SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.60033.April4,1984.]

TEOFISTOGUINGONA,JR.,ANTONIOI.MARTIN,and
TERESITASANTOS,petitioners,vs.THECITYFISCALOF
MANILA,HON.JOSEB.FLAMINIANO,ASST.CITYFISCAL
FELIZARDON.LOTAandCLEMENTDAVID,respondents.

FelicianoC.Tumaleforpetitioners.
Asuncion,Gomez&deLeonforprivaterespondents.
TheSolicitorGeneralforrespondents.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVILLAWOBLIGATIONSANDCONTRACTSSIMPLELOAN
FAILUREOFBANKTORETURNTHEAMOUNTDEPOSITED,NOTACASE
OFESTAFA.WhenprivaterespondentDavidinvestedhismoneyontime
andsavingsdepositswiththeaforesaidbank,thecontractthatwasperfected
wasacontractofsimpleloanormutuumandnotacontractofdeposit
governedbytheprovisionsconcerningsimpleloan(Article1980,CivilCode).
Hence,therelationshipbetweentheprivaterespondentandtheNation
SavingsandLoanAssociationisthatofcreditoranddebtorconsequently,the
ownershipoftheamountdepositedwastransmittedtotheBankuponthe
perfectionofthecontractanditcanmakeuseoftheamountdepositedforits
bankingoperations,suchastopayinterestsondepositsandtopay
withdrawals.WhiletheBankhastheobligationtoreturntheamount
deposited,ithas,however,noobligationtoreturnordeliverthesamemoney
thatwasdeposited.And,thefailureoftheBanktoreturntheamount
depositedwillnotconstituteestafathroughmisappropriationpunishableunder
Article315,par.1(b)oftheRevisedPenalCode,butitwillonlygiverisetocivil
liabilityoverwhichthepublicrespondentshavenojurisdiction.
2. ID.ID.ID.OBLIGATIONOFBANKUNDERORIGINALTIMEAND
SAVINGSDEPOSITINCASEATBARDEEMEDNOVATED.Buteven
grantingthatthefailureofthebanktopaythetimeandsavingsdepositsof
privaterespondentDavidwouldconstituteaviolationofparagraph1(b)of
Article315oftheRevisedPenalCode,neverthelessanyincipientcriminal
liabilitywasdeemedavoided,becausewhentheaforesaidbankwasplaced
underreceivershipbytheCentralBank,petitionersGuingonaandMartin
assumedtheobligationofthebanktoprivaterespondentDavid,thereby
resultinginthenovationoftheoriginalcontractualobligationarisingfrom
depositintoacontractofloanandconvertingtheoriginaltrustrelation
betweenthebankandprivaterespondentDavidintoanordinarydebtor
creditorrelationbetweenthepetitionersandprivaterespondent.
Consequently,thefailureofthebankorpetitionersGuingonaandMartinto
paythedepositsofprivaterespondentwouldnotconstituteabreachoftrust
butwouldmerelybeafailuretopaytheobligationasadebtor.
3. ID.ID.NOVATIONEFFECTSMAYPREVENTRISEOFCRIMINAL
LIABILITYCASEATBAR.Whileitistruethatnovationdoesnotextinguish
criminalliability,itmayhowever,preventtheriseofcriminalliabilityaslongas
itoccurspriortothefilingofthecriminalinformationincourt.(Gonzalesvs.
Serrano(25SCRA64,69[1968]Ongvs.CourtofAppeals,L058476,124
SCRA578,580581[1983]Peoplevs.Nery,10SCRA244[1964].Inthecase
atbar,thereisnodisputethatpetitionersGuingonaandMartinexecuteda
promissorynoteonJune17,1981assumingtheobligationofthebankto
privaterespondentDavidwhilethecriminalcomplaintforestafawasfiledon
December23,1981withtheOfficeoftheCityFiscal.Hence,itisclearthat
novationoccurredlongbeforethefilingofthecriminalcomplaintwiththe
OfficeoftheCityFiscal.
