View full case

RODNEY HEGERTY v. CA

FACTS:

The petitioner, Rodney Hegerty, is seeking to annul and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. The case originated from a complaint filed by respondent Allan Nash for estafa against Hegerty. Nash alleged that Hegerty, together with the deceased Don Judevine and James Studenski, invited him to invest in a foreign exchange scheme with a guaranteed return. Nash invested a significant amount of money, US$236,353.34, from July 1992 to November 28, 1997. Hegerty later informed Nash that all his investments had been lost after lending a portion to Swagman Hotels and Travel, Inc., a company he had stock in. Initially, Hegerty offered to return half of Nash's investment but eventually withdrew the offer. Despite Nash's demands, no action was taken, leading him to file a complaint-affidavit against Hegerty, which was dismissed by the City Prosecutor of Manila due to insufficient evidence. Nash filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was also denied. An appeal with the Department of Justice was dismissed as it was filed out of time. Nash subsequently filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with the Court of Appeals, which granted the petition and ordered the prosecution of Hegerty for estafa. In response, Hegerty questions the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and its authority to order the prosecution of a criminal case.

ISSUES:

  1. Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over a case that started at the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila and was appealed to the Department of Justice (DOJ) but the appeal was filed out of time?

  2. Can the Court of Appeals order the prosecution of a criminal case without jurisdiction?

RULING:

  1. The Court agrees with petitioner Hegerty. The City Prosecutor's dismissal of the complaint for estafa against him was not shown to be done with grave abuse of discretion. The DOJ and the Court of Appeals never acquired jurisdiction over the case because respondent Nash's appeal and motion for reconsideration were both filed out of time. The Court of Appeals also does not have the authority to order the filing of a case in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutor.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The duty of the Court in a certiorari case is confined to determining whether the executive or judicial determination of probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

  • Grave abuse of discretion is such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. It must be grave, exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner due to passion or personal hostility, and so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by the law.

  • The elements of estafa through misappropriation under Article 315 (1) (b) are: (1) that there must be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender; or denial of such receipt; (2) that such misappropriation, conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (3) that there is a demand made by the offended party to the offender.