TOPIC: Rule 112 Section 4

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 154128 February 8, 2007

DR. AMANDA T. CRUZ, Petitioner,

vs.
WILFREDO R. CRUZ, Respondent.

FACTS:

Wilfredo R. Cruz, respondent, was the nephew by affinity of Dr. Amanda T. Cruz, petitioner. On June 5, 1996, Wilfredo
file a complaint against Amanda for violation of BP 22. He alleged that Amanda issued him an undated check worth
P100, 000.00 which was later dishonored by the bank due to account closed. Later, Wilfredo a notice of dishonor to
Amanda. Then without his knowledge, Amanda deposited the P100, 000.00 in his savings account.

Amanda contended that the check was issued as a guaranty for the loan that spouses Ventura obtained from Wilfredo.
She was later informed by the said spouses that the loan has been fully paid. However, Amanda was not able to ask
for the return of the check. As such, she forgot that she issued such check when she closed her account and opened
a new one.

In the resolution, the Chief State Prosecutor found that there is no violation of BP 22 in view of the full payment made
by Amanda. The DOJ also denied the motion for reconsideration. On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the CA
granted Wilfredos petition and directed the Secretary of Justice to file the proper information against Amanda.

ISSUE:

WON the Court of Appeal erred in directing the Secretary of Justice to file an information in violation of BP 22.

HELD:

YES. Under Section 4 of Rule 112, the investigating prosecutor is vested with the duty of (a) preparing a resolution
holding the respondent for trial and filing the corresponding information, or (b) dismissing the case should he find that
no probable cause exists against respondent.

In the present case, the investigating Assistant City Prosecutor found no probable cause to charge Amanda with
violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Hence, she recommended the dismissal of the case. The City Prosecutor, the Chief State
Prosecutor and the Secretary of Justice sustained the recommendation. They all found that when Wilfredo filed his
complaint with the Office of the Quezon City Prosecutor, he knew that Amanda had paid the amount of the check. In
fact, in his pleading, he admitted such payment. Thus, the prosecutors were one in concluding that petitioner did not
commit the offense charged. Moreover, there is no indication that their finding of lack of probable cause was reached
without any basis in fact and in law.

Therefore, the SC reversed the decision of the CA and affirmed the resolution of the Secretary of Justice.