JORGE SALAZAR vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 149472, October 15, 2002
PUNO, J.:
Criminal Actions, How Instituted

FACTS: Olivier Philippines in this case is the buying agent of an American corporation
“Skiva.” UniGroup, Inc. and Aurora Manufacturing are domestic companies which supplies
finished clothes to Skiva. Petitioner Salazar was the vice-president and treasurer of Uni Group,
Inc. Skiva ordered 700 dozens of ladies jeans so its buying agent, Olivier, informed Uni Group
and Aurora. A Purchase Contract was issued by Olivier to Uni-Group wherein Uni-Group
payable by means of a letter of credit at sight.4 The Purchase Contract was confirmed by Mr.
Lettmayr the president of both UniGroup and Aurora. Skiva advanced the amount of $41,300.
This fund was remitted to the joint account of Mr. and Mrs. Jorge Salazar and Mr. and Mrs.
Werner Lettmayr. There was a failure to deliver the ordered jeans and so a complaint for estafa
was filed against Petitioner and Mr. Lettmayr. After preliminary investigation, the Public
Prosecutor dismissed the complaint against Mr. Lettmayr and an information was filed against
petitioner. After trial, the trail court found petitioner guilty of the crime charge. The decision was
later on affirmed by the C.A. hence, the petition with the Supreme Court.

One of petitioner’s arguments is 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Rules and petitioner had no obligation to account to Skiva the proceeds of the amount withdrawn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.

ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint was validly filed

HELD: Yes, the complaint was validly filed by Skiva despite the finding of the lower court that
petitioner had no obligation to account to Skiva.

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. The rule
is that unless the offense subject of the complaint is one that cannot be prosecuted de officio, 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.
The ruling of the trial court and C.A. was affirmed.