4. REMEDIALLAWCRIMINALPROCEDUREASARULECRIMINAL
PROSECUTIONMAYNOTBESUBJECTOFPROHIBITIONAND
INJUNCTIONEXCEPTIONCASEATBAR.Consideringthattheliabilityof
thepetitionersispurelycivilinnatureandthatthereisnoclearshowingthat
theyengagedinforeignexchangetransactions,Weholdthatthepublic
respondentsactedwithoutjurisdictionwhentheyinvestigatedthecharges
againstthepetitioners.Consequently,publicrespondentsshouldberestrained
fromfurtherproceedingwiththecriminalcasefortoallowthecaseto
continue,evenifthepetitionerscouldhaveappealedtotheMinistryofJustice,
wouldworkgreatinjusticetopetitionersandwouldrendermeaninglessthe
properadministrationofjustice.

DECISION

MAKASIAR,J : p

Thisisapetitionforprohibitionandinjunctionwithaprayerfortheimmediate
issuanceofrestrainingorderand/orwritofpreliminaryinjunctionfiledby
petitionersonMarch26,1982.
OnMarch31,1982,byvirtueofacourtresolutionissuedbythisCourtonthe
samedate,atemporaryrestrainingorderwasdulyissuedorderingthe
respondents,theirofficers,agents,representativesand/orpersonorpersons
actingupontheir(respondents')ordersorintheirplaceorsteadtorefrainfrom
proceedingwiththepreliminaryinvestigationinCaseNo.8131938ofthe
OfficeoftheCityFiscalofManila(pp.4748,rec.).OnJanuary24,1983,
privaterespondentClementDavidfiledamotiontoliftrestrainingorderwhich
wasdeniedintheresolutionofthisCourtdatedMay18,1983.
Ascanbegleanedfromtheabove,theinstantpetitionseekstoprohibitpublic
respondentsfromproceedingwiththepreliminaryinvestigationofI.S.No.81
31938,inwhichpetitionerswerechargedbyprivaterespondentClement
David,withestafaandviolationofCentralBankCircularNo.364andrelated
regulationsregardingforeignexchangetransactionsprincipally,ontheground
oflackofjurisdictioninthattheallegationsofthecharged,aswellasthe
testimonyofprivaterespondent'sprincipalwitnessandtheevidencethrough
saidwitness,showedthatpetitioners'obligationiscivilinnature.
Forpurposesofbrevity,Weherebyadopttheantecedentfactsnarratedbythe
SolicitorGeneralinitsCommentdatedJune28,1982,asfollows:
"OnDecember23,1981,privaterespondentDavidfiledI.S.No.81
31938intheOfficeoftheCityFiscalofManila,whichcasewas
assignedtorespondentLotaforpreliminaryinvestigation(Petition,p.
8).
"InI.S.No.8131938,Davidchargedpetitioners(togetherwithone
RobertMarshallandthefollowingdirectorsoftheNationSavingsand
LoanAssociation,Inc.,namelyHomeroGonzales,JuanMerino,
FlavioMacasaet,VictorGomez,Jr.,PerfectoMaalac,JaimeV.Paz,
PaulinoB.Dionisio,andoneJohnDoe)withestafaandviolationof
CentralBankCircularNo.364andrelatedCentralBankregulations
onforeignexchangetransactions,allegedlycommittedasfollows
(Petition,Annex'A'):
"'FromMarch20,1979toMarch,1981,Davidinvestedwith
theNationSavingsandLoanAssociation,(hereinaftercalled
NSLA)thesumofP1,145,546.20ontimedeposits,
P13,531.94onsavingsaccountdeposits(jointlywithhissister,
DeniseKuhne),US$10,000.00ontimedeposit,US$15,000.00
underareceiptandguaranteeofpaymentandUS$50,000.00
underareceiptdatedJune8,1980(alljointlywithDenise
Kuhne),thatDavidwasinducedintomakingtheaforestated
investmentsbyRobertMarshall,anAustraliannationalwho
wasallegedlyacloseassociateofpetitionerGuingonaJr.,
thenNSLAPresident,petitionerMartin,thenNSLAExecutive
VicePresidentandpetitionerSantos,thenNSLAGeneral
ManagerthatonMarch21,1981NSLAwasplacedunder
receivershipbytheCentralBank,sothatDavidfiledclaims
therewithforhisinvestmentsandthoseofhissisterthaton
July22,1981DavidreceivedareportfromtheCentralBank
thatonlyP305,821.92ofthoseinvestmentswereenteredin
therecordsofNSLAthat,therefore,therespondentsinI.S.
