Facts:

The case at bar involves Ma. Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal (petitioner), who is the president of Madrigal Transport, Inc. (MTI), and respondents Celestino M. Palma III, the vice-president of Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC), and Helen T. Chua, an account officer at FEBTC. The events trace back to 1997, when MTI secured a loan of USD 10 million from FEBTC for the acquisition of a vessel, M/V Alicia, through a Joint Venture Agreement with Lapanday Holdings Corporation.

On February 12, 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint-Affidavit against Palma for estafa under several provisions of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. She accused Palma of fraudulently imposing obligations on her and claimed to have paid out of pocket (Php 5,903,172.30) to protect her reputation after being told she was personally liable for a loan obligation that was considered abandoned.

In contrast, respondents claimed that the loan was granted with proper procedures and safeguards, and that petitioner had

...

Facts:

Parties and Background

• Petitioner: Ma. Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal, president of Madrigal Transport, Inc. (MTI).
• Respondents:
• Celestino M. Palma III – Vice-president of Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC).
• Helen T. Chua – Account officer of FEBTC.

Loan Transaction and Related Documents

• In 1997, MTI applied for and was granted a loan for the acquisition of a feeder vessel (M/V Alicia, formerly M/V Artemission) from FEBTC.
• Original loan application was for USD 10.5 million; later, due to a lower valuation of the vessel, petitioner reapplied for a loan in the reduced amount of USD 10 million.
• Multiple documents were exchanged during the process, including:
• Loan Agreement and Comprehensive Surety Agreement (CSA).
• Promissory Notes, Certificate of Non-Default, Borrowing Certificate, Notice of Borrowing, and Deeds (of Chattel Mortgage and Assignment).
• Petitioner signed two sets of documents:
• The first set pertaining to the USD 10.5 million loan (later claimed to have been abandoned or rendered inoperative).
• The second set for the approved USD 10 million loan, wherein she signed as the president of MLM Logistics International.

Allegations and Dispute on Liability

• Petitioner filed a Complaint-Affidavit on February 12, 1998 charging respondent Palma with estafa under several provisions of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
• She alleged that:
• Respondent Palma imposed additional obligations not originally contemplated.
• Her signature was used in a blank document, thereby making her personally liable under a CSA relating to the abandoned USD 10.5 million loan.
• As a result, she was forced to disburse personal funds amounting to Php5,903,172.30 to protect her reputation.
• Respondents’ Rebuttal:
• Respondent Palma contended that MTI's application was for an USD 11 million loan meant for a joint venture with Lapanday Holdings Corporation and Macondray Company.
• He argued the execution of the CSA and personal undertakings by petitioner and Luis P. Lorenzo, Jr. were standard and executed with petitioner’s consent.
• Helen T. Chua corroborated Palma’s narrative, suggesting that the criminal complaint was a ploy by petitioner to evade her personal liability.

Proceedings and Findings in the Criminal and Administrative Cases

• A Complaint-Affidavit and accompanying criminal complaint were initiated to charge respondents with estafa.
• An initial Resolution by the Office of the City Prosecutor on October 16, 1998, found probable cause (limited to estafa under paragraph 1[c] of Article 315).
• Subsequent postponement of arraignment and filing of an Information in the RTC of Manila took place.
• The Department of Justice (DOJ):
• On June 23, 2000, DOJ Secretary Tuquero reaffirmed the probable cause with a Resolution, charging estafa under paragraph 1(c).
• Later, a Resolution dated September 7, 2001, issued by Undersecretary Merceditas Gutierrez, reversed the previous finding of probable cause.
• Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration on September 27, 2001, which was ultimately denied on March 17, 2003.
• Petition for Certiorari Before the Court of Appeals (CA):
• Petitioner raised issues regarding the reversal of the DOJ Resolution and the alleged deceptive actions by respondents.
• The CA, on March 31, 2005, dismissed the petition and upheld the DOJ’s reversed Resolution, also denying petitioner’s subsequent Motion for Reconsideration on July 8, 2005.

Issue:

Statutory Classification of the Crime

• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in treating the crime as estafa under Article 315 paragraph 1(c) instead of paragraph 3(c).

Evidentiary Concerns Regarding the Document Transactions

• Whether the existence of two sets of loan documents, which allegedly reveal respondents’ deceptive practices, should abrogate petitioner’s property rights.

Allegations of Fraudulent Acts and Concealment

• Whether respondents committed fraud by using petitioner’s signature in blank and concealing critical documents.
• Whether such actions, if proven, would amount to estafa through the means of deceit or abuse of confidence.

Authority of the Undersecretary of the Department of Justice

• Whether Undersecretary Gutierrez had the authority to reverse a Resolution previously issued by the DOJ Secretary.
• Whether her exercise of delegated authority was proper given the change in office holders and the presumption that official acts are properly executed.

Sufficiency of Evidence to Establish Probable Cause

• Whether, based on the evidence presented, a well-founded belief that estafa was committed by respondents could be established.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)