SECONDDI

VISI
ON

[
G.R.No.143375.Jul
y6,
2001]

RUTHD.BAUTI
STA,
pet
it
ioner
,vs.COURTOFAPPEALS, OFFICEOFTHEREGI
ONALSTATE
PROSECUTOR,
REGI
ONIV,andSUSANALOA,respondents.

DECISION

BELLOSI
LLO,
J.:

Thispeti
ti
onf orcer
ti
oraripresent
sanewdi mensionintheevercontr
oversi
alBatasPambansa
Bil
ang22orTheBounci ngChecksLaw.Thequest ionposediswhetherthedrawerofacheck
whichisdishonoredduet olackofsuff
icientfundscanbeprosecutedunderBP22eveni ft
he
checkispresentedforpaymentaf t
erninety(90)daysfr
om it
sduedat e.Theburgeoni
ng
j
urispr
udenceont hemat terappearssi
lentont hi
spoint
.

Someti
mei nApri
l1998peti
tionerRuthD.Baut i
staissuedtopri
vaterespondentSusanAloa
Metr
obankCheckNo.005014037dat ed8May1998f orP1,
500,000.
00drawnonMet r
obank
Cavi
teCit
yBranch.Accordi
ngt opri
vaterespondent,peti
ti
onerassur
edhert hatt
hecheck
woul
dbesuf f
ici
entl
yfundedont hemat uri
tydate.

On20October1998pr
ivat
er espondentpresent
edthecheckforpayment.Thedr
aweebank
di
shonor
edthecheckbecauseitwasdr awnagainsti
nsuff
ici
entfunds(
DAI F)
.

On16Mar ch1999pr
ivaterespondentfi
ledacompl aint
-af
fi
davi
twiththeCit
yProsecutorof
Cavit
eCity.[
1]I
naddi
tiontothedetail
softheissuanceandt hedi
shonorofthecheck,shealso
all
egedthatshemader epeat
eddemandsonpet it
ionertomakearrangementsfort
hepayment
ofthecheckwithi
nfi
ve( 5)worki
ngdaysaf t
erreceiptofnoti
ceofdishonorf
rom t
hebank, but
thatpet
it
ionerf
ail
edtodoso.
Petit
ionerthensubmi tt
edherowncount er-
affi
davitasserti
nginherdefensethatpresentment
ofthecheckwi t
hinninety(90)daysfrom duedatet hereofwasanessent i
alelementofthe
offenseofvi ol
ati
onofBP22.Si ncethecheckwaspr esentedforpayment166daysaf t
erit
s
duedat e,i
twasnol ongerpunishabl
eunderBP22andt heref
orethecomplaintshouldbe
dismissedf orl
ackofmer i
t.Shealsoclai
medt hatsheal readyassignedpri
vaterespondenther
condomi ni
um uni tatAntelSeaviewCondomi nium, RoxasBoul evar
d,asful
lpaymentf ort
he
bouncedcheckst husextingui
shinghercriminall
iabili
ty.

On22Apr i
l1999,theinvest
igat
ingprosecutori
ssuedar
esol
uti
onr
ecommendi
ngthefi
li
ngof
anInformationagainstpeti
ti
onerforvi
olat
ionofBP22,whi
chwasappr
ovedbytheCi
ty
Prosecutor
.

On13May1999pet it
ionerfi
ledwi
ththeOf
ficeoftheRegi onalSt
ateProsecut
or(ORSP)for
RegionI Vapet i
ti
onf orrevi
ewofthe22April1999resoluti
on.TheORSPdeni edthepet
it
ioni n
aone( 1)-pageresoluti
ondated25June1999.On5Jul y1999pet i
ti
onerfil
edamot i
onf
or
reconsiderati
on,whicht heORSPalsodeni
edon31August1999.Accor di
ngtotheORSP, only
resol
utionsofpr osecutorsdismi
ssi
ngacri
mi nalcomplaintwerecognizabl
eforrevi
ewbyt hat
offi
ce,cit
ingDepar tmentOrderNo.223.

