3Republic of tbe ~bilippines ~;~E=:~--f-~.

,t--~-t-rS-;:~Yi-;7-r-
~upreme <!Court
Jm,anila

SECOND DIVISION

ERIC WU a.k.a. WU CHUN and G.R. Nos. 207220-21

DAPHNY CHEN,
Petitioners, Present:

HERNANDO,
Acting Chairperson,
LAZARO-IAVIER,*
- versus - INTING,*
LOPEZ, M.V.,* and
MARQUEZ, JJ

PEOPLE OF THE Promulgated:

PHILIPPINES and HAFT!
TOURS, INC.,
Respondents.
x ------------------------------------------------------------- -

DECISION

HERNANDO, J.:

This petition for review on certiorari 1 assails the November 27, 2012
Decision2 and May 17, 2013 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CR Nos. 31063 and 31921 which granted private respondent's HAFTI
Tours, Inc.'s (HTI's) consolidated appeals of the December 7, 20064 and April
2, 2007 5 Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branches 112 and 114,
Pasay City in Criminal Case Nos. 06-1263-CFM and 07-0254-CFM,
respectively.

• Per March 7, 2022 Raffle vice S.A.J. Perlas-Bernabe, J. Zalameda, and J . Rosario who recused due to prior
action in the Court of Appeals.
1
Rollo, pp. I 1-1 9.
2
Id. at 109-1 26. Penned by Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente and concurred in by A ssociate
Justices Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla (a retired Member of this Court) and Agnes Reyes-Carpio concurring.
3
Id. at pp. 42-45.
4
CA rollo, pp. 47-48. Penned by Judge Jesus B. Mupas.
5
Id. at 10-1 2. Penned by Judge Edwin B . Ramizo.

--,
Decision 2 G.R. Nos. 207220-21

The assailed Orders of the RTC, Branches 112 and 114, separately quashed
the Informations for Esta/a under Article 315 l(b) of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), for misappropriation and conversion of varying amounts, instituted
against petitioners, Spouses Eric Wu a.k.a. Wu Chun (Eric) and Daphny Chen
(Chen) (collectively, spouses Wu).

The Antecedent Facts:

The spouses Wu are Taiwan nationals residing in the Philippines under a

Special Resident Retiree's Visa (SRRV) upon their investment and deposit of
$90,000.00 with the Philippine Retirement Authority (PRA) of the Board of
Investments (BOI). 6

In 2002, at the solicitation of HTI, the spouses Wu sought to transfer their

dollar time deposit investment plus accrued interests with the PRA, and invest
the money with HTI, representing their capital contribution, in exchange for the
issuance of 47,440 shares of stock of HTI. 7

On August 21, 2002, pending approval by the PRA of the spouses Wu's
dollar time deposit, HTI issued a board resolution certified by its corporate
secretary, Sandra G. Dy, listing petitioners as two of four persons authorized to
deposit and withdraw from HTI's Globalbank deposit account:

RESOLVED, as it is hereby resolved that the company HAFTI TOURS, INC,

open and maintain a dollar and peso account with GLOBAL BANK, ERMITA
BRANCH, and that only four individuals Goint signatories from (sic) A and
specimen B or in the absence of the (sic) one of the signatories from specimens
A and B, jointly with any one from specimen C are authorized to deposit in and
withdraw from said bank account, and to sign any and all documents, slips or
instruments required in the implementation of the foregoing appointment and
authority. The corporation appoints and authorizes:

Specimen A SpecimenB
WU CHUN DAPHNYCHEN

Specimen C
SANDRAG. DY
JENNIFER T. LIM

That this resolution is a continuing one with full force, and effect unless revoked
or amended by a resolution of directors (sic) or until a change is made in the
name/s of the person/s authorized to sign in behalf of the corporation, in which
case, a copy of the resolution shall be forwarded to the party concerned.

