Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 11

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 1!!". #u$ust 1"% &'''
METROPO(IT#N )#N* +n, TRUST COMP#N-% petitioner, vs.
.O#/UIN TOND# +n, M#. CRISTIN# TOND#% respondents.
D E C I S I O N
GON0#G#
1
RE-ES% J .2
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set
aside the Decision [1] of the Court of Appeals [] dated !une "# 1""$ in CA%&'R' () *o' +$11+
which, -1. reversed Resolution *o' 41/# s' 1""4# [+] dated !une 1# 1""4 of the Depart0ent of
!ustice [4] directing to file the appropriate 1nfor0ation against herein respondents !oa2uin )'
Tonda and Ma' Cristina 3' Tonda for violation of )'D' 115 in relation to Article +15 -1. -4. of the
Revised )enal Code5 and -. effectivel6 set aside the Resolutions dated April /# 1""5 [5] and
!ul6 1 1""5 [7] of the Depart0ent of !ustice den6ing the 0otions for reconsideration'
(pouses !oa2uin &' Tonda and Ma' Cristina 8' Tonda# hereinafter referred to as the T9*DA(#
applied for and were granted co00ercial letters of credit 46 petitioner Metropolitan :ank and
Trust Co0pan6# hereinafter referred to as M;TR9:A*< for a period of eight -$. 0onths
4eginning !une 14# 1""= to >e4ruar6 1# 1""1 in connection with the i0portation of raw te?tile
0aterials to 4e used in the 0anufacturing of gar0ents' The T9*DA( acting 4oth in their
capacit6 as officers of @one6 Tree Apparel Corporation -@TAC. and in their personal capacities#
e?ecuted eleven -11. trust receipts to secure the release of the raw 0aterials to @TAC' The
i0ported fa4rics with a principal value of )#$=+#==='== were withdrawn 46 @TAC under the 11
trust receipts e?ecuted 46 the T9*DA(' Due to their failure to settle their o4ligations under the
trust receipts upon 0aturit6# M;TR9:A*< through counsel# sent a letter dated August 1=#
1""# 0aking its final de0and upon the T9*DA( to settle their past due TRABC accounts on or
4efore August 15# 1""' The6 were infor0ed that 46 said date# the o4ligations would a0ount to
)4#$/=#4""'1+' Despite repeated de0ands therefor# the T9*DA( failed to co0pl6 with their
o4ligations stated in the trust receipts agree0ents# i'e' the T9*DA( failed to account to
M;TR9:A*< the goods andAor proceeds of sale of the 0erchandise# su4Cect of the trust
receipts'
Conse2uentl6# on *ove04er "# 1""# Metro4ank# through its account officer ;ligio Ba4og# !r'#
filed with the )rovincial )rosecutor of RiDal a co0plaintAaffidavit against the T9*DA( for
violation of )'D' *o' 115 -Trust Receipts Baw. in relation to Article +15 -1. -4. of the Revised
)enal Code' 9n >e4ruar6 1# 1""+# the assigned Assistant )rosecutor of RiDal su40itted a
Me0orandu0 to the )rovincial )rosecutor reco00ending that the co0plaint in 1'(' *o' "%$/=+
4e dis0issed on the ground that the co0plainants had failed to esta4lish Ethe e?istence of the
essential ele0ents of ;stafa as charged'F The reco00endation was approved 46 RiDal )rovincial
)rosecutor Mauro Castro on Ma6 1$# 1""+'
M;TR9:A*< then appealed to the Depart0ent of !ustice -D9!.' 9n !une 1# 1""4#
8ndersecretar6 Ra0on' (' ;sguerra reversed the findings of the )rovincial )rosecutor of RiDal