On1Oct ober1999pet i
ti
onerfil
edwi t
ht heCourtofAppeal
sapeti
ti
onforreviewoft he
resol
uti
onoft heORSP, RegionIV,dated22Apr i
l1999aswellast
heorderdat ed31August
1999denyingr econsiderat
ion.Theappel l
atecourti
ssuedt
heassail
edResolutiondated26
October1999denyi ngduecour seoutr i
ghtanddismissi
ngthepet
it
ion.
[2]Accordingto
respondentappellat
ecour t-

Apet i
ti
onforreviewi sappr opriat
eunderRul e42( 1997Rul esofCi vilProcedure)from a
decisi
onoftheRegi onalTr ialCourtrenderedint heexer ci
seofi tsappel l
atejur
isdiction, f
iledi
n
theCourtofAppeal s.Rul e43xxxpr ovidesforappeal ,viaapet itionf orrevi
ewxxxf rom
j
udgmentorf inalor dersoft heCour tofTaxAppeal sandQuasi -Judi cialAgenciestot heCour t
ofAppeals.Peti
tioner '
s" Petit
ionforRevi ew"oftheORSPr esolutiondoesnotf allunderanyof
theagenciesment ionedi nRul e43xxxxI ti
swor t
htonot ethatpet i
tionerinherthr ee( 3)
assignederr
orschar gedt heORSPof" seri
ouser roroflawandgr aveabuseofdi scret ion.
"The
groundsreli
eduponbypet i
tionerarepr operinapet it
ionforcer ti
or arixxxxEveni fWet reat
the"Peti
ti
onforRevi ew"asapet i
ti
onf orcert
ior
ar i,
petit
ionerfailedt oal l
egetheessent i
al
requir
ementsofaspeci alcivilacti
on.Besides,ther emedyofpet itionerisintheRegi onalTr i
al
Court,f
oll
owingthedoct ri
neofhi erarchyofcour tsxxxx( it
ali
cssuppl i
ed)
Fi
rst,
somegr oundr ules.Thi
scasewenttotheCour
tofAppealsbywayofpet i
ti
onforrevi
ew
underRule43oft he1997Rul esofCivi
lPr
ocedur
e.Rul
e43appl i
esto"appeal
sfrom
j
udgment sorf i
nalor dersoft
heCourtofTaxAppeal
sandf rom awards,j
udgments,f
inal
order
sorr esolut
ionsoforaut hor
izedbyanyquasi
-j
udi
cialagencyintheexerci
seofquasi-
j
udici
alfunctions."[
3]

Petiti
onersubmitsthataprosecutorconduct i
ngapr eli
minaryinvesti
gationperf
ormsaquasi -
j
udi ci
alfunct
ion,ci
ti
ngCojuangcov.PCGG, [
4]Kohv.Cour tofAppeals,[
5]Andayav.Pr ovinci
al
FiscalofSurigaodelNort
e[6]andCr espov.Mogul .[
7]Inthesecasest hisCourtheldthatthe
powert oconductpreli
minaryinvest
igationisquasi-
judici
alinnature.Butthi
sstatementhol ds
tr
ueonl yinthesensethat,l
ikequasi-j
udicialbodi
es,theprosecutorisanof f
iceinthe
executivedepart
mentexercisi
ngpower sakintothoseofacour t
.Hereiswher ethesimilari
ty
ends.

Acloserscrut
inywil
lshowt hatpr eli
minaryi
nvest
igat
ionisverydi
ff
erentfr
om otherquasi
-
j
udici
alproceedi
ngs.Aquasi -
judicialbodyhasbeendefinedas"anorganofgovernmentother
thanacourtandotherthanal egislatur
ewhichaff
ectstheright
sofpri
vatepar
tiesthr
ough
eit
heradj
udicati
onorrule-
maki ng."[8]

