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. [August
20, 1992] Alicia Rubia visited Dolores Evangelista at the latter’s
grocery store asking to have a check berediscounted for P55,000.
The said check was drawn by Leodegario Bayani against his account
in PSBank and waspostdated to August 29, 1992.2.
 Rubia told Evangelista that Bayani asked her to rediscount the check
for him because he needed the money. Considering that Rubia and
Bayani were long-time customers at the store and she knew Bayani
to be a good man, Evangelista agreed to rediscount the check.3.
 After Rubia endorsed the check, Evangelista gave her the amount of
P55,000.00.4.
 [September 11, 1992] When Evangelista deposited the check in her
account with the Far East Bank & Trust Company,it was dishonored
by the drawee bank for the reason that on September 1, 1992, Bayani
closed his account with thePSBank.5.
 The dishonor of the check was stamped at its dorsal portion. As of
August 27, 1992, the balance of Bayanis accountwith the bank was
P2,414.96.6.
  Evangelista then informed Rubia of the dishonor of the check and complaint or information, both of which are filed in court. If a complaint is
demanded the return of her P55,000.00. Rubiareplied that she was filed directly in court, the same must be filed by the offended party and in
only requested by Bayani to have the check rediscounted and advised case of information, the same must be filed by the fiscal. However, a
Evangelista to see him.7. 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
 When Evangelista talked to Bayani, she was told that Rubia despite the finding of the lower court that petitioner had no obligation to
borrowed the check from him.8. account to Skiva.
 
 Thereafter, Evangelista, Rubia, Bayani and his wife, Aniceta, had a
conference in the office of Atty. Emmanuel Velasco, Evangelista’s
lawyer. Later, in the Office of the Barangay Captain Nestor Baera,
Evangelista showed Bayani a photocopy of the dishonored check and
demanded payment thereof.9.
 
 Bayani and Aniceta, on one hand, and Rubia, on the other, pointed to
each other and denied liability thereon. Aniceta told Rubia that she
should be the one to pay since the P55, 000.00 was with her, but the
latter insisted that the said amount was in payment of the pieces of
jewelry Aniceta purchased from her.10.
 
 Upon Atty. Velasco’s prodding, Evangelista suggested Bayani and
Rubio to pay P25,000.00 each. Still, Bayani and Rubio pointed to the
other as the one solely liable for the amount of the check. Rubia
reminded Aniceta that she was given the check as payment of the
pieces of jewelry Aniceta bought from her.

ISSUE: Does Skiva have the authority to institute the present action of
estafa?
RULING:
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