and ordered the latter to file the appropriate infor0ation against the T9*DA( as charged in the
co0plaint'
The T9*DA( i00ediatel6 sought a reconsideration of the D9! Resolution 4ut their 0otion was
denied 46 the then acting !ustice (ecretar6 De0etrio &' De0etria in a Better%Resolution dated
April /# 1""5' A second 0otion for reconsideration 46 the T9*DA( was likewise denied 46 then
!ustice (ecretar6 Teofisto &uingona on !ul6 1# 1""5'
(u4se2uentl6# the T9*DA( filed with the Court of Appeals a special civil action for certiorari
and prohi4ition with application for a te0porar6 restraining order or a writ of preli0inar6
inCunction# [/] which was docketed as CA%&'R' () *o' +$11+' The6 contended therein that the
(ecretar6 of !ustice acted without or in e?cess of Curisdiction in issuing the afore0entioned
Resolution dated !ul6 1# 1""5 den6ing with finalit6 their 0otion for the reconsideration of the
Resolution dated April /# 1""5 of the Acting (ecretar6 of !ustice# which in turn denied their
0otion for the reconsideration of Resolution *o' 41/# s' "4# dated !une 1# 1""4# directing to file
the appropriate 1nfor0ation against the T9*DA('
The Court of Appeals granted the T9*DA(G petition and ordered the cri0inal co0plaint against
the0 dis0issed' The Court of Appeals held that M;TR9:A*< had failed to show a prima facie
case that the T9*DA( violated the Trust Receipts Baw in relation to Art' +15 -1. -4. of the
Revised )enal Code in the face of convincing proof that Hthat the a0ount of )'$ Million
representing the outstanding o4ligation of the T9*DA( under the trust receipts account had
alread6 4een settled 46 the0 in co0pliance with the loan restructuring proposal5 and that in the
a4sence of a loan restructuring agree0ent# M;TR9:A*< could still validl6 appl6 the a0ount
as pa60ent thereof'H The relevant portions of the Court of Appeals decision are 2uoted as
follows,
H)etitioners ad0itted that in 1""1 their co0pan6# the @one6 Tree Apparel Corporation -@TAC.#
had so0e financial reversals 0aking it difficult for the0 to co0pl6 with their loan o4ligations
with Metro4ank' The6 were then constrained to propose a loan restructuring agree0ent with the
private respondent to ena4le the0 to finall6 settle all outstanding o4ligations with the latter' 1n a
letter dated + (epte04er 1""1# petitioner !oa2uin Tonda su40itted a proposed Boan
Restructuring (che0e to Metro4ank' 1n said letter# petitioner Tonda proposed to i00ediatel6 pa6
in full the outstanding principal charges under the trust receipts account and the re0aining
o4ligations under a separate schedule of pa60ent' )etitioners attached with said letter an
ite0iDed proposal -Attach0ent HAH.# part of which reads,
1' Trust Receipts % The new 0anage0ent and' Mr' !oa2uin &' Tonda will pa6 i00ediatel6 the
entire principal of the outstanding Trust Receipts a0ounting to ) #$=+#="/'14' Ihile the interest
accrued up to (epte04er 1+# 1""1 a0ounting to ) 4="#7=1'5/ plus the additional interest shall 4e
re%structured together with ite0 no' 4elow' A Coint sharing account in the na0e of !oa2uin &'
Tonda and Iang Tien ;n e2ual to Trust Receipt a0ount of 1'$ Million will 4e opened at
Metro4ank Makati' -e0phasis supplied.