No.8131938misappropriatedthebalanceoftheinvestments,
 atthesametimeviolatingCentralBankCircularNo.364and
relatedCentralBankregulationsonforeignexchange
transactionsthatafterdemands,petitionerGuingonaJr.paid
onlyP200,000.00,therebyreducingtheamounts
misappropriatedtoP959,078.14andUS$75,000.00.
"Petitioners,MartinandSantos,filedajointcounteraffidavit(Petition,
Annex'B')inwhichtheystatedthefollowing:
"'ThatMartinbecamePresidentofNSLAinMarch1978(after
theresignationofGuingona,Jr.)andservedassuchuntil
October30,1980,whileSantoswasGeneralManagerupto
November1980thatbecauseNSLAwasurgentlyinneedof
fundsandatDavid'sinsistence,hisinvestmentsweretreated
asspecialaccountswithinterestsabovethelegalrate,and
recordedinseparateconfidentialdocumentsonlyaportionof
whichweretobereportedbecausehedidnotwantthe
Australiangovernmenttotaxhistotalearnings(nor)toknow
histotalinvestmentsthatalltransactionswithDavidwere
recordedexceptthesumofUS$15,000.00whichwasa
personalloanofSantosthatDavid'scheckforUS$50,000.00
wasclearedthroughGuingona,Jr.'sdollaraccountbecause
NSLAdidnothaveone,thatadraftofUS$30,000.00was
placedinthenameofonePazRocesbecauseofapending
transactionwithherthatthePhilippineDepositInsurance
CorporationhadalreadyreimbursedDavidwithinthelegal
limitsthatmajorityofthestockholdersofNSLAhadfiled
SpecialProceedingsNo.821695intheCourtofFirstInstance
tocontestits(NSLA's)closurethatafterNSLAwasplaced
underreceivership,Martinexecutedapromissorynotein
David'sfavorandcausedthetransfertohimofanineandone
half(91/2)caratdiamondringwithanetvalueof
P510,000.00and,thattheliabilitiesofNSLAtoDavidwere
civilinnature.'
"Petitioner,Guingona,Jr.,inhiscounteraffidavit(Petition,Annex'C')
statedthefollowing:
"'Thathehadnohandwhatsoeverinthetransactionsbetween
DavidandNSLAsincehe(GuingonaJr.)hadresignedas
NSLApresidentinMarch1978,orpriortothosetransactions
thatheassumedaportionoftheliabilitiesofNSLAtoDavid
becauseofthelatter'sinsistencethatheplacedhis
investmentswithNSLAbecauseofhisfaithinGuingona,Jr.
thatinaPromissoryNotedatedJune17,1981(Petition,
Annex"D")he(Guingona,Jr.)boundhimselftopayDavidthe
sumsofP668.307.01andUS$37,500.00instated
installmentsthathe(Guingona,Jr.)securedpaymentofthose
amountswithsecondmortgagesovertwo(2)parcelsofland
underadeedofSecondRealEstateMortgage(Petition,
Annex"E")inwhichitwasprovidedthatthemortgageover
 one(1)parcelshallbecancelleduponpaymentofonehalfof
theobligationtoDavidthathe(Guingona,Jr.)paid
P200,000.00andtenderedanotherP300,000.00whichDavid
refusedtoaccept,hence,he(Guingona,Jr.)filedCivilCase
No.Q33865intheCourtofFirstInstanceofRizalatQuezon
City,toeffectthereleaseofthemortgageoverone(1)ofthe
twoparcelsoflandconveyedtoDavidundersecond
mortgages.'

