Note: For The Succeeding Parts, Di Na Ultimate Facts-Yung Movement Na Lang NG Case From One Level To Another, Etc.
Note: For The Succeeding Parts, Di Na Ultimate Facts-Yung Movement Na Lang NG Case From One Level To Another, Etc.
Note: For The Succeeding Parts, Di Na Ultimate Facts-Yung Movement Na Lang NG Case From One Level To Another, Etc.
Parties:
Alfredo Ching – petitioner; Senior Vice-President of Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc. (PBMI)
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) - respondent bank
FACTS:
Petitioner Ching applied for the issuance of commercial letter of credits with the RCBC to
finance its importation of assorted goods and the same was approved by the said bank.
Irrevocable letters of credit were issued in favor of Ching. The goods were purchased and
delivered in trust to PBMI. Petitioner signed 13 trust receipts as surety, acknowledging delivery
of various goods.
Under such receipts, petitioner Ching agreed to hold the goods in trust for the said bank, with
authority to sell but not by way of conditional sale, pledge, or otherwise. Once goods were sold,
to turnover its proceeds as soon as received ---to apply against relative acceptances and
payment of other indebtedness to RCBC. In case the goods remained unsold within the
specified period, the goods were to be returned to respondent bank without any need of
demand. Thus, said “goods, manufactured products or proceeds thereof, whether in the form
of money or bills, receivables, or accounts separate and capable of identification” were
respondent bank’s property.
Respondent bank filed a criminal complaint for estafa when the petitioner failed to return the
goods or its value to RCBC when the trust receipts matured.
(Note: for the succeeding parts, di na ultimate facts—yung movement na lang ng case from
one level to another, etc.)
After preliminary investigation, the City prosecutor found probable cause on charging estafa
under Art. 315, paragraph 1(b) of the RPC, in relation to PD No. 115 (Trust receipts Law). 13
Informations were filed against Ching before the RTC Manila.
When Ching appealed on the resolution by the City Prosecutor to the Minister of Justice, the
same was dismissed on March 1987. When a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by the
petitioner, the same was then granted by the Minister of Justice on December 1987 and the
City Prosecutor was ordered to move for withdrawal of the cases. RCBC then filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, but it was denied on February 1988.
The RTC granted the MOTION TO QUASH filed by the petitioner on the ground that thee
allegations did not amount to estafa.
On February 1995, after the Supreme Court had decided on another unrelated case covering an
issue of violating the P.D. 115 (check notes section), RCBC re-filed the criminal complaint for
estafa against Ching before Manila City Prosecutor. After preliminary investigation, the
complaint was dismissed due to lack of finding probable cause to charge against the
Petitioner---as the latter’s liability was only civil and not criminal, for signing the trust receipts
as surety.
RCBC appealed the resolution before the Department of Justice via a petition for Review.
In July 1999, the Secretary of Justice granted the petition and reversed the assailed resolution.
Conformably with the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice, the City Prosecutor filed 13
Informations against petitioner for violation of P.D. No. 115 before the RTC of Manila
Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with the CA, assailing
the resolutions of the Secretary of Justice. However, the CA dismissed the petition for lack of
merit and on procedural grounds.
On the merits of the petition, the CA ruled that the assailed resolutions of the Secretary of
Justice were correctly issued for the following reasons:
(a) petitioner, being the Senior Vice President of PBMI and the signatory to the trust
receipts, is criminally liable for violation of P.D. No. 115;
(b) the issue raised by the petitioner, on whether he violated P.D. No. 115 by his
actuations, had already been resolved and laid to rest in Allied Bank Corporation v.
Ordoñez; and
(c) petitioner was estopped from raising the City Prosecutor’s delay in the final
disposition of the preliminary investigation because he failed to do so in the DOJ.
a. Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petitioner filed by Petitioner Ching on the
ground that the Certification of Non-Forum Shopping incorporated therein was defective.
b. Whether or not the petitioner may be prosecuted for violation of P.D. No. 115 although he
signed the trust receipts merely as Senior Vice-President of PBMI and had no physical
possession of the goods?
HELD:
a. No. The Supreme Court affirms the ruling of the CA that the Certification of Non-forum
Shopping incorporated in the petition of Ching is indeed defective. Under Section 1, second
paragraph of Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, the petition should be accompanied
by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping, as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3,
Rule 46 of said Rules.
b. Yes. The Court rules that although petitioner signed the trust receipts merely as Senior Vice-
President of PBMI and had no physical possession of the goods, he cannot avoid prosecution for
violation of P.D. No. 115.
The crime defined in P.D. No. 115 is malum prohibitum but is classified as estafa under
paragraph 1(b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, or estafa with abuse of confidence.
It may be committed by a corporation or other juridical entity or by natural persons.
Though the entrustee is a corporation, nevertheless, the law specifically makes the officers,
employees or other officers or persons responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the
civil liabilities of such corporation and/or board of directors, officers, or other officials or
employees responsible for the offense. The rationale is that such officers or employees are
vested with the authority and responsibility to devise means necessary to ensure compliance
with the law and, if they fail to do so, are held criminally accountable; thus, they have a
responsible share in the violations of the law.
If the crime is committed by a corporation or other juridical entity, the directors, officers,
employees or other officers thereof responsible for the offense shall be charged and penalized
for the crime, precisely because of the nature of the crime and the penalty therefor. A
corporation cannot be arrested and imprisoned; hence, cannot be penalized for a crime
punishable by imprisonment. However, a corporation may be charged and prosecuted for a
crime if the imposable penalty is fine. Even if the statute prescribes both fine and imprisonment
as penalty, a corporation may be prosecuted and, if found guilty, may be fined.
NOTES:
- The Supreme Court held that the penal provision of P.D. No. 115 encompasses any act
violative of an obligation covered by the trust receipt; it is not limited to transactions
involving goods which are to be sold (retailed), reshipped, stored or processed as a
component of a product ultimately sold. The Court also ruled that “the non-payment of
the amount covered by a trust receipt is an act violative of the obligation of the
entrustee to pay.
Swindling (estafa).—Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned
hereinbelow shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum
period, if the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and
if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed
in its maximum period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty
which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the
accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the purpose of the other provisions of this
Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be;
2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of
the fraud is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos;
3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period, if such amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and
4th. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if such amount does not exceed
200 pesos, provided that in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the
following means; x x x”