1t would appear that the aforestated a0ount of 1'$ Million was erroneousl6 written since the
intention of the petitioners was to open an account of ) '$ Million to pa6 the entire principal of
the outstanding trust receipts account' 1n fact# also on + (epte04er 1""1# petitioner !oa2uin
Tonda and Iang Tien ;n deposited four different checks with a total a0ount of )#$==#==='==
with Metro4ank' The checks were received 46 a certain >lor C' *aanep' *ota4l6# the petitioners
had o4tained a written acknowledge0ent of receipt of the checks totaling )'$ Million fro0 the
Metro4ank officer in order to show proof of co0pliance with the loan restructuring proposal' 1f
the petitioners had intended it to 4e a si0ple deposit# then a deposit slip with a 0achine
validation 46 the private respondent 4ank would have otherwise 4een sufficient'
1n a letter dated 9cto4er 1""1# Metro4ank wrote to the petitioners infor0ing the0 that the
4ank had accepted their proposal su4Cect to certain conditions# the first of which referred to the
i00ediate pa60ent of the a0ount of )'$ Million# representing the outstanding trust receipts
account' The petitioners appeared to have offered a counter proposal such that no final agree0ent
had 6et 4een reached'
@owever# the succeeding negotiations 4etween petitioners and Metro4ank# after the initial offer
of + (epte04er 1""1 was 0ade# dealt with the other outstanding o4ligations while the 0atter
regarding the trust receipts account re0ained unchanged5 therefore# it was settled 4etween the
parties that the a0ount of )'$ Million should 4e paid to cover all outstanding o4ligations under
the trust receipts account' Despite the ina4ilit6 of 4oth parties to reach a 0utuall6 agreea4le loan
restructured agree0ent# the a0ount of )'$ Million which was deposited on + (epte04er 1""1
46 the petitioners appears to re0ain intact and untouched as Metro4ank had failed to show
evidence that the 0one6 has 4een withdrawn fro0 the savings account of the petitioners'
Moreover# the deposit 0ade 46 the petitioners was 0ade known to Metro4ank clearl6 as a
co0pliance with the proposed loan restructuring agree0ent' As shown in the correspondence
0ade 46 the petitioners on $ >e4ruar6 1"" to Metro4ank# after the latter had 0ade a for0al
de0and for pa60ent of all outstanding o4ligations# the deposit was 0entioned# to wit,
HMa6 we e0phasiDe that to show sincerit6 and financial capa4ilit6# soon after we received 6our
letter dated 9cto4er # 1""1 infor0ing us of 6our approval of the restructuring and
consolidation of our fir0Gs o4ligations# a personal account was opened 46 two -. of our
stockholders in the a0ount e2uivalent to the TRABC# Account of a4out )'$ Million which
deposit is still 0aintained with 6our 4ank# free fro0 an6 lien or encu04rance# and 0a6 4e
applied an6ti0e to the pa60ent of the TRABC Account upon the i0ple0entation 46 the parties of
the ter0s of restructuring'HH-e0phasis supplied.
The contention of Metro4ank that the 0one6 had not 4een actuall6 applied as pa60ent for
petitionersG outstanding o4ligation under the trust receipts account is a4solutel6 devoid of 0erit#
considering that the petitioners were still in the process of negotiating for a reasona4le loan
restructuring arrange0ent with Metro4ank when the latter a4ruptl6 a4andoned all efforts to
negotiate and instantl6 de0anded fro0 the petitioners the fulfill0ent of all their outstanding
o4ligations'
1n the case of Tan Tiong Tick vs. American Apothecaries # 75 )hil' 414# the (upre0e Court had
held that,
EIhen a depositor is inde4ted to a 4ank# and the de4ts are 0utual % that is# 4etween the sa0e
parties and in the# sa0e right % the 4ank 0a6 appl6 the deposit# or such portion thereof as 0a6 4e
necessar6# to the pa60ent of the de4t due it 46 the depositor# provided there is no e?press
