Case Digest (G.R. No. 233015)
Facts:
In G.R. No. 233015, decided on October 16, 2019 under the 1987 Constitution, petitioners Luis L. Co and Alvin S. Co, President and Assistant Vice-President of Jade Progressive Savings and Mortgage Bank in Manila from March to December 1997, were charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 15, Manila, with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly defrauding the bank through fictitious payments to Acme Investigation Services, Inc., a non-existent security agency. The amended information alleged that petitioners conspired to authorize eight manager’s checks totaling ₱3,032,909.00 for services never rendered, and diverted the proceeds into bank accounts they controlled under assumed names. After their motion to quash failed, they pleaded not guilty, underwent pre-trial, and faced full trial. The RTC convicted them of estafa on February 11, 2013 and sentenced them to prision correccional to reclusion temporal plus indemnity to the banCase Digest (G.R. No. 233015)
Facts:
- Background and Procedural Antecedents
- Petitioners Luis L. Co and Alvin S. Co were President and Assistant Vice-President, respectively, of Jade Progressive Savings and Mortgage Bank (Jade Bank) during 1997.
- Original Information charged them with estafa under Article 315(1)(b) RPC; after motion to quash, an amended Information charged estafa under Article 315(2)(a) RPC.
- The RTC denied motions to quash, conducted arraignment (June 7, 2004), pre‐trial, and trial on the merits; petitioners pleaded not guilty.
- Prosecution Version
- Jade Bank was placed under liquidation in 2001. Petitioners were officers and shareholders.
- They allegedly conspired to defraud the bank by using false billing statements from a fictitious security agency, Acme Investigation Services, Inc.
- Petitioners authorized eight manager’s checks totaling ₱3,032,909, purportedly to pay Acme, and deposited proceeds into Metrobank and Citytrust accounts controlled via aliases (Nelson Sia, Antonio Santos, Al Mendoza).
- Acme was neither registered with the SEC nor licensed by the PNP, and no security services were rendered.
- Defense Version
- Petitioners denied any connection to Acme and claimed they signed vouchers only after accounting certification.
- They asserted that the accounting department approved payments and that they believed billing statements were genuine.
- Petitioner Luis could not recall if Acme actually provided security; he waived his formal offer of evidence.
Issues:
- Main Issues Raised by Petitioners
- Whether the facts support conviction for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) RPC.
- Whether the conviction lacks evidentiary basis due to unworthy or biased witness testimony.
- Whether conspiracy between the two petitioners was proven.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)