InLuzonDevel opmentBankv.LuzonDevel opmentBankEmpl oyees,[9]wehel dt hata

volunt ar
yar bi
tr
at or, whetheractingsol el
yori napanel ,
enjoysi nlawt hest atusofaquasi -
judicialagency,hencehi sdecisi
onsandawar dsareappeal abletot heCour tofAppeal s.This
i
ssobecauset heawar dsofvol untar yarbi t
ratorsbecomef i
nalandexecut oryupont hel apse
oftheper i
odtoappeal ;
[10]andsi ncet heirawar dsdeterminet herightsofpar t
ies,thei
r
decisionshavet hesameef fectasj udgment sofacour t.Therefore,thepr operr emedyf rom an
awar dofavol unt ar yarbitr
atorisapet iti
onf orreviewtot heCour tofAppeal s,foll
owing
Revi sedAdmi nistrat i
veCi r
cularNo.1- 95, whichpr ovi
dedf orauni form procedur eforappellat
e
reviewofal ladjudi cationsofquasi -judicialent i
ti
es,whichisnowembodi edi nRul e43oft he
1997Rul esofCi vilPr ocedure.

Ont heot herhand,theprosecut

orinapr el
iminaryi
nvest
igat
iondoesnotdeterminetheguil
tor
i
nnocenceoft heaccused.Hedoesnotexer ci
seadjudi
cati
onnorrule-
makingfuncti
ons.
Preli
mi naryinvest
igati
onismerelyinqui
sit
or i
al,
andisoft
entheonlymeansofdi scover
ingthe
personswhomayber easonabl
ychargedwi thacri
meandt oenablethef
iscaltoprepar
ehis
compl aintorinfor
mation.Iti
snotat r
ial
ofthecaseont hemerit
sandhasnopur poseexcept
thatofdet
ermini
ngwhetheracrimehasbeencommi tt
edandwhetherther
eisprobabl
ecause
tobeli
evethatt
heaccusedisguil
tyt
hereof
.[
11]Whil
ethefi
scalmakesthatdeter
minat
ion,
he
cannotbesaidtobeacti
ngasaquasi-cour
t,f
ori
tisthecour
ts,ul
ti
mately,
thatpassj
udgment
ontheaccused,nott
hefiscal
.[
12]

Hence,theOffi
ceofthePr osecut
orisnotaquasi -
judi
cialbody;necessaril
y,i
tsdeci
sions
approvi
ngthefili
ngofacr i
minalcomplai
ntarenotappeal abletotheCour tofAppeal
sunder
Rule43.SincetheORSPhast hepowertoresolveappealswi t
hf i
nali
tyonlywherethepenalt
y
prescr
ibedfort
heof fensedoesnotexceedprisioncorr
eccional,r
egardlessoftheimposable
fi
ne,[
13]theonl
yr emedyofpet i
ti
oner,
intheabsenceofgr aveabuseofdi scr
eti
on,i
stopresent
herdefenseinthetri
alofthecase.

Besides,itiswell
-settl
edthatthecourt
scannotinterf
erewiththediscreti
onoft hefiscalt
o
determinet hespecifi
cit
yandadequacyoft heoffensecharged.Hemaydi smisst hecompl aint
for
thwi t
hifhef i
ndsi ttobeinsuff
ici
enti
nform orsubstanceorifhef i
ndsnogr oundt o
continuewi tht
hei nquir
y;or,hemayotherwiseproceedwiththeinvestigat
ionifthecompl aint
i
s,inhi sview,i
ndueandpr operform.[
14]

Inthepr esentrecour
se,not
wit
hstandi
ngtheprocedurall
apses,
wegi veduecoursetothe
petit
ion,inviewofthenovell
egalquest
ioni
nvolved,t
opreventfur
therdelayoft
heprosecut
ion
ofthecr iminalcasebel
ow,andmor ei
mportant
ly,t
odispelanynoti
ont hatpr
ocedur
al
technicali
ti
esar ebei
ngusedtodefeatt
hesubstanti
veri
ghtsofpetit
ioner.