Sgd. SANDRA G. DY
Corporate Secretary 8

6
Rollo p. I IO.
7
Id.
8
Id. at I I 0- l 1 I
Decision 3 G.R. Nos. 207220-21

Upon approval of the conversion of the spouses Wu's dollar time deposit,
the PRA, on September 9, 2002, deposited the peso equivalent thereof i.e.,
P4,622,508.00, to HTI's deposit account with Metrobank. 9 However, HTI failed
to issue the promised shares of stock in Eric and Chen's names. 10

Immediately thereafter, the relationship between HTI and the spouses Wu

turned sour. On separate occasions, Eric and Chen issued checks to various
payees, for different amounts, drawn from HTI' s corporate bank deposit
accounts leading to the litigation between the parties.

Two of those checks are the subject matter of Criminal Case Nos. 06-1263-
CFM and 07-0254-CFM for Estafa against the Wu couple. The two
Informations read:

Criminal Case No. 06-1263-CFM: (RTC 112):

That on or about the period comprising the year 2002, in Pasay City, Metro
Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually
helping one another, and who while being both authorized signatories of private
complainant Hafti Tours lnc.'s Metrobank Checking Account No. 610-00252-4
represented by Jennifer T. Lim, and as such were entrusted with the funds thereon
with the specific obligation to disburse only duly authorized expenditures, but
said accused, with intent to defraud and in breach of trust and confidence reposed
upon them by [HTIJ, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
misapply, misappropriate and convert to their own use and benefit the amount of
Phpl 7,524.00 by drawing and issuing using [HTI's] aforesaid Metrobank
corporate check no. 6!00011274 dated February 12, 2003, amounting to
['!'] 17,524.00 in favor of Manila Montessori Children's School Foundation Inc.
as tuition fee payment of accused's son Primo, and despite demands made upon
them, both accused refused and failed and still refuse and fail to reimburse or
return the aforesaid amount, to the damage and prejudice of private complainant
in the same total of Php 17,524.00

Contrary to law. 11

Criminal Case No. 07-0254-CFM:

That on or about the 3'd day of October 2002, in Pasay City, Metro Manila,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another
and who, while being both authorized signatories of private complainant Hafti
Tours Inc.'s Global Bank Checking Accow1t No.040-282-00114-0 represented
by Jennifer Lim, and as such were entrusted with the funds thereon with the
specific obligation lo disburse only duly authmized expenditures, but said

9
ld.at!IO.
io Id.
11
ld.atll5-116.
Decision 4 G.R. Nos. 207220-21

accused with intent to defraud and in breach of trust and confidence reposed
upon them by [HTI], did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
misapply, misappropriate and convert to their own use and benefit the amount
of [!"]291,000.00 and despite demands made upon them to return said amount
both accused refused and failed and still refuse and fail to return the aforesaid
amount, to the damage and prejudice of [HTI] in the amount of ['!"]291,000.00.

Contrary to law." 12

Previous thereto, HTI filed seven criminal complaints against the Wus
before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Parafiaque City, involving the same
checks, including those with payable amounts ofi"291,000.00 and i"l 7,524.00,
which were ultimately dismissed on the ground of duplicity of offenses
charged. 13 The dismissal was brought up to the Department of Justice (DOJ),
the CA and this Court in G.R. No. 196066 which affirmed the Parafiaque City
Prosecutor's Office's dismissal of the complaints with finality. 14

Insisting on the defect in the Informations, the spouses Wu filed separate

motions to quash before the RTC Branches 112 and 114, on the following
grounds:

(1) In Criminal Case No. 06-1263-CFM, the facts alleged in the

Information do not constitute an offense; and (2) suspension of the proceedings
due to the existence of a prejudicial question. 15

(2) In Criminal Case No. 07-0254-CFM, duplicity of offenses charged

considering that the misappropriated amount of I-'17,524.00 covered by
Metrobank Check No. 6100011274 had been the subject of prosecution in IS
No. 03-H-3320 subsequently filed as Criminal Case No. 03-1293, before RTC,
Branch 195, Parafiaque City . 16

Ruling of the Regional Trial

Court, Branches 112 and 114.

