ELIZABETH ED. LIM, PETITIONER, VS. EDILBERTO D. ANG, RESPONDENT.

Lim versus Ang

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Elizabeth Lim against Edilberto Ang, arising from a criminal complaint for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, filed against her before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Cauayan City, Isabela. Lim sought to quash the complaint, was rebuffed, and went up to the Regional Trial Court on certiorari; when that court dismissed her petition as moot, she came to the Supreme Court. The case matters because it teaches the procedural consequences of amendment in criminal pleadings: a second amended complaint that supplies the missing elements of the offense supersedes the defective one and renders moot the challenge directed against it, even before probable cause is determined.

Procedural History

On December 12, 2000, Edilberto Ang filed a criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Elizabeth Lim before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Cauayan City. On December 13, 2000, the court issued an order finding sufficient ground to hold the accused for trial. Lim filed a motion to quash on several grounds, among them that the facts charged did not constitute the offense because no notice of dishonor was sent to her as drawer, and that the supporting affidavit lacked the required certification by the public prosecutor. The prosecutor opposed the motion and filed an amended criminal complaint that included the prosecutor's certification. The Municipal Trial Court denied the motion to quash on July 20, 2001, and denied reconsideration on September 7, 2001.

Lim then assailed the order in the Regional Trial Court of Cauayan City, Isabela, Branch 20, by petition for certiorari. While that petition was pending, Ang filed a second amended criminal complaint on December 20, 2001, this time alleging that the check was issued to apply on account or for value, and that notice of dishonor and demand had been made. On January 14, 2002, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the second amended complaint contained all the essential elements of the crime and had rendered the petition moot and academic. Reconsideration was denied on February 20, 2002. Lim then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Facts

Ang alleged that on or about September 10, 2000, Lim issued to him Allied Bank Check Number 0089099 in the amount of 2,208,398.40 pesos, knowing that she had no funds with the bank. When the check was deposited with the Bank of the Philippine Islands, Cauayan, Isabela Branch, it was dishonored by Allied Bank on October 2, 2000 on the ground of account closed.

Ang's original complaint and his first amended complaint omitted two essential allegations: that the check was issued on account or for value, and that notice of dishonor had been given to the drawer. Lim moved to quash precisely on these defects, among others, and the Municipal Trial Court refused.

While Lim's certiorari petition was pending in the Regional Trial Court, Ang filed a second amended criminal complaint that cured both defects, alleging that the check was issued to apply on account or for value and that, notwithstanding notice of dishonor and demand within five days, Lim failed and refused to pay. The Regional Trial Court held that this second amended complaint superseded the earlier ones and rendered the petition moot.

Issues

• Whether or not the filing of the second amended criminal complaint, which supplied all the essential elements of the offense, superseded the amended criminal complaint and rendered moot and academic the petition for certiorari challenging the earlier complaint.
• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court correctly dismissed the petition despite the fact that the Municipal Trial Court had not yet determined the presence of probable cause under the second amended criminal complaint.
• Whether or not the ruling in Guillen versus Nicolas, requiring the ordinary procedure rather than the summary procedure, applies to this case.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 14. Amendment or substitution. A complaint or information may be amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.

This provision authorized Ang to file the second amended complaint as a matter of right, since Lim had not yet been arraigned, and it is the basis for holding that the amendment superseded the earlier complaints.

Section 3, paragraph (a), of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 3. Procedure. The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following manner: (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 the official file. The affidavits 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.

This provision supplies the certification requirement whose absence Lim raised, and the Court found that the second amended complaint carried the required prosecutor's certification.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the Regional Trial Court that the filing of the second amended criminal complaint superseded the amended criminal complaint and rendered moot and academic the petition for certiorari, which had assailed the order denying the motion to quash on the ground that the complaint did not charge a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The Court defined supersede as to obliterate, set aside, annul, replace, make void, inefficacious or useless, or repeal. Because the second amended complaint was deemed filed with the Municipal Trial Court on December 12, 2001, the earlier complaint no longer existed as a target of the challenge.

On the second issue, the Court held that it was of no moment that the Municipal Trial Court had not yet determined the presence of probable cause to hold the accused for trial, or to issue a warrant of arrest or summons, or to dismiss the case. What was before that court was the second amended criminal complaint, which contained all the essential elements of the offense and the certification of the public prosecutor. On mootness, the Court quoted its ruling in Ocampo versus House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal:

It is a rule of universal application, almost, that courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases. And where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. There is no actual substantial relief to which petitioner would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.

On the third issue, the Court held that Guillen versus Nicolas had no relevance, because that case concerned whether the ordinary procedure or the summary procedure applies where a criminal complaint is filed with the Municipal Trial Court, which has original jurisdiction over the offense charged. The Court also noted, as fatal to the petition, that Lim failed to implead the People of the Philippines as respondent in the Regional Trial Court and in the Supreme Court, which would have enabled the Solicitor General to comment.

Doctrine

A criminal complaint may be amended in form or in substance without leave of court at any time before the accused enters a plea. When an amended complaint supplies the essential elements missing from the earlier complaint, it supersedes the earlier complaint, and a challenge directed against the superseded complaint becomes moot and academic. The determination of probable cause under the new complaint need not precede the dismissal of the moot challenge; the existence of a complete complaint before the trial court is what counts. And a party who assails criminal proceedings must implead the People of the Philippines, so that the Solicitor General may be heard.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied due course to Lim's petition, sustaining the dismissal of her certiorari petition by the Regional Trial Court.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a second amended complaint filed before plea supersedes the earlier complaint and renders moot any challenge against it. Examiners use this case to test amendment of criminal complaints before arraignment, the requisites of the Bouncing Checks Law, and the fatal effect of failing to implead the People of the Philippines.