agree0ent to the contrar6 and the deposit is not specificall6 applica4le to so0e other particular
purpose'F
Appl6ing the a4ove%0entioned ruling in this case# if the parties therefore fail to reach an
agree0ent regarding the restructuring of @TACGs loan# Metro4ank can validl6 appl6 the a0ount
deposited 46 the petitioners as pa60ent of the principal o4ligation under the trust receipts
account'
9n the 4asis of all the evidence 4efore 8s# this Court is convinced that the a0ount of )'$
Million representing the outstanding o4ligation of the petitioners under the trust receipts account
had alread6 4een settled 46 the petitioners' The 0one6 re0ains deposited under the savings
account of the petitioners awaiting a final agree0ent with Metro4ank regarding the loan
restructuring arrange0ent' Meanwhile# Metro4ank has the right to use the deposited a0ount in
connection with an6 of its 4anking 4usiness'
Iith convincing proof that the a0ount of )'$ Million deposited under petitionersG savings
account with Metro4ank was indeed intended to 4e applied as pa60ent for the outstanding
o4ligations of @TAC under the trust receipts# Metro4ank# therefore# had failed to show a pri0a
facie case that the petitioners had violated the Trust Receipts Baw -)'D' *o' 115. in relation to
Art' +15 of the Revised )enal Code' :esides# there is a4solutel6 no evidence suggesting that
Metro4ank has 4een da0aged 46 the proposal and the deposit 0ade 46 the petitioners' As noted
46 the prosecutor,
E1t is clear fro0 the evidence that co0plainant 4ank had# all the while# 4een infor0ed of the
steps undertaken 46 the respondents relative to the trust receipts and other financial o4ligations
vis%a%vis @TACGs financial difficulties' @ardl6 therefore# could it 4e said that respondents were
unfaithfull6# deceptivel6# deceitfull6 and fraudulentl6 dealing with co0plainant 4ank to warrant
an indict0ent for ;stafa'F [$]
@ence# this recourse to this Court where petitioner su40its for the consideration of this Court the
following issues,
1'
I@;T@;R M;TR9:A*< @A( (@9I* A )R1MA >AC1; 319BAT19* 9> T@; TR8(T
R;C;1)T( BAI 1* R;BAT19* T9 ART' +15 9> T@; R;31(;D );*AB C9D;
11'
I@;T@;R A* A&R;;M;*T IA( >9R&;D :;TI;;* T@; )ART1;( T@AT T@; '$
M1BB19* D;)9(1T;D 1* T@; !91*T ACC98*T 9> !9A&81* &' T9*DA A*D IA*&
T1;* ;* I98BD :; C9*(1D;R;D A( )AJM;*T >9R T@; 98T(TA*D1*&
9:B1&AT19*( 9> T@; ()98(;( T9*DA 8*D;R T@; TR8(T R;C;1)T(
111'
I@;T@;R 1*()1T; 9> T@; >A1B8R; 9> T@; )ART1;( T9 A&R;; 8)9* A
R;(TR8CT8R1*& A&R;;M;*T# M;TR9:A*< CA* (T1BB A))BJ T@; )'$ M1BB19*
D;)9(1T A( )AJM;*T T9 T@; )R1*C1)AB AM98*T C93;R;D :J T@; TR8(T
R;C;1)T(
13'
I@;T@;R DAMA&; @A( :;;* CA8(;D T9 M;TR9:A*< :;CA8(; 9> T@;
)R9)9(AB A*D 9> T@; D;)9(1T
3'
I@;T@;R M;TR9:A*< @A( T@; (TA*D1*& T9 )R9(;C8T; T@; CA(; A K89
31'
I@;T@;R T@; A((1&*;D ;RR9R( 1* T@; );T1T19* >9R C;RT19RAR1 >1B;D I1T@
T@1( @9*9RA:B; C98RT RA1(;( )8R;BJ K8;(T19*( 9> >ACT( ["]
1n response to the foregoing# the T9*DA( 0aintain that M;TR9:A*< has no legal standing to
file the present petition without the confor0it6 or authorit6 of the prosecutor as it deals solel6
with the cri0inal aspect of the case# a separate action to recover civil lia4ilit6 having alread6
4een instituted5 that the issues raised in the present petition are purel6 factual5 and that the
su4Cect trust receipts o4ligations have 4een e?tinguished 46 pa60ent or legal co0pensation'
Ie find for petitioner 4ank'
)reli0inaril6# we shall resolve the issues raised 46 the T9*DA( regarding the standing of
M;TR9:A*< to file the instant petition and whether the sa0e raises 2uestions of law'
The general rule is that it is onl6 the (olicitor &eneral who is authoriDed to 4ring or defend
actions on 4ehalf of the )eople or the Repu4lic of the )hilippines once the case is 4rought 4efore