In separate Orders, the RTC Branches 112 and 114, quashed the
Infonnations for Estafa against the Wus on the smne ground of duplicity of
offenses charged. Significantly, the RTC Branches 112 and l 14's Orders
p~rtained to the prior prosecution of the spouses Wu for the smne charges of
misappropriation of the amounts of r'29 l ,000.00 and i"l 7,524.00 in Criminal
Case No. 03-1293 before RTC, Branch 195, Parafiaque City which was
eventually dismissed with finality: 17

12
Id.atlll-112.
13
Id. at 14, 117.
14
Id. at 119.
15
CA rollo. p. I 0.
16
Id.
17
Id.
Decision 5 G.R. Nos. 207220-21

The December 7, 2006 Order of the RTC Branch 112 in Criminal Case
No. 06-1263-CFM reads:

In the present case, [petitioners] stand trial for allegedly misappropriating

the amount of P 17,524.00 evidenced by the same check used in prosecuting them
in the prior case that was already dismissed with finality. Very clearly, the prior
case and the present case involved the prosecution of the same check No.
6100011274, should be allowed (sic).

[Petitioners J should not be harassed with various prosecution based on the

same act splitting the same into various charges, all emanating from the same law
violation, when the prosecution could easily and well embody them in a single
Information (citation omitted).

With respect to the Motions to Suspend Proceedings and/or Motion to

Quash, the same is rendered moot and academic.

WHEREFORE. the Motion to Quash is hereby GRANTED and the instant

Information for Estafa be ordered DJSMJSSED." 18

Meanwhile, the April 2, 2007 Order of the RTC Branch 114 in Criminal
Case No. 07-0254-CFM holds:

Evaluating the evidence on record and after a careful and judicious study
of the respective allegations of the parties in this case, the Court finds the subject
Motion To Quash Information to be well-taken and meritorious as well. The
Cow"! concurs with [petitioners] that there is duplicity of offenses charged in this
case. The records will show that [petitioners] stand charged for Estafa covering
Global Bank Check No. 0000054700 dated October 3, 2002 in the amount ofPhp
291,000.00. However, this check was already presented in evidence by the
complainant Hafti Tours Inc. involving prior prosecution against [petitioners]
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Paranaque, Regional Trial Court of
Paranaque, Department of Justice and even went up to the Court of Appeals
which eventually dismissed all the criminal cases filed against [petitioners].
Likewise, the Court concurs with [petitioners] that the allegations as contained
in the Information relative to this case is different from the findings of the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Pasay, thus, to the mind of the Court, does not constitute
the offense charged of Estafa.

In view of the foregoing, the subject Motion To Quash Information is

granted; Accordingly, the Information for Estafa against [petitioners] is hereby
ordered dismissed."

SO ORDERED. 19

With the respective denials of its motions for reconsideration, HTI filed
separate appeals to the CA. The succeeding events narrated by the CA follow:

18
Records, pp.3!3-314.
19
Id. at 147.
Decision 6 G.R. Nos. 207220-21

On February 24, 2009, appellees filed a Motion to Consolidate CA- G.R.

CR No. 31921 with CA-G.R. CR No. 31063 alleging that both cases involve the
san1e parties and the same causes of action, that the Informations in both cases
were quashed by the respective trial courts, and that both cases involve evidence
presented in an estafa case that was previously dismissed by the DOJ, the trial
court and the Court of Appeals. [Petitioners] also filed a similar motion in CA-
G.R. CR No. 31921.

On May 12, 2009, this Court granted the motion filed by [petitioners] to
consolidate CA-G.R. CR No. 31921 ,vith CA-G.R. CR No. 31063, the latter
having the lower docket number. The Court denied HTl's motion for the issuance
of a hold departure order on the ground that the hold departure order previously
issued by the RTC of Pasay City, Branch 114, has not yet been lifted. We also
directed the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to file its comment on HTI's
motion to require OSG to file a brief in behalf of the City Prosecutor of Pasay
City.