Pet
it
ioneri
saccusedofvi
olat
ionofBP22t
hesubst
ant
ivepor
ti
onofwhi
chr
eads-

Section1.Checkswi thoutsuf f
icientfunds.-Anyper sonwhomakesordr awsandi ssuesany
checkt oapplyonaccountorf orval ue,knowingatt hetimeofissuethathedoesnothave
suffi
cientf
undsi norcr editwit
ht hedr aweebankf ort hepaymentofsuchi nf ul
lupon
presentment,whichchecki ssubsequent lydishonoredbyt hedraweebankf orinsuffici
encyof
fundsorcreditorwoul dhavebeendi shonoredforthesamer easonhadnott hedrawer ,
withoutanyvalidreason, order
edt hebankt ost oppayment ,shallbepunishedby
i
mpr isonmentofnotl esst hanthirty(30)daysbutnotmor ethanone( 1)yearorbyaf ineofnot
l
esst hanbutnotmor ethandoubl etheamountoft hecheckwhi chfineshallinnocaseexceed
TwoHundr edThousandPesos, orbot hsuchf i
neandi mpr
isonmentatthedi scret
ionoft he
court.
Thesamepenal t
yshallbeimposeduponanyper sonwho,havingsuffi
cientfundsinorcredi
t
withthedraweebankwhenhemakesordr awsandissuesacheck, shallf
ailtokeepsuf
fi
cient
fundsortomaintai
nacr editt
ocoverthefullamountofthecheckifpresentedwithi
naper i
od
ofninet
y(90)daysfrom thedateappear
ingthereon,f
orwhichreasonitisdishonoredbythe
draweebankxxxx( i
tal
icssuppli
ed).

Ananal ysi
sofSec.1showst hatTheBounci ngChecksLawpenal i
zestwo( 2)disti
nctacts:
Fir
st,makingordr awi ngandi ssuinganycheckt oappl yonaccountorforvalue,knowi ngat
theti
meofi ssuethatt hedrawerdoesnothavesuf fi
cientfundsinorcreditwit
ht hedrawee
bank;and,second, havi ngsuffi
cientfundsinorcreditwiththedraweebankshal lfai
ltokeep
suff
icientfundsort omai ntai
nacr edi
ttocovert
hef ullamountofthechecki fpresentedwithi
n
aperiodofni net
y( 90)daysf r
om t hedateappearingthereon,forwhichreasonitisdishonored
bythedr aweebank. [15]

Inthefi
rstparagraph,thedrawerknowst hathedoesnothavesuf fi
cientfundst ocoverthe
checkatthetimeofi tsissuance,whil
einthesecondpar agr
aph,thedrawerhassuf fici
ent
fundsattheti
meofi ssuancebutf ai
lstokeepsuffi
cientfundsormai ntai
ncr edi
twithinninet
y
(90)daysfrom thedateappear i
ngont hecheck.Inbothi nst
ances,theoffenseis
consummat edbyt hedi shonorofthecheckforinsuf
f i
ciencyoffundsorcr edit
.

Thechecki nvolvedint hef

irstoff
enseiswor thlessatthet
imeofi ssuancesincethedrawer
hadneithersuffici
entfundsi nnorcredi
twitht hedraweebankatt hetime,whil
ethatinvolved
i
nt hesecondof fenseisgoodwheni ssuedasdr awerhadsuffi
cientfundsinorcreditwit
ht he
draweebankwheni ssued.
[16]Underthef i
rstoffense,
theninet
y( 90)-
daypresent
mentper i
od
i
snotexpr esslyprovided,whilesuchperiodisanexpr essel
ementoft hesecondoffense.[
17]

Fr
om theall
egat
ionsofthecompl
aint
,itiscleart
hatpet
it
ioneri
sbei
ngpr
osecut
edf
or
vi
olat
ionoft
hefirstpar
agr
aphoft
heof fense.