this Court or the Court of Appeals' @owever# an e?ception has 4een 0ade that Hif there appears
to 4e grave error co00itted 46 the Cudge or lack of due process# the petition will 4e dee0ed filed
46 the private co0plainants therein as if it were filed 46 the (olicitor &eneral'H [1=] 1n that case#
the Court gave due course to the petition and allowed the petitioners to argue their case in lieu of
the (olicitor &eneral' Ie accord the sa0e treat0ent to the instant petition on account of the
grave errors co00itted 46 the Court of Appeals' Ie add that no infor0ation having 4een filed
6et in court# there is# strictl6 speaking# no case 6et for the )eople or the Repu4lic of the
)hilippines' 1n answer to the second issue raised 46 the T9*DA(# while the Curisdiction of the
(upre0e Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court
is li0ited to reviewing onl6 errors of law# not of fact# one e?ception to the rule is when the
factual findings co0plained of are devoid of support 46 the evidence on record or the assailed
Cudg0ent is 4ased on 0isappreciation of facts [11] # as will 4e shown to have happened in the
instant case'
1n the 0ain# the issue is whether or not the dis0issal 46 the Court of Appeals of the charge for
violation of the Trust Receipts Baw in relation to Art' +15-1. -4. of the Revised )enal Code
against the T9*DA( is warranted 46 the evidence at hand and 46 law'
The Court of Appeals gravel6 erred in reversing the Depart0ent of !ustice on the finding of
pro4a4le cause to hold the T9*DA( for trial' The docu0entar6 evidence presented during the
preli0inar6 investigation clearl6 show that there was pro4a4le cause to warrant a cri0inal
prosecution for violation of the Trust Receipts Baw'
The relevant penal provision of )'D' 115 provides,
(;C' 1+' Penalty Clause ' % The failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the
goods# docu0ents or instru0ents covered 46 a trust receipt to the e?tent of the a0ount owing to
the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods# docu0ents or instru0ents if
the6 were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the ter0s of the trust receipt shall constitute
the cri0e of estafa# punisha4le under the provisions of Article Three @undred and >ifteen#
)aragraph 9ne -4.# of Act *u04ered Three Thousand ;ight @undred and >ifteen# as a0ended#
otherwise known as the Revised )enal Code' 1f the violation or offense is co00itted 46 a
corporation# partnership# association or other Cudicial entities# the penalt6 provided for in this
Decree shall 4e i0posed upon the directors# officers# e0plo6ees or other officials or persons
therein responsi4le for the offense# without preCudice to the civil lia4ilities arising fro0 the
cri0inal offense
(ection 1 -4.# Article +15 of the Revised )enal Code under which the violation is 0ade to fall#
states,
H? ? ? (windling -estafa.' % An6 person who shall defraud another 46 an6 of the 0ans 0entioned
herein 4elow ? ? ?,
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 4' :6 0isappropriating or converting# to the preCudice of another# 0one6# goods#
or an6 other personal propert6 received 46 the offender in trust or on co00ission# or for
ad0inistration# or under an6 other o4ligation involving the dut6 to 0ake deliver6 of or to return
the sa0e# even though such o4ligation 4e totall6 or partiall6 guaranteed 46 a 4ond5 or 46 den6ing
having received such 0one6# goods# or other propert6'F
:ased on the foregoing# it is plain to see that the Trust Receipts Baw declares the failure to turn
over the goods or the proceeds realiDed fro0 the sale thereof# as a cri0inal offense punisha4le
under Article +15 -1. -4. of the Revised )enal Code' The law is violated whenever the entrustee
or the person to who0 the trust receipts were issued in favor of fails to, -1. return the goods
covered 46 the trust receipts5 or -. return the proceeds of the sale of the said goods' The
foregoing acts constitute estafa punisha4le under Article +15 -1. -4. of the Revised )enal Code'
&iven that various trust receipts were e?ecuted 46 the T9*DA( and that as entrustees# the6 did
not return the proceeds fro0 the goods sold nor the goods the0selves to M;TR9:A*<# there is
no dispute that that the T9*DA( failed to co0pl6 with the o4ligations under the trust receipts
despite several de0ands fro0 M;TR9:A*<'
>inding favora4l6 for the T9*DA(# however# and ordering the dis0issal of the co0plaint
against the0# the Court of Appeals held that, -1. the T9*DA( opened a savings account of )'$
Million to pa6 the entire principal of the outstanding trust receipts account5 -. the T9*DA(
o4tained fro0 a M;TR9:A*< officer [1] a written acknowledge0ent of receipt of checks
totaling )'$ Million in order to show proof of co0pliance with the loan restructuring proposal 5
-+. it was settled 4etween the parties that the a0ount of '$ Million should 4e paid to cover all
outstanding o4ligations under the trust receipts account5 -4. the 0one6 re0ains deposited under
the savings account of petitioners awaiting a final agree0ent with M;TR9:A*< regarding the
loan restructuring arrange0ent5 and that -5. there is no evidence suggesting that M;TR9:A*<
has 4een da0aged 46 the proposal and the deposit or that the T9*DA( e0plo6ed fraud and
deceit in their dealings with the 4ank'
The foregoing findings and conclusions are palpa4l6 erroneous'
>irst# the a0ount of )'$ 0illion was not directl6 paid to M;TR9:A*< to settle the trust
receipt accounts# 4ut deposited in a Coint account of !oa2uin &' Tonda and a certain Iang Tien
;n' 1n a letter dated >e4ruar6 $# 1""# signed 46 @TACGs 3ice )resident for >inance#
M;TR9:A*< was infor0ed that the a0ount H0a6 4e applied an6ti0e to the pa60ent of the
trust receipts account upon i0ple0entation of the parties of the ter0s of the restructuring'H [1+]
The parties failed to agree on the ter0s of the loan restructuring agree0ent as the offer 46 the
T9*DA( to restructure the loan was followed 46 a series of counter%offers which 6ielded
nothing' 1t is a?io0atic that acceptance of an offer 0ust 4e un2ualified and a4solute [14] to
perfect a contract' The alleged pa60ent of the trust receipts accounts never 4eca0e effectual on
account of the failure of the parties to finaliDe a loan restructuring arrange0ent'
(econd# the handwritten note 46 the M;TR9:A*< officer acknowledging receipt of the checks
a0ounting to )'$ Million 0ade no reference to the T9*DA(G trust receipt o4ligations# and we
cannot presu0e that it was an6thing 0ore than an ordinar6 4ank deposit' The Court of Appeals
citing the case of Tan Tiong Tick vs. American Apothecories [15] i0plied that in 0aking the
deposit# the T9*DA( are entitled to set off# 46 wa6 of co0pensation# their o4ligations to
M;TR9:A*<' @owever# Article 1$$ of the Civil Code provides that Hco0pensation shall not
4e proper when one of the de4ts consists in civil lia4ilit6 arising fro0 a penal offenseH as in the
case at 4ar' The raison d'etre for this is that# Hif one of the de4ts consists in civil lia4ilit6 arising
fro0 a penal offense# co0pensation would 4e i0proper and inadvisa4le 4ecause the satisfaction
of such o4ligation is i0perative'H [17]
Third# reliance on the negotiations for the settle0ent of the trust receipts o4ligations 4etween the
T9*DA( and M;TR9:A*< is si0pl6 0isplaced' The negotiations pertain and affect onl6 the
civil aspect of the case 4ut does not preclude prosecution for the offense alread6 co00itted' 1t
has 4een held that H[a]n6 co0pro0ise relating to the civil lia4ilit6 arising fro0 an offense does
not auto0aticall6 ter0inate the cri0inal proceeding against or e?tinguish the cri0inal lia4ilit6 of
the 0alefactor'H [1/] All told# the )'$ Million deposit could not 4e considered as having settled
the trust receipts o4ligations of the T9*DA( to the end of e?tinguishing an6 incipient cri0inal
culpa4ilit6 arising therefro0'
@ence# it has 4een held in 9ffice of the Court Administrator vs. Soriano [1$] that,
E??? it is too well%settled for an6 serious argu0ent that whether in 0alversation of pu4lic funds
or estafa# pa60ent# inde0nification# or rei04urse0ent of# or co0pro0ise as to# the a0ounts or
funds 0alversed or 0isappropriated# after the co00ission of the cri0e# affects onl6 the civil
lia4ilit6 of the offender 4ut does not e?tinguish his cri0inal lia4ilit6 or relieve hi0 fro0 the
penalt6 prescri4ed 46 law for the offense co00itted# 4ecause 4oth cri0es are pu4lic offenses
against the people that 0ust 4e prosecuted and penaliDed 46 the &overn0ent on its own 0otion#
though co0plete reparation should have 4een 0ade of the da0age suffered 46 the offended
parties' ???'H
As to the state0ent of the Court of Appeals that there is no evidence that M;TR9:A*< has
4een da0aged 46 the proposal and the deposit# it 0ust 4e clarified that the da0age can 4e traced
fro0 the non%fulfill0ent of an entrusteeGs o4ligation under the trust receipts' The nature of trust
receipt agree0ents and the da0age caused to trade circles and the 4anking co00unit6 in case of
violation thereof was e?plained in Vintola vs. IAA [1"] and echoed in People vs ' !itafan [=] ,
as follows,
H[t]rust receipt arrange0ents do not involve a si0ple loan transaction 4etween a creditor and a
de4tor%i0porter' Apart fro0 a loan feature# the trust receipt arrange0ent has a securit6 feature
that is covered 46 the trust receipt itself' The second feature is what provides the 0uch needed
financial assistance to traders in the i0portation or purchase of goods or 0erchandise through the
use of those goods or 0erchandise as collateral for the advance0ents 0ade 46 the 4ank' The title
of the 4ank to the securit6 is the one sought to 4e protected and not the loan which is a separate
and distinct agree0ent'H
??? ??? ???'
HTrust receipts are indispensa4le contracts in international and do0estic 4usiness transactions'
The prevalent use of trust receipts# the danger of their 0isuse andAor 0isappropriation of the
goods or proceeds realiDed fro0 the sale of goods# docu0ents or instru0ents held in trust for
entruster%4anks# and the need for regulation of trust receipt transactions to safeguard the rights
and enforce the o4ligations of the parties involved are the 0ain thrusts of )'D' 115' As correctl6
o4served 46 the (olicitor &eneral# )'D' 115# like :ata )a04ansa :lg' # punishes the act Hnot as
an offense against propert6# 4ut as an offense against pu4lic order' ? ? ? The 0isuse of trust
receipts therefore should 4e deterred to prevent an6 possi4le havoc in trade circles and the
4anking co00unit6' -citing BoDano vs' MartineD# 147 (CRA ++ [1"$7]5 Rollo# p' 5/. 1t is in the
conte?t of upholding pu4lic interest that the law now specificall6 designates a 4reach of a trust
receipt agree0ent to 4e an act that HshallH 0ake one lia4le foe estafa'H
The finding that there was no fraud and deceit is likewise 0isplaced Considering that the offense
is punished as a malum prohi"itum regardless of the e?istence of intent or 0alice' A 0ere failure
to deliver the proceeds of the sale or the goods if not sold# constitutes a cri0inal offense that
causes preCudice not onl6 to another# 4ut 0ore to the pu4lic interest' [1]
>inall6# it is worth6 of 0ention that a preli0inar6 investigation proper % whether or not there is