On February 5,2010, the OSG filed a Manifestation and Motion In Lieu of

Brief praying for the affirmance of the Orders dated April 2, 2007 and June 18,
2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 114, in Criminal Case
No. 07-0254-CFM. 20

xxxx

Considering that the Manifestation and Motion In Lieu of Brief filed by

the OSG refers only to the assailed Orders rendered by the RTC of Pasay City,
Branch 114, in Criminal Case No. 07-0254-CFM, this Court ordered both HT!
and the OSG to file their respective appellant's brief in CA-G.R. CR No. 31921
assailing the Order dated December 7, 2006 issued by the RTC of Pasay City,
Branch 112, in Criminal Case No. 06-1263-CFM.

On September 14, 2010, HT! filed its Appellant's Brief. On November 2,

2010, [petitioners] filed a Manifestation that they are adopting their brief in CA-
G .R. CR No. 31063 filed on January 16, 2008 as their Appellees' brief in CA-
G.R. CR No. 31921.

On January 25, 2011, the OSG filed its Appellant's Brief. On February 16,
2011, (petitioners] filed a Reply Brief disputing the OS G's arguments. On March
28, 2011, this Court resolved to consider [petitioners'] Reply Brief as their
Appellees' Brief in relation to the Appellant's Brief filed by the OSG. 21

Notably, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) took conflicting

positions before the CA regarding the RTC's dismissal of the criminal cases. In
Criminal Case No. 07-0254-CFM appealed to the CA in CA-G.R. CR No.
31063, the OSG filed a Manifestation and Motion in Lieu of Brief adhering to
the dismissal of the case because the Infonhation failed to show how petitioners
misappropriated or converted the amount of !>291,000.00. 22 On the other hand,

20
Rollo, p. 115.
21
Id. at 118.
22
Id. at 120.
Decision 7 G.R. Nos. 207220-21

in Criminal Case No. 06-1263-CFM appealed to the CA in CA-G.R. CR No.

31921, the OSG filed an appellant's brief questioning the dismissal of the case. 23

Ruling of the Court of Appeals in

CA-G.R. CR Nos. 31063 and
31921.

As adverted to, the CA granted HTI's appeal and reversed and set aside
the December 7, 2006 and April 2, 2007 Orders of the RTC Branches 112 and
114, respectively:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby GRANTED:

The assailed Order dated April 2, 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City,
Branch 114, in Criminal Case No. 07-0254-CFM and the Order dated December
7, 2006 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 112, in Criminal
Case No. 06-1263-CFM are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The cases are
remanded to the respective Branch of the RTC for [petitioners'] arraignment and
trial.

The Manifestation filed by [petitioners] Eric Wu and Daphny Chen that

the Supreme Court has denied with finality the Motion for Reconsideration filed
by Hafti Tours, lnc. in SC G.R. No. 196066 is NOTED.

SO ORDERED. 24

The CA ruled that there was no duplicity of offenses because both

Informations separately charged a single offense of Esta/a by conversion and
misappropriation for each amount of P291,000.00 and Pl 7,524.00. The CA
found that the RTC, Branches 112 and 114, in sustaining the ground for
duplicity of offenses, mistakenly referred to the previous prosecution of the
spouses Wu in Criminal Case No. 03-1293 before the RTC, Branch 195,
Parafiaque City for the same charge of misappropriation with the same subject
1natter. The CA held that double jeopardy, or res judicata in prison grey, did
not attach since the Wus were not arraigned in Criminal Case No. 13-1293
which was eventually dismissed by the RTC, Branch 195, Parafiaque City. 25