Petit
ionerassert
sthatshecouldnotbepr
osecut
edf orvi
olat
ionofBP22onthesi
mpleground
thatthesubjectcheckwaspresent
ed166daysafterthedatestat
edt
her
eon.Sheci
tesSec.2
ofBP22whi chreads-
Sec.2.Evidenceofknowl edgeofi nsuff
ici
entf unds.-Themaki ng,drawingandi ssuanceofa
checkpaymentwhi chisref usedbyt hedraweebecauseofi nsuffi
cientfundsinorcr edi
twith
suchbank, whenpresentedwi thinninety(90)daysf r
om thedat eofthecheck,shal lbepri
ma
faci
eevidenceofknowledgeofsuchi nsuffi
ciencyoffundsorcr editunlesssuchmakeror
drawerpayst hehol
derther eoftheamountduet her
eon,ormakesar r
angement sforpayment
i
nf ul
lbythedr aweeofsuchcheckwi t
hinf i
ve(5)bankingdaysaf terreceivi
ngnoticethatsuch
checkhasnotbeenpai dbyt hedrawee( it
alicssuppli
ed).

Pet i
ti
onerinterpretsthi
spr ovisi
ont omeant hattheni
nety(90)-
daypr esentmentper i
odisan
el
ementoft heof fensespuni shedi nBP22.Sheasseveratesthat"foramakerori ssuerofa
checkt obecover edbyB. P.22, thecheckissuedbyhim/herisonet hatisdishonor edwhen
presentedf orpaymentwi t
hinni nety(90)daysfr
om dateofthecheck.I ft
hedi shonoroccur r
ed
afterpresentmentf orpaymentbeyondt heninet
y(90)
-dayperiod,nocriminalliabil
ityatt
aches;
onlyaci vi
lcasef orcoll
ect i
onofsum ofmoneymaybef i
led,i
fwar r
anted."Tobol sterthi
s
argument ,sher eli
esont hevi ewespousedbyJudgeDavi dG.Nitafaninhist r
eatise-[18]

Althoughevidenti
ar yinnatur e,secti
on2oft hel awmustbet akenasf ur
nishinganaddi t
ional
elementoftheof fensedef inedi nthefi
rstparagr aphofsection1becausei tprovidesforthe
evidenti
aryf
actof" knowledgeofi nsuffi
ciencyoff undsorcr edit
"whi chisanel ementoft he
offensedefi
nedi nsai dparagr aph;otherwisesaidpr ovi
sionofsect ion2woul dber endered
withoutmeani ngandnugat ory.Ther ul
eofst at
ut oryconstructi
onist hatthepar t
sofast atut
e
mustber eadt ogetheri nsuchamannerast ogi veeffecttoallofthem andt hatsuchpar ts
shallnotbeconst ruedascont radict
ingeachot her.Thesamesect ioncannotbedeemedt o
supplyanaddi ti
onalel ementf ortheoffenseundert hesecondpar agraphofsect ion1because
the90-daypresent mentper i
odi salr
eadyabui l
t-inelementi nthedef i
nit
ionofsai doff
ense
(i
tali
cssupplied).

Wearenotconvinced.Itisfundamental
thateveryel
ementoftheoff
ensemustbeallegedi
n
t
hecomplaintorinfor
mat i
on,andmustbepr ovedbeyondreasonabl
edoubtbythepr
osecuti
on.
Whatf
actsandci rcumstancesarenecessar
yt obestat
edmustbedet er
minedbyref
erencet
o
t
hedefi
nit
ionsandt heessential
softhespecif
iccri
mes.[
19]

Theelementsoftheof
fenseunderBP22ar e(a)themaking,drawingandissuanceofany
checktoapplyt
oaccountorforvalue;(
b)themaker ,drawerorissuerknowsattheti
meof
i
ssuethathedoesnothavesuffi
cientfundsinorcreditwit
hthedr aweebankforthepayment
ofsuchcheckinful
luponit
spresentment;and, (
c)thecheckissubsequentlydi
shonoredby
thedr
aweebankfori
nsuf
fi
ciencyoffundsorcredi
torwouldhavebeendi
shonor
edfort
he
samereasonhadnott
hedrawer,wi
thoutanyvali
dreason,
orderedt
hebanktost
op
payment.
[20]