"Attheinceptionofthepreliminaryinvestigationbeforerespondent
Lota,petitionersmovedtodismissthechargesagainstthemforlack
ofjurisdictionbecauseDavid'sclaimsallegedlycomprisedapurely
civilobligationwhichwasitselfnovated.FiscalLotadeniedthe
motiontodismiss(Petition,p.8)
"But,afterthepresentationofDavid'sprincipalwitness,petitioners
filedtheinstantpetitionbecause:(a)theproductionofthePromissory
Notes,Banker'sAcceptance,CertificatesofTimeDepositsand
SavingsAccountallegedlyshowedthatthetransactionsbetween
DavidandNSLAweresimpleloans,i.e.,civilobligationsonthepart
ofNSLAwhichwerenovatedwhenGuingona,Jr.andMartin
assumedthemand(b)David'sprincipalwitnessallegedlytestified
thattheduplicateoriginalsoftheaforesaidinstrumentsof
indebtednesswereallonfilewithNSLA,contrarytoDavid'sclaim
thatsomeofhisinvestmentswerenotrecorded(Petition,pp.89).
"Petitionersallegedthattheydidnotexhaustavailableadministrative
remediesbecausetodosowouldbefutile(Petition,p.9)"[pp.153
157,rec.]
AscorrectlypointedoutbytheSolicitorGeneral,thesoleissueforresolution
iswhetherpublicrespondentsactedwithoutjurisdictionwhenthey
investigatedthecharges(estafaandviolationofCBCircularNo.364and
relatedregulationsregardingforeignexchangetransactions)subjectmatterof
I.S.No.8131938.
Thereismeritinthecontentionofthepetitionersthattheirliabilityiscivilin
natureandtherefore,publicrespondentshavenojurisdictionoverthecharge
ofestafa.prLL

AcasualperusaloftheDecember23,1981affidavitcomplaintfiledinthe
OfficeoftheCityFiscalofManilabyprivaterespondentDavidagainst
petitionersTeofistoGuingona,Jr.,AntonioI.MartinandTeresitaG.Santos,
togetherwithoneRobertMarshallandtheotherdirectorsoftheNation
SavingsandLoanAssociation,willshowthatfromMarch20,1979toMarch,
1981,privaterespondentDavid,togetherwithhissister,DeniseKuhne,
investedwiththeNationSavingsandLoanAssociationthesumof
P1,145,546.20ontimedepositscoveredbyBankersAcceptancesand
CertificatesofTimeDepositsandthesumofP13,531.94onsavingsaccount
depositscoveredbypassbooknos.6632and29742,oratotalof
P1,159,078.14(pp.1516,rec.).Itappearsfurtherthatprivaterespondent
David,togetherwithhissister,madeinvestmentsintheaforesaidbankinthe
amountofUS$75,000.00(p.17,rec.).
Moreover,therecordsrevealthatwhentheaforesaidbankwasplacedunder
receivershiponMarch21,1981,petitionersGuingonaandMartin,uponthe
requestofprivaterespondentDavid,assumedtheobligationofthebankto
privaterespondentDavidbyexecutingonJune17,1981ajointpromissory
noteinfavorofprivaterespondentacknowledginganindebtednessof
P1,336,614.02andUS$75,000.00(p.80,rec.).Thispromissorynotewas
basedonthestatementofaccountasofJune30,1981preparedbythe
privaterespondent(p.81,rec.).Theamountofindebtednessassumed
appearstobebiggerthantheoriginalclaimbecauseoftheaddedinterestand
theinclusionofotherdepositsofprivaterespondent'ssisterintheamountof
P116,613.20.
Thereafter,oronJuly17,1981,petitionersGuingonaandMartinagreedto
dividethesaidindebtedness,andpetitionerGuingonaexecutedanother
promissorynoteantedatedtoJune17,1981wherebyhepersonally
acknowledgedanindebtednessofP668,307.01(1/2ofP1,336,614.02)and
US$37,500.00(1/2ofUS$75,000.00)infavorofprivaterespondent(p.25,
rec.).Theaforesaidpromissorynoteswereexecutedasaresultofdeposits
madebyClementDavidandDeniseKuhnewiththeNationSavingsandLoan
Association.
Furthermore,thevariouspleadingsanddocumentsfiledbyprivaterespondent
DavidbeforethisCourtindisputablyshowthathehasindeedinvestedhis
moneyontimeandsavingsdepositswiththeNationSavingsandLoan
Association.
ItmustbepointedoutthatwhenprivaterespondentDavidinvestedhismoney
ontimeandsavingsdepositswiththeaforesaidbank,thecontractthatwas
perfectedwasacontractofsimpleloanormutuumandnotacontractof
deposit.Thus,Article1980oftheNewCivilCodeprovidesthat:
"Article1980.Fixed,savings,andcurrentdepositsofmoneyinbanks
andsimilarinstitutionsshallbegovernedbytheprovisions
concerningsimpleloan."
InthecaseofCentralBankofthePhilippinesvs.Morfe(63SCRA114,119
[1975],Wesaid:
"Itshouldbenotedthatfixed,savings,andcurrentdepositsofmoney
inbanksandsimilarinstitutionsarenottruedeposits.Theyare
consideredsimpleloansand,assuch,arenotpreferredcredits(Art.
1980CivilCode:InreLiquidationofMercantileBankofChina:Tan
TiongTickvs.AmericanApothecariesCo.,65Phil.414PacificCoast
BiscuitCo.vs.ChineseGrocersAssociation,65Phil.375Fletcher
 AmericanNationalBankvs.AngChengLian,65Phil.385Pacific
CommercialCo.vs.AmericanApothecariesCo.,65Phil.429
GopocoGroceryvs.PacificCoastBiscuitCo.,65Phil.443)."
ThisCourtalsodeclaredintherecentcaseofSerranovs.CentralBankofthe
Philippines(96SCRA96,102[1980])that: prLL

"Bankdepositsareinthenatureofirregulardeposits.Theyarereally
loansbecausetheyearninterest.Allkindsofbankdeposits,whether
fixed,savings,orcurrentaretobetreatedasloansandaretobe
coveredbythelawonloans(Art.1980,CivilCodeGullasvs.Phil.
NationalBank,62Phil.519).Currentandsavingsdepositsareloans
toabankbecauseitcanusethesame.Thepetitionerhereinmaking
timedepositsthatearninterestswithrespondentOverseasBankof
ManilawasinrealityacreditoroftherespondentBankandnota
depositor.TherespondentBankwasinturnadebtorofpetitioner.
FailureoftherespondentBanktohonorthetimedepositisfailureto
payitsobligationasadebtorandnotabreachoftrustarisingfroma
depository'sfailuretoreturnthesubjectmatterofthedeposit"
(emphasissupplied).
Hence,therelationshipbetweentheprivaterespondentandtheNation
SavingsandLoanAssociationisthatofcreditoranddebtorconsequently,the
ownershipoftheamountdepositedwastransmittedtotheBankuponthe
perfectionofthecontractanditcanmakeuseoftheamountdepositedforits
bankingoperations,suchastopayinterestsondepositsandtopay
withdrawals.WhiletheBankhastheobligationtoreturntheamount
deposited,ithas,however,noobligationtoreturnordeliverthesamemoney
thatwasdeposited.And,thefailureoftheBanktoreturntheamount
depositedwillnotconstituteestafathroughmisappropriationpunishableunder
Article315,par.1(b)oftheRevisedPenalCode,butitwillonlygiverisetocivil
liabilityoverwhichthepublicrespondentshavenojurisdiction.
WEhavealreadylaiddowntherulethat:
"Inorderthatapersoncanbeconvictedundertheabovequoted
provision,itmustbeproventhathehastheobligationtodeliveror
returnthesamemoney,goodsorpersonalpropertythathereceived.