As for the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the
CA disagreed with the RTC Branch l 14's succinct ruling that the allegations
contained in the Infonnation in Criminal Case No.07-0254-CFM differed from
the findings of the Pasay City Prosecutor's Office. The CA found that the facts
charged in the Information (Criminal Case No.07-0254-CFM) sufficiently
averred the elements of the offense of Esta/a under Article 315, paragraph l(b)
of the RPC. According to the CA, while the Wus are indeed authorized
signatories ofHTI' s corporate checking accounts, their issuance of checks must

23 Id. at 28-29.
24
ld.atl25-l26.
25
Id. at 123-124.

.....,_
Decision 8 G.R. Nos. 207220-21

be for authorized corporate expenditures. Consequently, they may still be held

liable for Estafa should they be found to have expended corporate funds for
their personal use, notwithstanding their money investment deposited with
HTI's corporate account. In all, the CA ruled that the allegation in the
Information, of spouses Wu's willful, unlawful, and felonious acts of
misapplication, misappropriation and conversion of the amount of 1'291,000.00
for their own use and benefit resulting in prejudice to HTI, constituted the
offense of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph l (b) of the RPC.

Expectedly, the Wus filed a motion for reconsideration which raised new
arguments:

(1) the two trial courts [RTC 112 and 114] were correct in dismissing the
separate Informations filed against [petitioners] for Estafa, xxxx, based on their
judicial determination of probable cause; and

(2) [petitioners] could not be prosecuted for Estafa due to the pendency of a
criminal case for Estafa against HTI and its officers before the Regional Trial
Court, Parai:laque City, Branch 196 docketed as Criminal Case No. 09-0099
involving the same invested money of [r]4,622,508.00."26

In denying the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit, the CA

distinguished the executive determination of probable cause for the purpose of
filing of an Information before the trial court on one hand, from the judicial
determination of probable cause for purposes of issuance of a warrant of arrest,
on the other hand. The CA noted that the RTC Branches l 12's and 114's
separate quashals of the Informations specifically cited grounds which did not
list lack of probable cause. Likewise, the CA saw no need to rule on the issue
of prejudicial question which the spouses Wu raised for the first time only in
this appeal.

_ Hence, this appeal by certiorari of the spouses Wu positing the following

issues:

WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT HAS THE RIGHT TO DISMISS

CRIMINAL INFORMATION AFTER FINDING THE SAME TO BE
INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A PROBABLE CAUSE PURSUANT TO
SUPREME COURT PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE LANDMARK CASES OF
ALLADO VS. DIOKNO; AND SALONGA VS. CRUZ-PANO

26
Id. at 42-43.
 Decision 9 G.R. Nos. 207220-21

II

WHETHER OR NOT VARIANCE BETWEEN THE RESOLUTION OF THE

CITY PROSECUTOR AND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INFORMATION
IS VIOLATIVE OF THE RIGHT OF ACCUSED [PETITIONERS] TO BE
INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION. 27
(citations omitted)

The spouses Wu are adamant that the RTC Branches 112 and 114 correctly
quashed the Informations based on their judicial determination of the absence
of probable cause. They proffer that the trial courts ultimately dismissed the
cases not only on the grounds stated in their December 7, 2006 and April 2,
2007 Orders, but on the entire absence of probable cause to prosecute the Wus
for the offense of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC. Thus,
the CA erred in remanding Criminal Case Nos. 06-1263-CFM and 07-0254-
CFM to the RTC Branches 112 and 114 for trial.

Our Ruling

The CA correctly reversed the RTC Branches 112 and l 14's quashal of the
Informations for Esta/a.

Absence of probable cause is not

a ground of a motion to quash
Information.

The paucity of petitioners' argument is evidenced by the dearth of

conviction in their petition. They invoke the landmark rulings in Allado v.
28
Diokno and Salonga v. Cruz-Pano 29 with nary a link and discussion on their
applicability to the herein criminal cases.

It can be readily gleaned that the spouses Wu are now grasping at straws
since their motions to quash stated only specific grounds. Nowhere in their
arguments before the RTC, and even in their briefs before the CA, did the
spouses Wu allude to the supposed lack of probable cause as a ground for the
dismissal of the Infonnations.