reasona4le ground to 4elieve that the accused is guilt6 of the offense and therefore# whether or
not he should 4e su4Cected to the e?pense# rigors and e04arrass0ent of trial % is the function of
the prosecutor' [] )reli0inar6 investigation is an e?ecutive# not a Cudicial function' [+] (uch
investigation is not part of the trial# hence# a full and e?haustive presentation of the partiesG
evidence is not re2uired# 4ut onl6 such as 0a6 engender a well%grounded 4elief that an offense
has 4een co00itted and that the accused is pro4a4l6 guilt6 thereof' [4]
(ection 4# Rule 11 of the Rules of Court recogniDes the authorit6 of the (ecretar6 of !ustice to
reverse the resolution of the provincial or cit6 prosecutor or chief state prosecutor upon petition
46 a proper part6' [5] !udicial review of the resolution of the (ecretar6 of !ustice is li0ited to a
deter0ination of whether there has 4een a grave a4use of discretion a0ounting to lack or e?cess
of Curisdiction considering that the full discretionar6 authorit6 has 4een delegated to the
e?ecutive 4ranch in the deter0ination of pro4a4le cause during a preli0inar6 investigation'
Courts are not e0powered to su4stitute their Cudg0ent for that of the e?ecutive 4ranch5 it 0a6#
however# look into the 2uestion of whether such e?ercise has 4een 0ade in grave a4use of
discretion' [7]
3eril6# there was no grave a4use of discretion on the part of the (ecretar6 of !ustice in directing
the filing of the 1nfor0ation against the T9*DA(# end the Court of Appeals overstepped its
4oundaries in reversing the sa0e without 4asis in law and in evidence' Ie e0phasiDe that for
purposes of preli0inar6 investigation# it is enough that there is evidence showing that a cri0e
has 4een co00itted and that the accused is pro4a4l6 guilt6 thereof' [/] :6 reason of the
a44reviated nature of preli0inar6 investigations# a dis0issal of the charges as a result thereof is
not e2uivalent to a Cudicial pronounce0ent of ac2uittal# [$] a converso # the finding of a prima
facie case to hold the accused for trial is not e2uivalent to a finding of guilt'
3HERE4ORE # the petition is here46 &RA*T;D' The assailed Decision is R;3;R(;D and
(;T A(1D;'
(9 9RD;R;D'
Melo# -Chair0an.# 3itug# )angani4an# and )urisi0a# !!'# concur'
[1] #ollo # pp' "%1$'
[] Third Division# co0posed of !' ;u4olo &' 3erDola -0e04er and ponente .5 and $$ ' !orge ('
10perial -chair0an. and Arte0io &' Tu2uero -0e04er.# concuring'
[+] #ollo # pp' 7$%/1'
[4] )er 8ndersecretar6 Ra0on (' ;sguerra as acting (ecretar6 of the Depart0ent of !ustice'
[5] )er Acting (ecretar6 De0etrio &' De0etria5 rollo # pp' 77%7/'
[7] )er (ecretar6 Teofisto T' &uingona# !r'5 rollo # p' 75'
[/] #ollo # CA%&'R' () *o' +$11+# pp' %1'
[$] #ollo # pp' 1+%1/'
["] #ollo # pp' 7/%7$'
[1=] Colu04ia )ictures ;ntertain0ent# 1nc' vs. Court of Appeals# 7 (CRA 1" -1""7.'
[11] Congregation of the Religious of the 3irgin Mar6 vs. Court of Appeals# "1 (CRA +$5
-1""$.'
[1] >lor C' *aanep'
[1+] Anne? EDF5 9R# p' 141'
[14] >irst )hilippine 1nternational :ank vs ' Court of Appeals# 5 (CRA 5" -1""7.5 Bi0ketkai
(ons Milling# 1nc' vs. Court of Appeals 55 (CRA 77 -1""7.'
[15] Supra.
[17] Arturo M' Tolentino# Civil Code of the )hilippines -KueDon Cit6, Central Baw4ook
)u4lishing Co'# 1nc'# 1""/.'
[1/] ChaveD vs. )residential Co00ission on &ood &overn0ent# "" (CRA /44 -1""$.'
[1$] 1+7 (CRA 471 -1"$5.'
[1"] 15= (CRA 5/$ -1"$/.'
[=] =/ (CRA /7 -1"".'
[1] I"id.
[] @o vs. )eople# $= (CRA +75 -1""/.'
[+] )eople vs. *avarro# /= (CRA +"+ -1""/.'
[4] Bedes0a vs. Court of Appeals# /$ (CRA 757 -1""/.'
[5] Ro4erts# !r' vs. Court of Appeals# 54 (CRA +=/ -1""7.'
[7] I"id
[/] >lores vs. (u0alCag# "= (CRA 57$ -1""$.'
[$] Bedes0a case# supra
The Bawphil )roCect L Arellano Baw >oundation

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi