Who Can File a Criminal Complaint in the Philippines? The ‘Competent Person’ Rule Explained

TLDR: This Supreme Court case clarifies that anyone with personal knowledge of a crime, not just the offended party, can initiate a criminal complaint in the Philippines by submitting sworn affidavits to the prosecutor’s office. Formal transmittal letters from agencies like the BSP and PDIC do not need to be sworn if accompanied by properly executed affidavits.

G.R. NO. 163400, March 31, 2006: HILARIO P. SORIANO v. HON. CAESAR A. CASANOVA

INTRODUCTION

Imagine a scenario where fraudulent activities within a bank are uncovered by internal auditors. Who has the authority to file a criminal complaint? Must it be the bank itself, or can individual employees who witnessed the fraud step forward? This question of who can initiate a criminal complaint is crucial in the Philippine legal system. The Supreme Court case of Hilario P. Soriano v. Hon. Caesar A. Casanova provides valuable insights into this matter, particularly concerning the concept of a ‘competent person’ and the validity of complaints initiated by government agencies like the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC). At the heart of this case is the question of whether the criminal proceedings against Mr. Soriano were validly initiated, focusing on the procedural requirements for filing a complaint in estafa cases.

LEGAL CONTEXT: RULE 112 AND ‘COMPETENT PERSONS’

The Philippine Rules of Court, specifically Rule 112, Section 3(a), outlines the procedure for preliminary investigations. This rule mandates that a complaint must be accompanied by affidavits of the complainant and witnesses, all sworn before an authorized officer. Crucially, the law also recognizes that certain crimes, classified as public offenses, can be initiated not only by the directly offended party but also by a ‘competent person’.

The concept of a ‘competent person’ is not explicitly defined in Rule 112. However, jurisprudence has interpreted this broadly to include anyone who has personal knowledge of the commission of a public offense and is willing to execute a sworn affidavit detailing the facts. This is particularly relevant for crimes like estafa, a form of fraud, which is considered a public offense prosecutable de oficio (by the state). This means the government, through its prosecutors, can pursue the case even if the direct victim chooses not to file a complaint themselves.

Relevant to this case is also Republic Act No. 7653, the New Central Bank Act, specifically Section 18 concerning the representation of the Monetary Board and the BSP. This section outlines the Governor’s authority to represent the BSP in legal proceedings. Petitioner Soriano argued that complaints initiated by BSP and PDIC officers must be authorized by the BSP Governor according to this Act. However, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of this provision in relation to the initiation of criminal complaints.

Rule 112, Section 3(a) of the Rules of Court states:

“(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to establish probable cause. They shall be in such number of copies as there are respondents, plus two (2) copies for official file. The affidavit shall be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a notary public, each of whom must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.”

CASE BREAKDOWN: SORIANO’S ESTAFA CHARGES

Hilario P. Soriano, president of Rural Bank of San Miguel (Bulacan), Inc. (RBSM), faced four counts of estafa. The charges stemmed from allegations that he misappropriated millions of pesos from RBSM. The case began when the BSP and PDIC, after their investigations, sent letters to the Department of Justice (DOJ) transmitting affidavits from bank employees detailing Soriano’s alleged fraudulent activities. These affidavits outlined how Soriano purportedly diverted bank funds for his personal use through various schemes involving manager’s checks and loans.

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

1. BSP and PDIC Investigation: The Office of Special Investigation (OSI) of BSP and the Litigation and Investigation Services (LIS) of PDIC investigated RBSM and uncovered alleged irregularities involving Soriano.
2. Transmittal of Affidavits to DOJ: BSP and PDIC officers sent letters to the DOJ, not as sworn complaints themselves, but to transmit sworn affidavits of bank employees who had personal knowledge of Soriano’s actions.
3. Filing of Informations: Based on these affidavits, the State Prosecutor filed four informations for estafa against Soriano in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan.
4. Motion to Quash: Soriano moved to quash the informations, arguing the RTC lacked jurisdiction. He claimed the letters from BSP and PDIC were the actual complaints and were defective because they were not sworn and lacked authorization from the BSP Governor as per R.A. No. 7653.
5. RTC and Court of Appeals Denial: The RTC denied the motion to quash, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The CA emphasized that the affidavits, not the transmittal letters, constituted the complaints, and these affidavits were properly sworn.
6. Supreme Court Petition: Soriano elevated the case to the Supreme Court, reiterating his arguments about the defective complaints and lack of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the lower courts and denied Soriano’s petition. Justice Puno, writing for the Second Division, clarified that:

“A close scrutiny of the letters transmitted by the BSP and PDIC to the DOJ shows that these were not intended to be the complaint envisioned under the Rules… Nowhere in the transmittal letters is there any averment on the part of the BSP and PDIC officers of personal knowledge of the events and transactions constitutive of the criminal violations alleged to have been made by the accused.”

The Court emphasized that the affidavits of the bank employees, being sworn statements from individuals with direct knowledge of the alleged crimes, served as the valid complaints initiating the preliminary investigation. The transmittal letters were merely a procedural step to forward these affidavits to the DOJ.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court reiterated the principle from Ebarle v. Sucaldito that for preliminary investigation purposes, a complaint for a public offense need not be filed by the offended party. “The crime of estafa is a public crime which can be initiated by ‘any competent person.’” The bank employees who executed the affidavits, based on their personal knowledge, qualified as ‘competent persons’.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: BROAD AUTHORITY TO INITIATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS

The Soriano case reinforces the principle that in the Philippines, initiating a criminal complaint for a public offense is not strictly limited to the direct victim. It clarifies that ‘competent persons’ – those with personal knowledge of the crime – can validly initiate the process by providing sworn affidavits to the prosecutor’s office. This ruling has significant practical implications:

• Whistleblower Protection: It empowers individuals, like employees, to report crimes they witness, even within organizations where there might be internal pressure to remain silent. Their sworn affidavits can trigger a preliminary investigation, even if the organization itself is hesitant to formally complain.
• Government Agency Action: It clarifies that agencies like the BSP and PDIC can effectively initiate criminal proceedings by forwarding sworn affidavits gathered during their investigations, without needing a formal, sworn complaint from the agency heads themselves for every case. This streamlines the process and allows for quicker action against financial crimes.
• Focus on Evidence: The ruling emphasizes the importance of sworn affidavits as the basis for initiating preliminary investigations. The focus is on the evidence presented in these affidavits, rather than the formality of who transmits them or the need for sworn transmittal letters.

KEY LESSONS

• ‘Competent Person’ Defined Broadly: Anyone with personal knowledge of a public offense can be a ‘competent person’ to initiate a criminal complaint.
• Sworn Affidavits are Key: The crucial element for a valid complaint is the presence of sworn affidavits detailing the facts of the crime.
• Transmittal Letters are Secondary: Formal transmittal letters from agencies are not required to be sworn complaints themselves if they are accompanied by properly sworn affidavits from competent persons.
• Public Offenses Prosecuted De Oficio: For public offenses like estafa, the state can prosecute based on complaints from any competent person, not just the direct victim.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q1: What is a preliminary investigation?

A: A preliminary investigation is a proceeding conducted by a prosecutor to determine if there is probable cause to charge a person with a crime and file a case in court.

Q2: What does ‘de oficio’ mean in legal terms?

A: ‘De oficio’ means ‘by virtue of office’ or ‘officially’. In criminal law, it refers to crimes that the state can prosecute on its own initiative, even without a private complainant.

Q3: If I witness a crime, can I file a complaint even if I am not the victim?

A: Yes, for public offenses like theft, fraud, or assault, you can file a complaint as a ‘competent person’ by providing a sworn affidavit detailing what you witnessed.

Q4: Do I need a lawyer to file a criminal complaint?

A: While not strictly required to initiate a complaint by submitting an affidavit, it is highly advisable to consult with a lawyer to ensure your affidavit is properly executed and to understand the legal process.

Q5: What is the difference between a complaint and an information?

A: A complaint is the initial pleading filed to start a preliminary investigation. An information is the formal charge filed in court by the prosecutor once probable cause is found after the preliminary investigation.

Q6: What if the transmittal letter from BSP or PDIC was not authorized by the Governor? Would the complaint be invalid?

A: According to this case, the transmittal letter’s authorization is not the primary issue. As long as the attached affidavits from competent persons are valid, the complaint is considered properly initiated.

Q7: Can a motion to quash be used to challenge the validity of a complaint?

A: Yes, a motion to quash can be filed to challenge the legal sufficiency of the information or the validity of the proceedings, including jurisdictional issues related to the complaint.

ASG Law specializes in criminal litigation and banking regulations compliance. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.