Rule l 12 of the Rules of Court provides for the prosecution of offenses. A

criminal action is instituted upon the filing of a complaint with the prosecutor's
office for the purpose of conducting a preliminary investigation, as may be
30
required. Upon the filing of the Information before the trial court, the judge is

27
Id. at 14.
28
302 Phil. 213 (1994).
29
219 Phil. 402 ( 1985).
30
See Section 1, Ru!e 110 In relation to Section 1, Rule I 12 orthe Rules of Court.
Decision 10 G.R. Nos. 207220-21

required to personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and •its

supporting evidence for purposes of issuance of a warrant of arrest. 31 At that
stage, the judge may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record
clearly fails to establish probable cause. 32 However, the judge cannot reverse
the findings of the prosecutor during preliminary investigation and motu propio
quash the Information for lack of probable cause. In case of doubt on the
existence of probable cause, the judge may simply order the prosecutor to
present additional evidence. 33

Corollary thereto, Section 4, 34 Rule 112 of the Rules of Court provides the
remedy of a party aggrieved by the resolution of the investigating prosecutor,
i.e. to file a petition for review before the Secretary of the Department of Justice
(DOJ). Plainly, at the stage of the proceedings in RTC Branches 112 and 114,
the filing of a motion to quash and before arraignment, the spouses Wu have
already been arrested and taken into custody to answer for their alleged
commission of Estafa against HTI.

Moreover, Section 3, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court lists the grounds for
the filing of a motion to quash which should distinctly specify its factual and
legal grounds. 35 Spouses Wu's belated argument on lack of probable cause as
the RTC's additional ground in quashing the Informations against them fails in
light of Section 2, 36 Rule 117 which precludes the court from considering
grounds not stated in the motion to quash, except lack of jurisdiction over the
offense charged.

Further on this point, the failure to allege any grounds in their motion to
quash is deemed a waiver of their objection. 37 On the whole, the Wus'
unsubstantiated claim that the RTC Branches 112 and 114 dismissed the cases ,
likewise for lack of probable cause, is decimated by specific provisions of the
Rules of Court.

31
See Section 5(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
32
See Section 5(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
33
See Section 5(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
34
SECTION 4. Resolution of Investigating Prosecutor and its Review. - xxxx
If upon petition by a proper party under such rules as the Department of Justice may prescribe or motu
pr~pno,the Secretary of Justice :everses or modifies the resolution of the provincial or city prosecutor or
chief state prosecutor, he shall d!fect the prosecutor concerned either to file the correspondina infonnation
w1:hout co~ductl~g ano~her prelimin~y investigation, or to dismiss or move for dismissal of ;he complaint
or mformat10n with notice to the parties. The same rule shall apply in preliminary investigations conducted
by the officers of the Office of the Ombudsman
35
See Section 2, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. ·
36
SECTION 2. Form_ and Contents.~ The motion to quash shall be in writing, signed by the accused or his
counsel and shall d1stmctly specify its factual and legal grounds. The court shall consider no s:round other
than those stated in the motion, except lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged b
37
See Section 9, Rule 117, in relation to Section 9, Rule 15, of the Rules of Court ·
Decision II G.R. Nos. 207220-21

The ground of duplicity of

offenses is different from the
ground of double jeopardy; no
duplicity of offenses.

At the outset, we note that the sparse petition did not contain a discussion
on duplicity of offenses. It obliquely referred to duplicity of actions, 38 insisting
that the prior prosecution in Criminal Case No. 03-1293 before the RTC, Branch
195, Parafiaque City, barred their subsequent prosecution in Criminal Case Nos.
06-1263-CFM and 07-0254-CFM before the RTC Branches 112 and 114, Pasay
City.

The spouses Wu's argument is a fish that will not fly. Duplicity of actions
is not the same as duplicity of offenses as a ground for a motion to dismiss.
Certainly, duplicity of offenses is not the same as the rule on double jeopardy.

