Case Digest (G.R. No. 90828)
Facts:
Melvin Colinares and Lordino Veloso v. Honorable Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 90828, September 05, 2000, the Supreme Court First Division, Davide Jr., C.J., writing for the Court.In 1979 Petitioners contracted with the Carmelite Sisters of Cagayan de Oro to renovate a convent. On 30 October 1979 they obtained construction materials from CM Builders Centre and, on 31 October 1979, applied at the Philippine Banking Corporation (PBC), Cagayan de Oro branch, for a commercial letter of credit in favor of CM Builders Centre. PBC approved a letter of credit for P22,389.80 and Petitioners signed a pro-forma trust receipt as security; the loan was due 29 January 1980. PBC debited a marginal deposit and repeatedly demanded payment when Petitioners fell behind; Petitioners made several partial payments and sought extensions.
On 14 January 1983 an Information was filed in Branch 18, Regional Trial Court (Criminal Case No. 1390) charging Petitioners with violation of P.D. No. 115 (Trust Receipts Law) in relation to Article 315, paragraph (1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code, alleging they converted proceeds or failed to remit proceeds of sale in trust-receipt transactions. At trial Veloso testified that the transaction was represented to them as a simple loan by PBC’s then-manager and that they signed documents without reading their fine print; PBC presented documentary and testimonial evidence including a charge invoice dated 31 October 1979.
On 7 July 1986 the trial court convicted Petitioners of estafa under P.D. No. 115 in relation to Article 315 and sentenced them to prison and solidary indemnity, concluding the transaction was a trust receipt and Petitioners disposed of the goods in a manner punishable under Section 13 of P.D. No. 115. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CR No. 05408), which on 6 March 1989 affirmed with modification by increasing the penalty; the CA discredited Petitioners’ testimony and accepted the documentary evidence.
Petitioners filed a Motion for New Trial/Reconsideration alleging suppression of a Disclosure Statement on Loan/Credit Transaction showing a 14% interest, which would demonstrate a loan rather than a trust receipt; the Court of Appeals denied the motion on 16 October 1989 as the document constituted forgotten, not newly discovered, evidence. Petitioners filed a petition with the Supreme Court on 16 November 1989 raising (1) denial of due process in the refusal to grant a new trial on the supposed newly discovered Disclosure Statement, and (2) whether the transaction was in law a trust receipt punishable under P.D. No. 115 or merely a loan (and whether novation by installment payments removed criminal liability). The Office of the Solicitor General opposed. Petitioners later claimed full payment and production of an Affidavit of Desistance by PBC; ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals’ denial of Petitioners’ Motion for New Trial on the ground that the Disclosure Statement on Loan/Credit Transaction was not newly discovered evidence constitute a denial of due process?
- Assuming a valid trust receipt existed, were Petitioners properly charged, tried and convicted for violation of Section 13, P.D. No. 115, in relation to Article 315, paragraph (1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code, notwithstanding the alleged novation that converted the trustor‑trustee ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)