Case Digest (G.R. No. 255367)
Facts:
Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc. v. The People of the Philippines, and Ruby O. Alda, G.R. No. 255367, October 02, 2024, Supreme Court First Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court. BDO filed a complaint that culminated in an Information dated August 28, 2009 charging Ruby O. Alda, Elizabeth O. Alda, and Michael S. Bungque with Estafa through Misappropriation under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code for alleged withdrawals far in excess of actual reloads to Ruby’s Fast Card account, resulting in an alleged over-credited amount of PHP 46,829,806.14. The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City, Branch 143.At the RTC Ruby and Bungque pleaded not guilty; Elizabeth remained at large. The prosecution presented seven witnesses, mostly BDO officers, and documentary evidence tracking international ATM withdrawals from Dubai between 2007–2008. The trial court found that the Fast Card had been over-credited by a glitch but that Ruby and Bungque repeatedly withdrew funds they knew exceeded the actual deposited amount, and on April 26, 2017 convicted Ruby of estafa and ordered her to return PHP 45,799,007.28 plus damages; Bungque was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence.
Both Ruby and Elizabeth appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the People on appeal, filed a Manifestation recommending acquittal and argued, inter alia, that the withdrawals were approved abroad and that the over-crediting was a bank error constituting a payment by mistake (citing lack of juridical possession and international locus). After submission, BDO—which had actively participated at trial as private prosecutor—filed an Entry of Appearance with Motion for Intervention before the CA, urging protection of its civil interest and asserting that the trial court properly found BDO owner of the over-credited funds; the CA denied intervention (Sept. 8, 2020 Resolution) on grounds BDO should have intervened before rendition of judgm...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in denying BDO’s motion to intervene in the appealed criminal case...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)