Delfin Lee. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals ruling paving way for the Department of Justice to pursue criminal prosecution of Globe Asiatique owner Delfin Lee and several others for syndicated estafa.
In its resolution released to the media Tuesday, the high court denied the petition filed by Lee that questioned the appeals court ruling. It pointed that it did not find any reversible error in the appeals court ruling.
“The Court further resolves to deny the petition for failure to show any reversible error in the challenged decision as to warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretionary appellate jurisdiction,” the high court said.
The high court added that Lee also failed to comply with the requirements set under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure for his failure to submit the required number of plain copies of his appeal.
Lee, his son Dexter, and three officers of Globe Asiatique had standing warrants of arrest for syndicated estafa in connection with Globe Asiatique’s Xevera housing projects in Bacolor and Mabalacat towns in Pampanga province.
On May 22, Judge Maria Amifaith Fider-Reyes of the Pampanga RTC found probable cause against Lee and his co-accused and issued warrants for their arrest with no recommendation for bail.
The appeals court, in their April 2012 ruling said the DoJ can still pursue the criminal case against Lee despite a pending civil case against him before the Makati City Regional Trial Court.
Under Section 7 Rule III of the Revised Rules of Court, government lawyers said Lee must prove that there was a previously instituted civil action involving an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in a subsequent criminal action.
“Anent the first DoJ case, the said element is wanting as the criminal complaint before the DoJ was filed by the NBI on Oct. 29, 2010 whereas Lee’s complaint for specific performance against Pag-Ibig Fund was filed before the Makati RTC on Nov. 15, 2010. Moreover, the Makati Civil case which Lee filed aims to compel Pag-Ibig Fund, among others to accept replacement buyers which clearly are not determinative of the former’s innocence or guilt for the crime of syndicated estafa,” the Solicitor General said.
The appeals court, in its decision agreed with the government lawyer.
“A prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must precede the criminal action and which requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with which said question is closely connected. The civil action must be instituted prior to the institution of the criminal action,” the appeals court said. But in this case, it pointed that the recommendation by the NBI was filed ahead of the civil case.
Still, the appeals court said even if the civil case was filed ahead of the criminal case, the prejudicial question invoked by Lee is not applicable in his case. The court explained that the case with the DoJ hinges on the existence of fraud and damages which is totally “irrelevant” to the case he filed against Pag-Ibig Fund.
“To reiterate, injunction will not lie to enjoin a criminal prosecution because public interest requires that criminal acts be immediately investigated and protected for the protection of society…Public respondent Judge [Mislang] committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction when he issued the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the DoJ from filing an information for estafa against Lee,” the court added.