The Rules of Court do not proscribe the filing of dual or even multiple
actions against a respondent or accused. The Wus prior prosecution in Criminal
Case No. 03-1293 where they were not arraigned is not a bar to another or
subsequent prosecution. 39

Section 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court mandates the "complaint or
Information to charge only one offense, except when the law prescribes a single
punishment for various offenses."

The facts charged constitute the

offense of Estafa under Article
315, paragraph l(b) of the RPC.

We completely agree with the CA's disquisition herein:

It is axiomatic that a complaint or information must state every single fact

necessary to constitute the offense charged; otherwise, a motion to dismiss/quash
on the ground that it charges no offense may be properly sustained. The
fundamental test in considering a motion to quash on this ground is whether the
facts alleged. if hypothetically admitted, will establish the essential elements of
the offense as defined in the law.

The trial court may not consider a situation contrary to that set forth the
criminal complaint or information. Facts that constitute the defense of the
accused against the charge under the information must be proved by them during
trial. Such facts or circumstances do not constitute proper grounds for a motion
to quash the information on the ground that the material averments do not
constitute the offense.

38
Rollo p. 15; see paragraph 20 of the Petition.
39
See Section 6, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.
Decision 12 G.R. Nos. 207220-21

The established rule is that the character of the crime is not determined by "•
the caption or preamble of the information or from the specification of the
provision of law alleged to have been violated; the crime committed is
determined by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint
or information.

Contrary to appeilees' contentions, a reading of the two Informations will

disclose that the essential elements of the offense charged are sufficiently alleged.
The elements of estafa under paragraph 1 (b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code are: (1) the offender receives the money, goods or other personal property
in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to deliver, or return, the same; (2) the offender misappropriates
or converts such money or property or denies receiving such money or property;
(3) the misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another;
and 4) the offended party demands that the offender return the money or property.

In CA-G.R. CR No. 31063, the Information charged that [petitioners],

while being authorized signatories of HTI's corporate checking account only for
authorized expenditures, "misapplied, misappropriated and converted" to their
own use and benefit the amount of P291,000.00 from the said bank account to
the detriment of the said corporation. In CA-G.R. CR No. 31921, the Information
similarly charged that appellees, while being authorized signatories of HTI's
corporate checking account only tor authorized expenditures, drew against the
said bank account to pay for the tuition fee of their son to the detriment of the
corporation. These facts, as alleged in tl1e two Information indubitably constitute
the elements ofestafa under Article 315, paragraph l(b) of the RPC.

The fact that appellees' investment was deposited into HTI's corporate
account does not mean that they could not be held liable for estafa, if they did in
fact misappropriate the corporate fund for tl1eir personal use. The crime of estafa
is committed when a person shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned
in Article 3 15 of the Revised Penal Code. This is true whether or not such person
is an officer of the corporation defrauded, as in these consolidated cases. 40

Finally, the Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court specifically directs
the court to give the prosecution an opportunity to correct the defect in the
Infom1ation on the ground of "the facts charged do not constitute an offense."
Only when "the prosecution fails to make the amendment, or the complaint or
infonnation still suffers from the same defect despite the amendment," shall the
motion to quash be granted. 41

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The November 27, 2012

Decision and May l 7, 20 l 3 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
Nos. 31063 and 3192 l are hereby AFFIRMED.

40
Rollo, pp. 124- l 25.
41
Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.
Decision 13 G.R. Nos. 207220-21

SO ORDERED.

ANDO
ssociate Justice
Acting Chairperson

WE CONCUR:

I. ,

AMY C~'!;/;;;;'_JAVIER
Aslociate Justice

HENRI.,,._,,"'""
Associate Justic

'~~
J ~ ~ S P. MARQUEZ
\J-~s~~iate Justice
 14 G.R. Nos. 207220-21
Decision

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

~ssociate Justice
Acting Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Acting Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.