Theni nety( 90)-

dayperiodisnotamongt heseelement s.Secti
on2ofBP22i scl earthata
dishonor edcheckpr esentedwi thintheninety(90)-dayperiodcreatesapr i
maf acie
presumpt i
onofknowl edgeofi nsuf f
ici
encyoff unds, whichisanessent ialelementoft he
offense.Si nceknowledgei nvolvesast ateofmi nddi f
fi
culttoestabli
sh, t
hest atuteitself
createsapr i
maf aci
epr esumpt ionoft heexi
stenceoft hiselementf r
om t hef actofdr awing,
i
ssui ngormaki ngacheck, thepaymentofwhi chwassubsequent l
yr efusedf orinsuffici
ency
offunds. [21]Theterm primaf acieevidencedenot esevidencewhi ch,ifunexpl ainedor
uncont r
adi cted,i
ssuffi
cienttosust ainthepropositionitsupport
sort oest ablisht hefacts,or
tocount erbalancethepr esumpt ionofinnocencet owar rantaconviction.[
22]

Thepr esumpti
oninSec.2isnotaconcl usivepresumptionthatfor
eclosesorprecludest
he
presentati
onofevi
dencetothecontrary.[
23]Neitherdoestheterm pri
maf aci
eevidence
precl
udet hepr
esentat
ionofotherevidencethatmaysuf fi
cient
lyprovetheexist
enceor
knowledgeofinsuf
fici
encyoffundsorl ackofcredit
.

Surely,
thelawi snotsocircumscri
bedast ol i
mitproofofknowledgeexcl
usivel
ytothe
di
shonoroft hesubjectcheckwhenpr esentedwi t
hintheprescr
ibedninet
y(90)dayperi
od.
Thedeliberat
ionsont hepassageofBP22( t henknownasCabi netBil
lNo.9)betweenthe
author,f
ormerSol i
cit
orGeneralEst
eli
toP.Mendoza, andBataanAssembl ymanPabloRoman
proveinsight
ful-

MR.ROMAN:xxxxUnderSecti
on1,whoi
sthepersonwhomaybeliabl
eundert
hisSect
ion?
Woul
ditbet
hemakerort
hedrawer
?Howabouttheendor
ser
,Mr.Speaker
?

MR.MENDOZA:Li
abl
e.

MR.ROMAN:Theendorser
,therefor
e,underSect
ion1i
schar
gedwi
tht
hedut
yofknowi
ngat
t
heti
meheendorsesanddeliver
sacheck....
MR.MENDOZA:I ft
heendor seri
schar gedf
orviol
ati
onoftheActthent hefactofknowl
edge
mustbeprovenbypositi
veevidencebecausethepresumptionofknowledgearisesonl
y
agai
nstt
hemakerort hedrawer.Itdoesnotar
iseasagainstendorserunderthefol
lowi
ng
sect
ion(
it
ali
cssuppli
ed).

MR.ROMAN:ButunderSect ion1,i
tsayshere:"
Anypersonwhoshallmakeordraworut
teror
deli
veranycheck."Thepreposi
ti
onisdisj
uncti
ve,sot
hatanyper
sonwhodeliver
sanycheck
knowingattheti
meofsuchmaki ngorsuchdeli
veryt
hatthemakerordr
awerhasnosuff
icient
fundswouldbeliableunderSect
ion1.

MR.MENDOZA:Thati scorr
ectMr.Speaker
.But
,asIsai
d,whi
let
hereisl
iabi
li
tyevenas
agai
nstendor
ser,f
orexample,t
hepresumpti
onofknowl
edgeofi
nsuff
ici
entf
undsar i
sesonl
y
agai
nstthemakerordrawerunderSect
ion2.

MR.ROMAN:Yes, Mr.Speaker
.Iti
strue;however,
underSect
ion1,endorser
sofchecksor
bil
lsofexchangewouldfi
nditnecessarysincet
heymaybechar gedwiththeknowl
edgeatthe
ti
met heynegoti
atebi
ll
sofexchangetheyhavenosuf f
ici
entf
undsinthebankordeposit
ory.

