The Case - JORGE SALAZAR, petitioner-defendant, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. (Skiva, plaintiff).

G.R. No. 149472, October 15, 2002.

Facts –Skiva International, Inc. (Skiva), a New York-based corporation which imports clothes from the Philippines through
its buying agent, Olivier (Philippines) Inc. (Olivier), has been purchasing finished clothes from Aurora Manufacturing & Development
Corporation (Aurora) and Uni-Group Inc. (Uni-Group). The petitioner, Jorge Salazar, is the Vice-President and Treasurer of Uni-
Group and a consultant of Aurora.

In December 1985, Skiva informed Olivier that it needs ladies jeans to be delivered sometime in January 1986. Olivier, in
turn, through its Officer-in-Charge, Ms. Teresita Tujan, contacted Aurora and Uni-Group to supply the jeans. On January 7, 1986, the
parties agreed that Skiva will advance to Aurora/Uni-Group the amount of US$41,300.00 (then equivalent to P850,370.00 at the
exchange rate of P20.59 to US$1.00) Skiva then issued a check in the said amount payable to Uni-Group. However, due to the length
of time needed for the check to be cleared, the parties made arrangements to remit the funds instead by way of telegraphic
transfer. Thus, the check issued by Skiva was returned by Mr. Lettmayr and as agreed, the funds were remitted by Skiva from its bank
in New York, the Israel Discount Bank, to the joint account of Mr. and Mrs. Jorge Salazar and Mr. and Mrs. Werner Lettmayr at
Citibank N.A.

On January 16, 1986, petitioner, who had possession and control of the passbook of the said joint account, withdrew and
deducted several amounts from the joint account. Consequently, in a letter dated March 13, 1986, demand was made upon
Aurora/Uni-Group through its President, Mr. Lettmayr, to return the money advanced in the amount of US$41,300.00.

For failure of Aurora/Uni-Group to deliver the ladies jeans or to account for the US$41,300.00 despite demand, Skiva,
through its local agent represented by Ms. Tujan, filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Mr. Lettmayr and petitioner. After
preliminary investigation, the Public Prosecutor dismissed the complaint against Mr. Lettmayr and an information was filed against
petitioner.

After trial, the lower court convicted herein petitioner of estafa under Article 315 paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal
Code. On March 13, 1997, the lower court denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court and denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration. Aggrieved by the aforementioned
rulings, petitioner files the instant petition for review.

Petitioner maintains that Skiva has no authority to institute the present action as estafa was not committed against Skiva but
against Aurora/Uni-Group on the basis of the finding that the transaction between Skiva and Aurora/Uni-Group was one of sale. Thus,
petitioner argues that pursuant to Section 3, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the complaint should not have been
instituted by Skiva as it is not the offended party contemplated by the Rules and petitioner had no obligation to account to Skiva the
proceeds of the amount withdrawn from the joint account.

Issues –Does Skiva have the authority to institute the present action of estafa?

Held –Yes. The Supreme Court clarified that the complaint referred to in Rule 110 contemplates one that is filed in court to
commence a criminal action in those cases where a complaint of the offended party is required by law, instead of an information
which is generally filed by a fiscal. It is not necessary that the proper offended party file a complaint for purposes of preliminary
investigation by the fiscal. 

Citing Ebarle, et. al. v. Hon. Sucaldito, et. al., 156 SCRA 803, 819 (1987), the Supreme Court held that the rule is that unless
the offense subject of the complaint is one that cannot be prosecuted de oficio, any competent person may file a complaint for
preliminary investigation. Thus, as a general rule, a criminal action is commenced by a complaint or information, both of which are
filed in court. If a complaint is filed directly in court, the same must be filed by the offended party and in case of an information, the
same must be filed by the fiscal. However, a complaint filed with the fiscal prior to a judicial action may be filed by any person. Thus,
in the case at bar, the complaint was validly filed by Skiva despite the finding of the lower court that petitioner had no obligation to
account to Skiva.