G.R. No. 159418-19 - De Joya vs. Jail Warden of Batangas City

Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc. (BDO) filed a complaint leading to the filing of an Information on August 28, 2009, against Ruby O. Alda (Ruby), Elizabeth O. Alda (Elizabeth), and Michael S. Bungque (Bungque) for Estafa through Misappropriation under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 09-2643 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 143.
Ruby and Bungque pleaded not guilty; Elizabeth remained at large.

Ruby’s Fast Card account was over-credited an amount totaling PHP 62,461,490.85 from March to November 2008 via a series of withdrawals that exceeded the actual funds reloaded (PHP 1,662,483.57).
Evidence showed that the accused conspired to withdraw and misuse the over-credited amount which they failed to return despite demands.
Ruby admitted to returning part of the money through a Deed of Dation in Payment, involving properties and cash equivalent.
Testimonies were given mainly by BDO officers involved in banking transactions, legal, securities monitoring, and IT services.

Ruby and Bungque contested the RTC’s jurisdiction as the withdrawals were conducted in Dubai.
Ruby claimed she withdrew only from her own account and had already returned a substantial amount.
They argued BDO did not prove that the over-credited money was held in trust.

Ruby was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa through Misappropriation and sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay actual, moral damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Bungque was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.
Elizabeth was ordered arrested as she was at large.

Elizabeth’s appeal was dismissed for lack of RTC jurisdiction over her.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) unexpectedly recommended acquittal of Ruby and Elizabeth citing lack of jurisdiction, failure of proof, and that BDO’s system errors caused over-crediting.
BDO filed a Motion for Intervention on appeal, which was denied for being filed too late and lacking a pleading-in-intervention.
BDO claimed they had actively participated as private prosecutor before the RTC and the denial of their motion deprived them of due process.

Whether BDO timely filed its Motion for Intervention and whether the appellate court erred in denying it based on timing and procedural grounds.
Whether BDO, as private offended party, has a legal interest to intervene despite the case being at the appellate level.
Whether the denial of BDO’s intervention resulted in violation of due process rights of BDO and the State.
Jurisdictional question whether criminal acts committed abroad fall within Philippine courts’ authority.