MR.MENDOZA:I norderthatanendorsermaybehel dli

able,t
her emustbeevidenceshowing
thatattheti
meheendor sedthecheckhewasawar ethatthedrawerwouldnothavesuf f
ici
ent
fundstocoverthecheckuponpr esent
ati
on.Thatevidencemustbepr esentedbythe
prosecuti
on.However,i
ftheonechangedi sthedrawer,t
henthatevidenceneednotbe
presentedbytheprosecut
ionbecausethatfactwouldbeestablishedbypresumptionunder
Section2(it
ali
cssuppli
ed).
[24]

Anendor serwhopassesabadcheckmaybehel dli

ableunderBP22, eventhought he
presumptionofknowl edgedoesnotappl ytohim, i
fthereisevidencet hatatt het i
meof
endorsement ,hewasawar eoftheinsuffi
ciencyoffunds.Itisevidentf r
om t hef oregoi ng
deli
berat
ionst hatthepr esumpt i
oninSec.2wasi ntendedtof acil
it
atepr oofofknowl edgeand
nottoforecl
oseadmi ssibili
tyofotherevidencethatmayal sopr ovesuchknowl edge.Thus, the
onlyconsequenceoft hef ail
uretopresentthecheckf orpaymentwi thi
nni nety(90)daysf r
om
thedatestatedisthatt herear i
sesnopr i
maf aciepresumpt i
onofknowl edgeofi nsuf fi
ciency
offunds.Butt heprosecut ionmayst il
lprovesuchknowl edget hroughot herevidence.Whet her
suchevidencei ssuffi
cientt osustainprobablecauset ofi
letheinformat ionisaddr essedt o
thesounddi scret
ionoft heCi tyProsecutorandisamat t
ernotcont roll
ablebycer tiorari.
Cert
ainl
y,peti
ti
onerisnotl
efti
nalur
chast
heprosecuti
onmustpr oveknowl
edgewit
houtthe
benefi
tofthepresumpti
on,andshemaypr
esentwhateverdef
ensesareavai
labl
etoheri
nthe
courseofthetri
al.

Thedist i
ncti
onbet weentheel ement softheoffenseandt heevi denceoft heseel ement sis
analogousoraki ntothedi f
ferencebetweenul ti
mat efactsandevi denti
ar yfactsinci vi
lcases.
Ulti
mat efactsaretheessent i
alandsubst anti
alfactswhichei therformt hebasi soft he
primaryrightanddut yorwhi chdirectl
ymakeupt hewr ongfulactsoromi ssionsoft he
defendant ,
whileevidenti
aryfactsar ethosewhicht endtopr oveorestabl i
shsai dul t
imate
facts.
[25]Applyingthisanalogytot hecaseatbar ,knowledgeofi nsuffi
ciencyoff undsisthe
ult
imat efact,
orelementoft heof f
enset hatneedst obepr oved,whiledishonoroft hecheck
presentedwi t
hinninety(90)daysi smer elyt
heevidentiaryfactofsuchknowl edge.

Itiswor t
hr ei
terati
ngthatcourt
swi l
lnotnor mallyi
nterf
erewi ththeprosecutor
'sdiscret
ionto
fil
eacr iminalcasewhent hereisprobablecauset odoso.Pr obablecausehasbeendef i
ned
ast heexistenceofsuchf actsandcircumst ancesaswoul dexci t
ethebeliefi
nar easonable
mi nd,acti
ngont hefact
swi t
hintheknowl edgeoft heprosecutor,t
hatthepersonchar gedwas
guiltyofthecr i
mef orwhichhewaspr osecuted.[
26]Thepr osecutorhasruledthatthereis
probablecausei nthi
scase,andweseenor easont odi
sturbt hefi
nding.

WHEREFORE, theassail
edResolut
ionoft heCourtofAppealsdat
ed26October1999which
dismissedthepeti
ti
onf orrevi
ewquestioningtheresol
uti
onoftheOf
fi
ceoftheRegionalSt
ate
Prosecutor,
RegionIV,dated22April1999, andi
tsorderdat
ed31August1999denying
reconsider
ati
onisAFFIRMED.Cost sagai nstpet
it
ioner
.

SOORDERED.

Mendoza,
Buena,
andDeLeon,
Jr.
,JJ.
,concur
.

Qui
sumbi
ng,
J.,
onof
fi
ciall
eave.