Case Digest (G.R. No. 233015)
Facts:
Luis L. Co and Alvin S. Co v. People of the Philippines, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 233015, October 16, 2019, Supreme Court First Division, Bersamin, C.J., writing for the Court.
The accused-petitioners, Luis L. Co (Luis) and Alvin S. Co (Alvin), were officers and shareholders of Jade Progressive Savings and Mortgage Bank (Jade Bank). They were originally charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 15, Manila, with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code; the Information alleged they conspired to authorize the release of P3,032,909.00 as payment to ACME Investigation Services, Inc., a non-existent agency, and misappropriated the funds. The RTC denied the petitioners’ initial motion to quash but ordered an amended Information.
The amended Information charged the petitioners with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, alleging they used false pretenses (a fictitious agency and contract) to cause Jade Bank to release manager’s checks totaling P3,032,909.00. The petitioners moved to quash the amended Information for procedural defects and for changing the statutory paragraph charged; the RTC denied the motion. At arraignment the petitioners pleaded not guilty; pre-trial ended June 7, 2004, a hold-departure order was issued, and trial followed.
At trial the prosecution presented eight witnesses (including Jade Bank officers and bank employees) and documentary exhibits showing eight manager’s checks issued between April and December 1997 payable to Acme, which evidence tended to show Acme was fictitious and that several checks were deposited into bank accounts the prosecution said were owned and controlled by the petitioners. The defense presented the two accused as witnesses and otherwise denied the accusations. The RTC convicted the petitioners of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) in a decision dated February 11, 2013, sentencing them and ordering indemnity of P3,032,909.00.
On appeal the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed with modification of penalty in a decision promulgated December...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the established facts support the conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
- Whether the conviction is devoid of evidentiary basis because it relied on testimony and evidence lacking probative value.
- Whether the proofs established a conspiracy betw...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)