G.R. No. 173844 - LIGAYA P. CRUZ, VS. HON. RAUL M. GONZALEZ, ETC., DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, AND COURT OF APPEALS..D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED IN PART and the assailed resolution is MODIFIED accordingly. The complaint against respondent Atty. Ligaya Cruz is hereby DISMISSED for want of probable cause and the Chief State Prosecutor is hereby directed to file an information for violation of Art. 315, par. 2(a), Revised Penal Code, against respondents Benjamin Cruz, Rodolfo Buenaventura, Librada Dio, Nilda Fajardo and Lelaine Fernandez and to report the action taken hereon within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. DBP, thereafter, filed a motion for reconsideration [10] of the 3 November 2003 resolution. By Resolution [11] dated 27 January 2004, Acting Secretary Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez ordered the filing of informations for Estafa/Large Scale Fraud under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the RPC, as amended, in relation to P.D. 1689 against respondents. In the same resolution, she ordered the filing of informations against Atty. Cruz. The dispositive portion of the Resolution of 27 January 2004 reads: WHEREFORE, the motion is hereby GRANTED. The resolution dated November 3, 2003 is hereby SET ASIDE. The Chief State Prosecutor is hereby directed to cause the reinstatement of the forty (40) Informations for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to P.D. 1689 against respondents Benjamin J. Cruz, Rodolfo C. Buenaventura, Librada Y. Dio, Nilda S. Farjardo, Lelaine V. Fernandez and Atty. Ligaya P. Cruz, and to report to this Office the action taken within five (5) days from receipt hereof. (Emphasis in the original) [12] Respondents and herein petitioner moved for reconsideration. [13] In a Resolution [14] dated 4 January 2005, Secretary Raul Gonzales partially granted their motion and ordered the filing against all respondents of informations only for forty (40) counts of estafa under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the RPC and not for large scale fraud under P.D. 1689. The dispositive portion reads: WHEREFORE, given the foregoing, the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The Resolution dated January 27, 2004 is SET ASIDE. The Chief State Prosecutor is directed to move for the withdrawal of the forty (40) informations for violation of PD 1689, if already filed, and to file instead separate informations for violation of Art. 315, par. 2(a), RPC against respondents Cruz, et. al. Report the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof. [15] Undaunted, Atty. Cruz filed a petition for certiorari [16] under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA seeking to nullify and set aside the 4 January 2005 resolution of the Secretary of Justice. On 17 January 2006, the CA rendered the assailed decision [17] dismissing the petition. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied on 19 July 2006. [18] Hence, this appeal. Essentially, the issue before us for resolution is whether the CA erred in sustaining the Secretary of Justice in its ruling that there is probable cause to indict petitioner At