Case Digest (G.R. No. 237553)
Facts:
BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Antonio Choa, G.R. No. 237553, July 10, 2019, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. On February 28, 2008 an Information was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City (assigned in San Juan City) charging Antonio Choa (then president and general manager of Camden Industries, Inc.) with violation of Presidential Decree No. 115 (the Trust Receipts Law) to the prejudice of BDO Unibank, Inc. (the private complainant). The Information alleged conversion/misapplication of proceeds in the amount of P7,875,904.96 arising from several trust‑receipt agreements. Trial proceeded with the prosecution presenting witnesses Gerard Santiago and Froilan Carada and filing a Formal Offer of Documentary Evidence on August 20, 2014, which the RTC admitted in an Order dated September 12, 2014. That Order also directed Choa to comment on the prosecution’s evidence.Choa filed a Comment (September 25, 2014) and, on October 13, 2014, a Motion for Leave to file a Demurrer to Evidence together with the Demurrer. The prosecution opposed, arguing the Motion for Leave was filed beyond the five‑day period prescribed by Rule 119, Section 23, and that civil liabilities arising from criminal liability are not compensable. On November 26, 2014 the RTC granted Choa’s Demurrer to Evidence (acquitting him), concluding among others that (a) BDO and Camden owed each other amounts (BDO a P90M debt to Camden; Camden P20M to BDO) that could be the subject of legal compensation, (b) the prosecution failed to prove the specific P7,875,904.96 or that it formed part of the P20M, and (c) petitioner failed to prove criminal intent. The RTC denied the prosecution’s Motion for Reconsideration on February 12, 2015.
BDO filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse: that the Motion for Leave was late; that the RTC ruled without resolving the Motion for Leave or giving BDO due process; that the RTC improperly relied on the (then‑nonfinal) civil judgment in the Pasig civil case as offset; and that the prosecution had established a prima facie case. The CA, Ninth Division, in a Decision dated October 24, 2017, denied the petition and affirmed the RTC Orders, holding that the Motion for Leave was timely because the prosecution had not yet been deemed to have rested until the RTC ruled on admissibility, that BDO was afforded due process (it filed Opposition and MR), and that petitioner failed to show grave abuse of discretion. The CA denied reconsideration in a February 13, 2018 Resolution.
BDO then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, contesting the CA Decision and Resolution. Choa filed a Comment; BDO filed a Reply. BDO argued inter alia that the Motion for Leave was untimely, that the RTC should have resolved the Motion for Leave first and afforded BDO an opportunity to oppose the Demurrer after such resolution, that the RTC improperly relied on the Pasig civil case (whi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does private complainant BDO Unibank, Inc. have legal personality to file a petition for certiorari (special civil action) attacking the RTC Orders insofar as the civil aspect of the case is concerned?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in granting Antonio Ch...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)