Petitionershadnosuchobligationtoreturnthesamemoney,i.e.,the
billsorcoins,whichtheyreceivedfromprivaterespondents.Thisis
sobecauseasclearlystatedincriminalcomplaints,therelatedcivil
complaintsandthesupportingswornstatements,thesumsofmoney
thatpetitionersreceivedwereloans.
"ThenatureofsimpleloanisdefinedinArticles1933and1953ofthe
CivilCode.
"'Art.1933.Bythecontractofloan,oneoftheparties
deliverstoanother,eithersomethingnotconsumablesothat
thelattermayusethesameforacertaintimeandreturnit,in
whichcasethecontractiscalledacommodatumormoneyor
 otherconsumablething,upontheconditionthatthesame
amountofthesamekindandqualityshallbepaidinwhich
casethecontractissimplycalledaloanormutuum.
"'Commodatumisessentiallygratuitous.
"'Simpleloanmaybegratuitousorwithastipulationtopay
interest.
"'Incommodatumthebailorretainstheownershipofthething
loaned,whileinsimpleloan,ownershippassestothe
borrower.
"'Art.1953.Apersonwhoreceivesaloanofmoneyorany
otherfungiblethingacquirestheownershipthereof,andis
boundtopaytothecreditoranequalamountofthesamekind
andquality.'
"Itcanbereadilynotedfromtheabovequotedprovisionsthatin
simpleloan(mutuum),ascontrastedtocommodatum,theborrower
acquiresownershipofthemoney,goodsorpersonalproperty
borrowed.Beingtheowner,theborrowercandisposeofthething
borrowed(Article248,CivilCode)andhisactwillnotbeconsidered
misappropriationthereof"(Yamvs.Malik,94SCRA30,34[1979]
emphasissupplied).
Butevengrantingthatthefailureofthebanktopaythetimeandsavings
depositsofprivaterespondentDavidwouldconstituteaviolationofparagraph
1(b)ofArticle315oftheRevisedPenalCode,neverthelessanyincipient
criminalliabilitywasdeemedavoided,becausewhentheaforesaidbankwas
placedunderreceivershipbytheCentralBank,petitionersGuingonaand
MartinassumedtheobligationofthebanktoprivaterespondentDavid,
therebyresultinginthenovationoftheoriginalcontractualobligationarising
fromdepositintoacontractofloanandconvertingtheoriginaltrustrelation
betweenthebankandprivaterespondentDavidintoanordinarydebtor
creditorrelationbetweenthepetitionersandprivaterespondent.
Consequently,thefailureofthebankorpetitionersGuingonaandMartinto
paythedepositsofprivaterespondentwouldnotconstituteabreachoftrust
butwouldmerelybeafailuretopaytheobligationasadebtor.
Moreover,whileitistruethatnovationdoesnotextinguishcriminalliability,it
mayhowever,preventtheriseofcriminalliabilityaslongasitoccurspriorto
thefilingofthecriminalinformationincourt.Thus,inGonzalesvs.Serrano(
25SCRA64,69[1968])Weheldthat: LexLib

"AspointedoutinPeoplevs.Nery,novationpriortothefilingofthe
criminalinformationasinthecaseatbarmayconvertthe
relationbetweenthepartiesintoanordinarycreditordebtorrelation,
andplacethecomplainantinestoppeltoinsistontheoriginal
transactionor'castdoubtonthetruenature'thereof."
Again,inthelatestcaseofOngvs.CourtofAppeals(L58476,124SCRA
578,580581[1983]),thisCourtreiteratedtherulinginPeoplevs.Nery(10
SCRA244[1964]),declaringthat:
"Thenovationtheorymayperhapsapplypriortothefilingofthe
criminalinformationincourtbythestateprosecutorsbecauseupto
thattimetheoriginaltrustrelationmaybeconvertedbytheparties
intoanordinarycreditordebtorsituation,therebyplacingthe
complainantinestoppeltoinsistontheoriginaltrust.Butafterthe
justiceauthoritieshavetakencognizanceofthecrimeandinstituted
actionincourt,theoffendedpartymaynolongerdivestthe
prosecutionofitspowertoexactthecriminalliability,asdistinguished
fromthecivil.Thecrimebeinganoffenseagainstthestate,onlythe
lattercanrenounceit(Peoplevs.Gervacio,54Off.Gaz.2898
Peoplevs.Velasco,42Phil.76U.S.vs.Montaes,8Phil.620).
"Itmaybeobservedinthisregardthatnovationisnotoneofthe
meansrecognizedbythePenalCodewherebycriminalliabilitycan
beextinguishedhence,theroleofnovationmayonlybetoeither
preventtheriseofcriminalliabilityortocastdoubtonthetruenature
oftheoriginalbasictransaction,whetherornotitwassuchthatits
breachwouldnotgiverisetopenalresponsibility,aswhenmoney
loanedismadetoappearasadeposit,orothersimilardisguiseis
resortedto(cf.Abetovs.People,90Phil.581U.S.vs.Villareal,27
Phil.481)."
Inthecaseatbar,thereisnodisputethatpetitionersGuingonaandMartin
executedapromissorynoteonJune17,1981assumingtheobligationofthe
banktoprivaterespondentDavidwhilethecriminalcomplaintforestafawas
filedonDecember23,1981withtheOfficeoftheCityFiscal.Hence,itisclear
thatnovationoccurredlongbeforethefilingofthecriminalcomplaintwiththe
OfficeoftheCityFiscal.
Consequently,asaforestated,anyincipientcriminalliabilitywouldbeavoided
buttherewillstillbeacivilliabilityonthepartofpetitionersGuingonaand
Martintopaytheassumedobligation.
PetitionershereinwerelikewisechargedwithviolationofSection3ofCentral
BankCircularNo.364andotherrelatedregulationsregardingforeign
exchangetransactionsbyacceptingforeigncurrencydepositintheamountof
US$75,000.00withoutauthorityfromtheCentralBank.Theycontend
however,thattheUSdollarsintendedbyrespondentDavidfordepositwere
allconvertedintoPhilippinecurrencybeforeacceptanceanddepositinto
NationSavingsandLoanAssociation. LLphil

Petitioners'contentionisworthyofbeliefforthefollowingreasons:
1. ItappearsfromtherecordsthatwhenrespondentDavidwasaboutto
makeadepositofbankdraftissuedinhisnameintheamountof
US$50,000.00withtheNationSavingsandLoanAssociation,thesamehadto
beclearedfirstandconvertedintoPhilippinecurrency.Accordingly,thebank
draftwasendorsedbyrespondentDavidtopetitionerGuingona,whointurn
depositedittohisdollaraccountwiththeSecurityBankandTrustCompany.
PetitionerGuingonamerelyaccommodatedtherequestoftheNationSavings
andLoanAssociationinordertoclearthebankdraftthroughhisdollar
accountbecausethebankdidnothaveadollaraccount.Immediatelyafterthe
bankdraftwascleared,petitionerGuingonaauthorizedNationSavingsand
LoanAssociationtowithdrawthesameinordertobeutilizedbythebankfor
itsoperations.
2. ItissafetoassumethattheU.S.dollarswereconvertedfirstinto
PhilippinepesosbeforetheywereacceptedanddepositedinNationSavings
andLoanAssociation,becausethebankispresumedtohavefollowedthe
ordinarycourseofthebusinesswhichistoacceptdepositsinPhilippine
currencyonly,andthatthetransactionwasregularandfair,intheabsenceof
aclearandconvincingevidencetothecontrary(seeparagraphspandq,Sec.
5,Rule131,RulesofCourt).
3. RespondentDavidhasnotdeniedtheaforesaidcontentionofherein
petitionersdespitethefactthatitwasraisedinpetitioners'replyfiledonMay
7,1982toprivaterespondent'scommentandintheJuly27,1982replyto
publicrespondents'commentandreiteratedinpetitioners'memorandumfiled
onOctober30,1982,therebyaddingmoresupporttotheconclusionthatthe
US$75,000.00werereallyconvertedintoPhilippinecurrencybeforetheywere
acceptedanddepositedintoNationSavingsandLoanAssociation.
Consideringthatthismightadverselyaffecthiscase,respondentDavidshould
havepromptlydeniedpetitioners'allegation.
Inconclusion,consideringthattheliabilityofthepetitionersispurelycivilin
natureandthatthereisnoclearshowingthattheyengagedinforeign
exchangetransactions,Weholdthatthepublicrespondentsactedwithout
jurisdictionwhentheyinvestigatedthechargesagainstthepetitioners.
Consequently,publicrespondentsshouldberestrainedfromfurther
proceedingwiththecriminalcasefortoallowthecasetocontinue,evenifthe
petitionerscouldhaveappealedtotheMinistryofJustice,wouldworkgreat
injusticetopetitionersandwouldrendermeaninglesstheproper
administrationofjustice.
Whileasarule,theprosecutioninacriminaloffensecannotbethesubjectof
prohibitionandinjunction,thiscourthasrecognizedtheresorttothe
extraordinarywritsofprohibitionandinjunctioninextremecases,thus:
"Ontheissueofwhetherawritofinjunctioncanrestrainthe
proceedingsinCriminalCaseNo.3140,thegeneralruleisthat
'ordinarily,criminalprosecutionmaynotbeblockedbycourt
prohibitionorinjunction.'Exceptions,however,areallowedinthe
followinginstances:
"'1. fortheorderlyadministrationofjustice
 "'2. topreventtheuseofthestrongarmofthelawinan
oppressiveandvindictivemanner
"'3. toavoidmultiplicityofactions
"'4. toaffordadequateprotectiontoconstitutionalrights
"'5. inpropercases,becausethestatuterelieduponis
unconstitutionalorwasheldinvalid'"(Primiciasvs.Municipality
ofUrdaneta,Pangasinan,93SCRA462,469470[1979]
citingRamosvs.Torres,25SCRA557[1968]andHernandez
vs.Albano,19SCRA95,96[1967]).
Likewise,inLopezvs.TheCityJudge,etal.(18SCRA616,621622[1966]),
Weheldthat: cdll

"Thewritsofcertiorariandprohibition,asextraordinarylegal
remedies,areintheultimateanalysis,intendedtoannulvoid
proceedingstopreventtheunlawfulandoppressiveexerciseoflegal
authorityandtoprovideforafairandorderlyadministrationofjustice.
Thus,inYuKongEngvs.Trinidad,47Phil.385,Wetookcognizance
ofapetitionforcertiorariandprohibitionalthoughtheaccusedinthe
casecouldhaveappealedinduetimefromtheordercomplainedof,
ouractioninthepremisesbeingbasedonthepublicwelfareandthe
advancementofpublicpolicy,InDimayugavs.Fajardo,43Phil.304,
Wealsoadmittedapetitiontorestraintheprosecutionofcertain
chiropractorsalthough,ifconvicted,theycouldhaveappealed.We
gaveduecoursetotheirpetitionfortheorderlyadministrationof
justiceandtoavoidpossibleoppressionbythestrongarmofthelaw.
AndinArevalovs.Nepomuceno,63Phil.627,thepetitionfor
certiorarichallengingthetrialcourt'sactionadmittinganamended
informationwassustaineddespitetheavailabilityofappealatthe
propertime."
WHEREFORE,THEPETITIONISHEREBYGRANTEDTHETEMPORARY
RESTRAININGORDERPREVIOUSLYISSUEDISMADEPERMANENT.
COSTSAGAINSTTHEPRIVATERESPONDENT.
SOORDERED.
Concepcion,Jr.,Guerrero,DeCastroandEscolinJJ.,concur.
Aquino,J.,tooknopart.
AbadSantos,J.,concursintheresult.