondent
Macario Asistio, Jr. was supposed to have been acquired from 1981 to 1983.
Verily, the Ombudsman, like the Special Prosecutor, is without authority to
initiate and file the petition for forfeiture against respondent Asistio.
243. Antam Consolidated, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 143 SCRA 534 (1986)
FACTS: On April 9, 1981, respondent Stokely Van Camp. Inc. (Stokely) filed a
complaint against Banahaw Milling Corporation (Banahaw), Antam
Consolidated, Inc., Tambunting Trading Corporation (Tambunting), Aurora
Consolidated Securities and Investment Corporation, and United Coconut Oil
Mills, Inc. (Unicom) for collection of sum of money. In its complaint, Stokely
alleged: 1) That it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of Indiana, U.S.A. and 2)It have undertook contract with Comphil to
sell and deliver and Capital City agreed to buy 500 long tons of crude
coconut oil but Comphil failed to deliver the coconut oil and so that Capital
City covered its coconut oil needs in the open market at a price substantially
in excess of the contract and sustained a loss of US$103,600. Subsequent
contracts were undertaken by the parties but still Comphil failed to deliver its
obligation. Capital City sustained damages in the amount of US$175,00. And
that after repeated demands from Comphil to pay the said amount, the latter
still refuses to pay the same. Respondent Stokely further prayed that a writ
of attachment be issued against any and all the properties of the petitioners
in an amount sufficient to satisfy any lien of judgment that the respondent
may obtain in its action. The trial court ordered the issuance of a writ of
attachment in favor of the respondent upon the latter's deposit of a bond in
the amount of P l,285,000.00. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before
the Indianapolis intermediate Appellate Court but the same was dismissed.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent has the personality to sue since the
301. Baviera vs. Standard Chartered Bank, et al. 515 SCRA 170 (2007)
FACTS: Manuel Baviera, petitioner in these cases, was the former head of
the HR Service Delivery and Industrial Relations of Standard Chartered BankPhilippines. SCB did not comply with the conditions set forth by the BSP.
Although unregistered with the SEC, SCB was able to sell securities worth
around P6 billion to some 645 investors. Petitioner entered into an
Investment Trust Agreement with SCB wherein he purchased US$8,000.00
worth of securities upon the banks promise of 40% return on his investment
and a guarantee that his money is safe. After six (6) months, however,
petitioner learned that the value of his investment went down to
US$7,000.00. He tried to withdraw his investment but was persuaded by
Antonette de los Reyes of SCB to hold on to it for another six (6) months in
view of the possibility that the market would pick up. The trend in the
securities market, however, was bearish and the worth of petitioners
investment went down further to only US$3,000.00. On October 26, 2001,
Petitioner then filed with the BSP a letter-complaint demanding
compensation for his lost investment. But SCB denied his demand on the
ground that his investment is "regular." On July 15, 2003, petitioner filed with
the Department of Justice (DOJ), represented herein by its prosecutors, public
respondents, a complaint charging the above-named officers and members
of the SCB Board of Directors and other SCB officials, private respondents,
with syndicated estafa. For their part, private respondents filed the following
as counter-charges against petitioner: (1) blackmail and extortion and
blackmail and perjury. On September 29, 2003, petitioner also filed a
complaint for perjury against private . On February 7, 2004, petitioner also
filed with the DOJ a complaint for violation of Section 8.19 of the Securities
Regulation Code against private respondents, On February 23, 2004, the DOJ
rendered its Joint Resolution dismissing all the complaints and counter-
charges filed the herein parties. Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a
petition for certiorari alleging that the DOJ acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing his
complaint for syndicated estafa and a separate petition for certiorari
assailing the DOJ Resolution dismissing the case for violation of the Securities
Regulation Code. Petitioner claimed that the DOJ acted with grave abuse of
discretion tantamount to lack or excess of jurisdiction in holding that the
complaint should have been filed with the SEC. On January 7, 2005, the Court
of Appeals promulgated its Decision dismissing the petition. It sustained the
ruling of the DOJ that the case should have been filed initially with the SEC.
Meanwhile, on February 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision
involving petitioners charges and respondents counter charges dismissing
the petitions on the ground that the purpose of a petition for certiorari is not
to evaluate and weigh the parties evidence but to determine whether the
assailed Resolution of the DOJ was issued with grave abuse of discretion
tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration but
it was denied . Hence, the instant petitions for review on certiorari.
ISSUE: 1) Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the
DOJ did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners
complaint for; 2) violation of Securities Regulation Code and for syndicated
estafa.
RULIN : 1) NO. The Court of Appeals held that under Section 53.1 of the said
Code provides, a criminal complaint for violation of any law or rule
administered by the SEC must first be filed with the latter. If the Commission
finds that there is probable cause, then it should refer the case to the DOJ.
Since petitioner failed to comply with the foregoing procedural requirement,
the DOJ did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing his complaint.
Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts will not determine a
controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction of the administrative
tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring the specialized knowledge and expertise of said
administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact
2) NO. Section 5, Rule 110 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, as
amended, provides that all criminal actions, commenced by either a
complaint or an information, shall be prosecuted under the direction and
control of a public prosecutor. This mandate is founded on the theory that a
crime is a breach of the security and peace of the people at large, an outrage
against the very sovereignty of the State. It follows that a representative of
the State shall direct and control the prosecution of the offense. A public
prosecutor is in a peculiar and very definite sense a servant of the law, the
twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffers.