9. Baviera v Paglinawan

7/25/2019 9. Baviera v Paglinawan

1/24

Facts:SCB acted as a stock broker, soliciting from local

residents foreign securities called GTPMF. These securities were

not registered with the SEC and were then remitted outwardl to

SCB!"ong #ong and SCB!Singa$ore. The %n&estment Ca$ital'ssociation of the Phili$$ines (%C'P) filed with the SEC a

com$laint alleging that SCB &iolated the *e&ised Securities 'ct,

$articularl the $ro&ision $rohibiting the selling of securities

without $rior registration with the SEC+ and that its actions are

$otentiall damaging to the local mutual fund industr.

otwithstanding the BSP directi&e, SCB continued to offer and

sell GTPMF securities in this countr. Petitioner learned that theSCB had been $rohibited b the BSP to sell GPTMF securities.

Petitioner filed with the -/ a com$laint for &iolation of

Section 0.1 of the Securities *egulation Code against $ri&ate

res$ondents but was denied holding that it should ha&e been

filed with the SEC.

Issue: 2hether the SEC has 3urisdiction o&er the case.

Held: 4es. ' criminal charge for &iolation of the Securities*egulation Code is a s$eciali5ed dis$ute. "ence, it must first bereferred to an administrati&e agenc of s$ecial com$etence, i.e.,the SEC. 6nder the doctrine of $rimar 3urisdiction, courts willnot determine a contro&ers in&ol&ing a 7uestion within the

3urisdiction of the administrati&e tribunal, where the 7uestiondemands the e8ercise of sound administrati&e discretionre7uiring the s$eciali5ed knowledge and e8$ertise of saidadministrati&e tribunal to determine technical and intricatematters of fact. The Securities *egulation Code is a s$ecial law.%ts enforcement is $articularl &ested in the SEC. "ence, all


2/24

com$laints for an &iolation of the Code and its im$lementingrules and regulations should be filed with the SEC. 2here thecom$laint is criminal in nature, the SEC shall indorse the

com$laint to the -/ for $reliminar in&estigation and$rosecution.

FIRST DIVISION

MANUEL V. BAVIERA,

Petitione!

! &ersus !

ESPERAN"A PA#LINA$AN! in %e

ca&acit' as De&at(ent o) *ustice State

Posecuto+ LEAH ,. TANODRA-

ARMAMENTO! In %e ca&acit' as

Assistant ,%ie) State Posecuto and

,%aio(an o) Tas/ Foce on Business

Sca(+ *OVEN,ITO R. "UNO! in %is

ca&acit' as De&at(ent o) *ustice ,%ie)

State Posecuto+ STANDARD

,HARTERED BAN0! PAUL SIMON

MORRIS! A*A1 0AN$AL! SRIDHAR

#.R. No. 234546


3/24

RAMAN! MARIVEL #ON"ALES!

,HONA RE1ES! MARIA ELLEN

VI,TOR! and "ENAIDA I#LESIAS!

Res&ondents.

8 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 8


4/24

MANUEL V. BAVIERA! Petitione!

! &ersus !

STANDARD ,HARTERED BAN0!

BR1AN 0. SANDERSON! THE RI#HT

HONORABLE LORD STE$ARTB1!

EVAN MERV1N DAVIES! MI,HAEL

BERNARD DENOMA!

,HRISTOPHER AVEDIS 0EL*I0!RI,HARD HENR1 MEDDIN#S! 0AI

NAR#OL$ALA! PETER

ALE7ANDER SANDS! RONNIE ,HI

,HUN# ,HAN! SIR ,0 ,HO$!

BARR1 ,LARE! HO 0$ON PIN#!

RUDOLPH HAROLD PETER

AR0HAM! DAVID #EOR#E MOIR!

HI#H ED$ARD NORTON! SIR

RALPH HARR1 ROBINS! ANTHON1

$ILLIAM PAUL STENHAM

8Standad ,%ateed Ban/ ,%ai(an!

De&ut' ,%ai(an! and Me(9es o) t%e

Boad! SHERA"AM MA"ARI 8#ou&

Re;ional Head )o ,onsu(e Ban/in;!

PAUL SIMON MORRIS! A*A1

0AN$AL! SRIDHAR RAMAN!

MARIVEL #ON"ALES! ,HONA

RE1ES! ELLEN VI,TOR! RAMONA

H. BERNAD! DOMIN#O

,ARBONELL! *R.! and "ENAIDA

I#LESIAS 8Standad ,%ateed Ban/-P%ili&&ines Banc% Heads

Present9

P6, C.J.,Chairperson,

S'-:';!G6T%E**E>?

*Corona*On leave.


5/24

8 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!8

- E C % S %

S'-:';!G6T%E**E


6/24

Manuel Ba&iera, $etitioner in these cases, was the former head of the "*

Ser&ice -eli&er and %ndustrial *elations of Standard Chartered Bank!Phili$$ines

(SCB), one of herein res$ondents. SCB is a foreign banking cor$oration dul

licensed to engage in banking, trust, and other fiduciar business in the Phili$$ines.

Pursuant to *esolution o. 11= dated -ecember @, 1= of the Monetar Board

of theBangko Sentral ng Pilipinas(BSP), the conduct of SCBs business in this

3urisdiction is sub3ect to the following conditions9

1. 't the end of a one!ear $eriod from the date the SCB starts its trustfunctions, at least = of its trust accounts must be for the account of non!residents of the Phili$$ines and that actual foreign e8change had beenremitted into the Phili$$ines to fund such accounts or that theestablishment of such accounts had reduced the indebtedness of residents(indi&iduals or cor$orations or go&ernment agencies) of the Phili$$ines tonon!residents. 't the end of the second ear, the abo&e ratio shall be >,which ratio must be obser&ed continuousl thereafter+

=. The trust o$erations of SCB shall be sub3ect to all e8isting laws, rules and

regulations a$$licable to trust ser&ices, $articularl the creation of a TrustCommittee+ and

@. The bank shall inform the a$$ro$riate su$er&ising and e8amining

de$artment of the BSP at the start of its o$erations.

'$$arentl, SCB did not com$l with the abo&e conditions. %nstead, as earl

as 1D, it acted as a stock broker, soliciting from local residents foreign securities

called G;B'; T"%*- P'*T4 M6T6'; F6-S (GTPMF), denominated in

6S dollars. These securities were not registered with the Securities and E8change

Commission (SEC). These were then remitted outwardl to SCB!"ong #ong and

SCB!Singa$ore.


7/24

SCBs counsel, *omulo Mabanta Buena&entura Saoc and -elos 'ngeles

;aw ffice, ad&ised the bank to $roceed with the selling of the foreign securitiesalthough unregistered with the SEC, under the guise of a custodianshi$ agreement+

and should it be 7uestioned, it shall in&oke Section ?= @A@ of the General Banking

'ct (*e$ublic 'ct o.@@?).A %n sum, SCB was able to sell GTPMF securities

worth around PD billion to some D in&estors.

"owe&er, SCBs o$erations did not remain unchallenged. n /ul 10, 1?,

the %n&estment Ca$ital 'ssociation of the Phili$$ines (%C'P) filed with the SEC a

@ A@ SEC.?=. %n addition to the o$erations s$ecificall authori5ed elsewhere in this 'ct, banking institutions other than building and loanassociations ma $erform the following ser&ices9

a) *ecei&e in custod funds, documents and &aluable ob3ects, and rent safet de$osit bo8es for the safeguarding of such effects+

b) 'ct as financial agent and bu and sell, b order of and for the account of their customers, shares, e&idences of indebtedness

and all other t$es of securities+

c) Make collections and $aments for the account of others and $erform such other ser&ices for their customers as are not

incom$atible with banking business+

d) 6$on $rior a$$ro&al of the Monetar Board, act as managing agent, ad&iser, consultant or administrator of in&estment

management ad&isorHconsultanc accounts.

The banks shall $erform the ser&ices $ermitted under subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section as de$ositaries or as

agents. 'ccordingl the shall kee$ the funds, securities and other effects which the thus recei&e dul se$arated and a$art from the

banks own assets and liabilities.

The Monetar Board ma regulate the o$erations authori5ed b this section in order to insure that said o$erations do not

endanger the interest of the de$ositors and other creditors of the banks.

[]No+ repeale ! 4e General 5anin a+ o8 2000 9Rep&li$ "$t No. :7;1


8/24

com$laint alleging that SCB &iolated the *e&ised Securities 'ct,A $articularl

the $ro&ision $rohibiting the selling of securities without $rior registration with the

SEC+ and that its actions are $otentiall damaging to the local mutual fund

industr.

%n its answer, SCB denied offering and selling securities, contending that it

has been $erforming a $urel informational function without solicitations for an

of its in&estment outlets abroad+ that it has a trust license and the ser&ices it renders

under the Custodianshi$ 'greement for offshore in&estments are authori5ed bSection ?=DAD of the General Banking 'ct+ that its clients were the ones who took

the initiati&e to in&est in securities+ and it has been acting merel as an agent or

$assi&e order taker for them.

A Batas Pambansa Blg. 1?0. ow re$ealed b *e$ublic 'ct o. 0? (The Securities

*egulation Code), which took effect on /ul 1. =>>>.

DAD Supraat footnote @.


9/24

n Se$tember =, 1?, the SEC issued a Cease and -esist rder against

SCB, holding that its ser&ices &iolated Sections (a)?A? and 10A0 of the *e&ised

Securities 'ct.

Meantime, the SEC indorsed %C'Ps com$laint and its su$$orting documents

to the BSP.

n ctober @1, 1?, the SEC informed the Secretar of Finance that it

withdrew GTPMF securities from the market and that it will not sell the same

without the necessar clearances from the regulator authorities.

? A? SEC. . Requirement of registration of securities. (a) o securities, e8ce$t of a class

e8em$t under an of the $ro&isions of Section fi&e hereof or unless sold in an

transaction e8em$t under an of the $ro&isions of Section si8 hereof shall be sold or

offered for sale or distribution to the $ublic within the Phili$$ines unless such securities

shall ha&e been registered and $ermitted to be sold as hereinafter $ro&ided.

0 A0 SEC. 1. Registration of brokers, dealers and salesmen.- o broker, dealer or

salesman shall engagein business in the Phili$$ines as such broker, dealer or salesman orsell an securities, including securities e8em$ted under this 'ct, e8ce$t in e8em$t

transactions, unless he has been registered as a broker, dealer, or salesman $ursuant to the

$ro&isions of this Section.


10/24

Meanwhile, on 'ugust 1?, 10, the BSP directed SCB not to include

in&estments in global mutual funds issued abroad in its trust in&estments $ortfolio

without $rior registration with the SEC.

n 'ugust @1, 10, SCB sent a letter to the BSP confirming that it will

withdraw third!$art fund $roducts which could be directl $urchased b in&estors.

"owe&er, notwithstanding its commitment and the BSP directi&e, SCBcontinued to offer and sell GTPMF securities in this countr. This $rom$ted

$etitioner to enter into an %n&estment Trust 'greement with SCB wherein he

$urchased 6SI0,>>>.>> worth of securities u$on the banks $romise of > return

on his in&estment and a guarantee that his mone is safe. 'fter si8 (D) months,

howe&er, $etitioner learned that the &alue of his in&estment went down to

6SI?,>>>.>>. "e tried to withdraw his in&estment but was $ersuaded b 'ntonette

de los *ees of SCB to hold on to it for another si8 (D) months in &iew of the

$ossibilit that the market would $ick u$.

Meanwhile, on o&ember =?, =>>>, the BSP found that SCB failed to

com$l with its directi&e of 'ugust 1?, 10. Conse7uentl, it was fined in the

amount of P@>,>>>.>>.


11/24

The trend in the securities market, howe&er, was bearish and the worth of

$etitioners in&estment went down further to onl 6SI@,>>>.>>.

n ctober =D, =>>1, $etitioner learned from Mari&el Gon5ales, head of the

SCB ;egal and Com$liance -e$artment, that the latter had been $rohibited b the

BSP to sell GPTMF securities. Petitioner then filed with the BSP a letter!com$laint

demanding com$ensation for his lost in&estment. But SCB denied his demand on

the ground that his in&estment is regular.

n /ul 1, =>>@, $etitioner filed with the -e$artment of /ustice (-/),

re$resented herein b its $rosecutors, $ublic res$ondents, a com$laint charging the

abo&e!named officers and members of the SCB Board of -irectors and other SCB

officials, $ri&ate res$ondents, with sndicated estafa,docketed as %.S. o. =>>@!

1>.

For their $art, $ri&ate res$ondents filed the following as counter!charges

against $etitioner9 (1) blackmail and e8tortion, docketed as %.S. o. =>>@!1>!'+

and blackmail and $er3ur, docketed as %.S. o. =>>@!1=?0.

n Se$tember =, =>>@, $etitioner also filed a com$laint for $er3ur against

$ri&ate res$ondents Paul Simon Morris and Mari&el Gon5ales, docketed as %.S. o.

=>>@!1=?0!'.


12/24

n -ecember , =>>@, the SEC issued a Cease and -esist rder against

SCB restraining it from further offering, soliciting, or otherwise selling its

securities to the $ublic until these ha&e been registered with the SEC.

Subse7uentl, the SEC and SCB reached an amicable settlement.

n /anuar =>, =>>, the SEC lifted its Cease and -esist rder and

a$$ro&ed the P? million settlement offered b SCB. Thereu$on, SCB made a

commitment not to offer or sell securities without $rior com$liance with the

re7uirements of the SEC.

n Februar ?, =>>, $etitioner filed with the -/ a com$laint for &iolation

of Section 0.1

A of the Securities *egulation Code against $ri&ate res$ondents,docketed as %.S. o. =>>!==.

A Sec. 0.Requirement of Registration of Securities9

0.1. Securities shall not be sold or offered for sale or distribution within the

Phili$$ines, without a registration statement dul filed with and a$$ro&ed b theCommission. Prior to such sale, information on the securities, in such form and with such

substance as the Commission ma $rescribe, shall be made a&ailable to each $ros$ecti&e

$urchaser.


13/24

n Februar =@, =>>, the -/ rendered its /oint *esolution1>A1>

dismissing $etitioners com$laint for sndicated estafa in %.S. o. =>>@!1>+

$ri&ate res$ondents com$laint for blackmail and e8tortion in %.S. o. =>>@!1>!

'+ $ri&ate res$ondents com$laint for blackmail and $er3ur in %.S. o. =>>@!1=?0+

and $etitioners com$laint for $er3ur against $ri&ate res$ondents Morris and

Gon5ales in %.S. o. =>>@!1=?0!'.

Meanwhile, in a *esolution11A11 dated '$ril , =>>, the -/ dismissed

$etitioners com$laint in %.S. o. =>>!== (&iolation of Securities *egulationCode), holding that it should ha&e been filed with the SEC.

Petitioners motions to dismiss his com$laints were denied b the -/. Thus,

he filed with the Court of '$$eals a $etition for certiorari, docketed as C'!G.*. SP

o. 0>?0. "e alleged that the -/ acted with gra&e abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or e8cess of 3urisdiction in dismissing his com$laint for

sndicated estafa.

"e also filed with the Court of '$$eals a se$arate $etition for certiorari

assailing the -/ *esolution dismissing %.S. o. =>>!== for &iolation of the

Securities *egulation Code. This $etition was docketed as C'!G.*. SP o. 0?@=0.

1>A1> :ol. %, *ollo, G.*. o. 1?>D>=, $$. 1!?@.

11[11] Vol. I, Rollo, G.R. No. 16:3:0, pp. 21-3.


14/24

Petitioner claimed that the -/ acted with gra&e abuse of discretion tantamount to

lack or e8cess of 3urisdiction in holding that the com$laint should ha&e been filed

with the SEC.

n /anuar ?, =>>, the Court of '$$eals $romulgated its -ecision

dismissing the $etition. %t sustained the ruling of the -/ that the case should ha&e

been filed initiall with the SEC.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied in a

*esolution dated Ma =?, =>>.

Meanwhile, on Februar =1, =>>, the Court of '$$eals rendered its

-ecision in C'!G.*. SP o. 0>?0 (in&ol&ing $etitioners charges and res$ondentscounter charges) dismissing the $etition on the ground that the $ur$ose of a

$etition for certiorari is not to e&aluate and weigh the $arties e&idence but to

determine whether the assailed *esolution of the -/ was issued with gra&e abuse

of discretion tantamount to lack of 3urisdiction. 'gain, $etitioner mo&ed for a

reconsideration but it was denied in a *esolution of o&ember ==, =>>.

"ence, the instant $etitions for re&iew on certiorari.


15/24

For our resolution is the fundamental issue of whether the Court of '$$eals

erred in concluding that the -/ did not commit gra&e abuse of discretion in

dismissing $etitioners com$laint in %.S. =>>!== for &iolation of Securities

*egulation Code and his com$laint in %.S. o. =>>@!1> for sndicated estafa.

#.R. No 234546

Re: I.S. No. >66?->>@

Fo iolation o) t%e Secuities Re;ulation ,ode

Section @.1 of the Securities *egulation Code $ro&ides9

SEC. @.Inestigations, In!unctions and Prosecution of "ffenses.@. 1. The Commission ma, in its discretion, make such in&estigation asit deems necessar to determine whether an $erson has &iolated or is about to&iolate an $ro&ision of this Code, an rule, regulation or order thereunder, oran rule of an E8change, registered securities association, clearing agenc, otherself!regulator organi5ation, and ma re7uire or $ermit an $erson to file with ita statement in writing, under oath or otherwise, as the Commission shalldetermine, as to all facts and circumstances concerning the matter to bein&estigated. The Commission ma $ublish information concerning an such&iolations and to in&estigate an fact, condition, $ractice or matter which it madeem necessar or $ro$er to aid in the enforcement of the $ro&isions of thisCode, in the $rescribing of rules and regulations thereunder, or in securinginformation to ser&e as a basis for recommending further legislation concerningthe matters to which this Code relates9 Proided, ho#eer, That an $ersonre7uested or sub$oenaed to $roduce documents or testif in an in&estigationshall simultaneousl be notified in writing of the $ur$ose of such in&estigation9Proided, further, T%at all ci(inal co(&laints )o iolations o) t%is ,odeand t%e i(&le(entin; ules and e;ulations en)oced o ad(inisteed 9' t%e

,o((ission s%all 9e e)eed to t%e De&at(ent o) *ustice )o &eli(ina'


16/24

inesti;ation and &osecution 9e)oe t%e &o&e cout: Proided,furthermore, That in instances where the law allows inde$endent ci&il orcriminal $roceedings of &iolations arising from the act, the Commission shalltake a$$ro$riate action to im$lement the same9 Proided, finall$+ That thein&estigation, $rosecution, and trial of such cases shall be gi&en $riorit.

The Court of '$$eals held that under the abo&e $ro&ision, a criminal

com$laint for &iolation of an law or rule administered b the SEC must first be

filed with the latter. %f the Commission finds that there is $robable cause, then it

should refer the case to the -/. Since $etitioner failed to com$l with the

foregoing $rocedural re7uirement, the -/ did not gra&el abuse its discretion in

dismissing his com$laint in %.S. o. =>>!==.

' criminal charge for &iolation of the Securities *egulation Code is a

s$eciali5ed dis$ute. "ence, it must first be referred to an administrati&e agenc of

s$ecial com$etence, i.e., the SEC. 6nder the doctrine of $rimar 3urisdiction,

courts will not determine a contro&ers in&ol&ing a 7uestion within the 3urisdiction

of the administrati&e tribunal, where the 7uestion demands the e8ercise of sound

administrati&e discretion re7uiring the s$eciali5ed knowledge and e8$ertise of said

administrati&e tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.1=A1=

The Securities *egulation Code is a s$ecial law. %ts enforcement is $articularl

&ested in the SEC. "ence, all com$laints for an &iolation of the Code and its

1= A1= Saaedra, Jr. . Securities and %&change Commission, G.*. o. 0>0?, March =1,

100, 1 SC*' ?, D=, citingPambu!an Sur 'nited (ine )orkers . Samar (ining Co.

Inc., Phil. @= (1).


17/24

im$lementing rules and regulations should be filed with the SEC. 2here the

com$laint is criminal in nature, the SEC shall indorse the com$laint to the -/ for

$reliminar in&estigation and $rosecution as $ro&ided in Section @.1 earlier

7uoted.

2e thus agree with the Court of '$$eals that $etitioner committed a fatal

$rocedural la$se when he filed his criminal com$laint directl with the -/.

:eril, no gra&e abuse of discretion can be ascribed to the -/ in dismissing

$etitioners com$laint.

#.R. No. 2=636>

Re: I.S. No. >665-26@ )o

S'ndicated Esta)a

Section , *ule 11> of the =>>> *ules of Criminal Procedure, as amended,

$ro&ides that all criminal actions, commenced b either a com$laint or an

information, shall be $rosecuted under the direction and control of a $ublic

$rosecutor. This mandate is founded on the theor that a crime is a breach of the

securit and $eace of the $eo$le at large, an outrage against the &er so&ereignt of

the State. %t follows that a re$resentati&e of the State shall direct and control the


18/24

$rosecution of the offense.1@A1@ This re$resentati&e of the State is the $ublic

$rosecutor, whom this Court described in the old case of Suare* . Platon,1A1 as9

AThe re$resentati&e not of an ordinar $art to a contro&ers, but of aso&ereignt whose obligation to go&ern im$artiall is as com$elling as itsobligation to go&ern at all+ and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal$rosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that 3ustice shall be done. 's such,he is in a $eculiar and &er definite sense a ser&ant of the law, the twofold aim ofwhich is that guilt shall not esca$e or innocence suffers.

Concomitant with his authorit and $ower to control the $rosecution of

criminal offenses, the $ublic $rosecutor is &ested with the discretionar $ower to

determine whether aprima faciecase e8ists or not.1A1 This is done through a

$reliminar in&estigation designed to secure the res$ondent from hast, malicious

and o$$ressi&e $rosecution. ' $reliminar in&estigation is essentiall an in7uir to

determine whether (a) a crime has been committed+ and (b) whether there is

$robable cause that the accused is guilt thereof.1DA1D %nPonte!os . "ffice of the

"mbudsman,1?A1? $robable cause is defined as such facts and circumstances that

1@A1@ +an, Jr. . allardo, G.*. os. 1=1@!1, ctober , 1?D, ?@ SC*' @>D, @1>.

1[1] :0 il. ==6 91;0= Phil. (10).

1DA1D Ching . Secretar$ of Justice, G.*. o. 1D@1?, Februar D, =>>D, 01 SC*' D>.

1?A1? G.*. os. 10D1@!1, Februar ==, =>>D, $. 11.


19/24

would engender a well!founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the

res$ondent is $robabl guilt thereof and should be held for trial. %t is the $ublic

$rosecutor who determines during the $reliminar in&estigation whether $robable

cause e8ists. Thus, the decision whether or not to dismiss the criminal com$laint

against the accused de$ends on the sound discretion of the $rosecutor.

Gi&en this latitude and authorit granted b law to the in&estigating

$rosecutor, t%e ule in t%is Cuisdiction is t%at couts ill not inte)ee it% t%e

conduct o) &eli(ina' inesti;ations o einesti;ations o in t%edete(ination o) %at constitutes su))icient &o9a9le cause )o t%e )ilin; o) t%e

coes&ondin; in)o(ation a;ainst an o))ende.24A10 Courts are not em$owered

to substitute their own 3udgment for that of the e8ecuti&e branch. 1A1 -ifferentl

stated, as the matter of whether to $rosecute or not is $urel discretionar on his

$art, courts cannot com$el a $ublic $rosecutor to file the corres$onding

information, u$on a com$laint, where he finds the e&idence before him insufficient

to warrant the filing of an action in court. %n sum, t%e &osecutos )indin;s on t%e

eistence o) &o9a9le cause ae not su9Cect to eie 9' t%e couts! unless

10 A10 la&osmithkline Philippines, Inc. . (alik and /teeque , G.*. o. 1DD0=, 'ugust

1?, =>>D, $. , citingPun*alan . 0ela Pea and Cagara. @ SC*' D>1 (=>>).

1;[1;]Alcaraz v. Gonzales,G.R. No. 1671=, >epte/er 20, 2006, 10, $itin

Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Tonda,3;2 il. 7;7 92000


20/24

t%ese ae &atentl' s%on to %ae 9een (ade it% ;ae a9use o) discetion. >6

A=>

Gra&e abuse of discretion is such ca$ricious and whimsical e8ercise of

3udgment on the $art of the $ublic officer concerned which is e7ui&alent to an

e8cess or lack of 3urisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be as $atent and gross

as to amount to an e&asion of a $ositi&e dut or a &irtual refusal to $erform a dut

en3oined b law, or to act at all in contem$lation of law, as where the $ower is

e8ercised in an arbitrar and des$otic manner b reason of $assion or hostilit.=1

A=1

%n determining whether the -/ committed gra&e abuse of discretion, it is

e8$edient to know if the )indin;s o) )actof herein $ublic $rosecutors were reached

in an arbitrar or des$otic manner.

The Court of '$$eals held that $etitioners e&idence is insufficient to

establish $robable cause for sndicated estafa. There is no showing from the record

that $ri&ate res$ondents herein did induce $etitioner b false re$resentations to

=> A=> la&osmithkline Philippines, Inc. . (alik and /teeque,supra, $. , citing Cabaling. People, @?D SC*' 11@ (=>>=).

21[21] Soria v. Desierto, G.R. No#. 1=3=2-2=, %an&ar! 31, 200=, =0 >CR" 33;.

3=, $itin Duero v. Court of Appeals, 373 >CR" 11 92002


21/24

in&est in the GTPMF securities. or did the act as a sndicate to misa$$ro$riate

his mone for their own benefit. *ather, the in&ested it in accordance with his

written instructions. That he lost his in&estment is not their fault since it was highl

s$eculati&e.

*ecords show that $ublic res$ondents e8amined $etitioners e&idence with

care, well aware of their dut to $re&ent material damage to his constitutional right

to libert and fair $la. %n Suare*$re&iousl cited, this Court made it clear that a

$ublic $rosecutors dut is two!fold. n one hand, he is bound b his oath of officeto $rosecute $ersons where the com$lainants e&idence is am$le and sufficient to

showprimafacieguilt of a crime. 4et, on the other hand, he is likewise dut!bound

to $rotect innocent $ersons from groundless, false, or malicious $rosecution.==A==

"ence, we hold that the Court of '$$eals was correct in dismissing the

$etition for re&iew against $ri&ate res$ondents and in concluding that the -/ did

not act with gra&e abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or e8cess of 3urisdiction.

n $etitioners com$laint for &iolation of the Securities *egulation Code,

suffice it to state that, as a$tl declared b the Court of '$$eals, he should ha&e

filed it with the SEC, not the -/. 'gain, there is no indication here that in

dismissing $etitioners com$laint, the -/ acted ca$riciousl or arbitraril.

22[22] %da. de Ba&atua v. 'evilla and (om$os, 10 il. 3;2 91;=:


22/24

$HEREFORE, we DEN1 the $etitions and AFFIRM the assailed

-ecisions of the Court of '$$eals in C'!G.*. SP o. 0?@=0 and in C'!G.*. SP

o. 0>?0.

Costs against $etitioner.

SO ORDERED.

'GE;%' S'-:';!G6T%E**E

9. Baviera v Paglinawan

Documents

Transcript of 9. Baviera v Paglinawan