G.R. No. 167571 Case Digest

G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008

Luis Panaguiton Jr., petitioner

vs DOJ, Ramon Tongson and Rodrigo Cawili, Respondents

Ponente: Tinga

Facts:

This is a petition for Review of CA resolutions dismissing Luis Panaguiton, Jr. petition for certiorari and motion for reconsideration

In 1992, Cawili borrowed money from petitioner and later issued checks as payment both signed by Cawili and his business associate Tongson. But checks were dishonored either for insufficiency of funds or closure of account.

Panaguiton then made a formal demands to Cawili and Tongson to pay but to no avail.

So Panaguiton filed a complaint against Cawili and Tongson for violating BP Blg. 22 before QC Prosecutor's Office.

During PI, Tongson filed his counter-affidavit claiming that he had been unjustly included as party-respondent since petitioner had lent money to Cawili in Cawili's personal capacity. He averred that he was not Cawili's business associate and claimed that he himself has criminal cases against Cawili. Tongson also denied that he had issued bounced checks and that his signatures on the checks had been falsified.

As cpunter, Panaguiton presented documents showing Tongson's signature which was the same as the signatures on the checks. Panaguiton presented also an affidavit of adverse claim wherein Tongson claimed to be Cawili's business associate.

December 1995, Prosecutor found probable cause only against Cawili and dismissed the charges against Tongson.

Panaguiton filed a partial appeal before DOJ even the case against Cawili was filed before the proper court.

Later on July 1997, after finding that Tongson was possible to co-sign the bounced checks and had altered his signature in pleadings submitte during PI, Chief State Prosecutor directed the City Prosecutor of QC to conduct reinvestigation of the case against Tongson and refer the signatures to NBI.

On March 1999, Asst. City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint against Tongson without referring to the NBI, holding that the case had already prescribed pursuant to Act. No. 3326, stating that in this case the 4 year period started on the date the checks were dishonored and that the filing of complaint in QC prosecutor's office did not interrupt the running of the prescriptive period as the law contemplates judicial and not administrative proceedings. Four years had elapsed and no information was filed against Tongson. And the order to refer the matter to NBI could no longer be sanctioned under Section 3, Rule 112 of rules of criminal procedure because the initiative should come from the petitioner himself and not from the investigating prosecutor.

Petitioner appealed to DOJ through  undersecretary Teehankee but was dismissed. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration of DOJ and through undersecretary Gutierrez ruled in his favor and declared that the prescription period was interrupted by the filing of the complaint in the Prosecutor's office.

However, in August 2004, DOJ acting on the motion for reconsideration filed by Tongson ruled the subject offense had already prescribed and ordered the withdrawal of 3 informations for violation of BP Blg. 22 against Tongson. DOJ explained that Act No. 3326 applies to violations of special acts that do not provide for a prescriptive period for the offenses thereunder.

Panguiton thus filed a petition for Certiorari before CA assailing the august resolution of the DOJ, but was dismissed by CA in view of failure to attach a proper verification and certification of non-forum shopping.

Panaguiton then filed for instant petition claiming that CA committed grave error on dismissing his petition on technical grounds and in ruling that the petition before it was without merit and questions are too unsubstantial.

The DOJ stated that CA did not err in dismissing the petition for non-compliance with the rules of court.

Then Cawili and Tongson submitted their comment arguing that CA did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari, and they also claim that the offense of violation of BP Blg. 22 has prescribed and the long delay, attributable to petitioner and the State violated their constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases. The petition is meritorious.

Issues: (1) Technical Issues, (2) Substantive Aspects

Ruling: (1) verification is merely formal requirement intended to secure an assurance that matters which are alleged are true and correct-the court may simply order the correction of unverified pleadings or act on them and waive strict compliance so that the ends of justice may be served. We find that by attaching pertinent verification to his motion for reconsideration, petitioner has sufficiently complied with the verification requirement.We also agree that CA erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of failure to attach a certified copy or duplicate original of the 3 resolution of DOJ. 

(2) This court ruled that the filing of the complaint with the fiscal's office for PI suspends the running of the prescriptive period.The delay was beyond petitioner's control but that of the DOJ's flip-flopping resolutions and misapplications.

Petition is granted.