Case Digest (G.R. No. 173905)
Facts:
Anthony L. Ng v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 173905, April 23, 2010, Supreme Court Third Division, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Anthony L. Ng applied in early 1997 for a PhP 3,000,000 credit line with Asiatrust Development Bank, Inc. As part of the bank’s credit investigation he submitted contracts with Islacom, Smart and Infocom, listings of projects and collectible amounts. On May 30, 1997 Asiatrust approved the credit line; petitioner signed a Credit Line Agreement, an Application and Agreement for Irrevocable L/C, two Trust Receipt Agreements (under L/C Nos. 1963 and 1964) and Promissory Notes. The Promissory Notes carried maturity dates but both Trust Receipt Agreements had the space for maturity date left blank by Asiatrust.
The goods delivered under the L/Cs—chemicals and metal plates—were used by petitioner to fabricate telecommunication towers installed at project sites (Isabel, Leyte; Panabo, Davao; Tongonan). When petitioner experienced collection problems with Islacom he fell behind on payments to Asiatrust. Asiatrust’s appraiser, Villarva Linga, inspected petitioner’s premises and reported that approximately 97% of the goods were “sold-out” and only 3% remained; Linga later testified that this was a presumption. Negotiations between the parties for restructuring failed.
Asiatrust’s remedial account officer Ma. Girlie C. Bernardez filed a complaint-affidavit on March 16, 1999; an Information for Estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Section 3 of PD 115 was filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Quezon City, on September 12, 1999. Petitioner pleaded not guilty and a full trial followed. Asiatrust and petitioner later attempted a compromise; petitioner issued several postdated checks and made partial payments; a proposed compromise did not push through.
On May 29, 2001, the RTC, Branch 95, found petitioner guilty of estafa and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty and ordered restitution of PhP 2,971,650.00 with interest. The trial court treated the agreements as trust-receipt transactions and concluded petitioner misappropriated proceeds or goods. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
On August 29, 2003 the CA (in CA-G.R. CR No. 25525) affirmed the RTC’s conviction, holding petitioner knew the complainant acted for Asiatrust and that the failure to deliver proceeds or goods constitutes estafa malum prohibitum. The CA denied reconsideration...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the change in the name of the offended party without amendment of the Information violate petitioner’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation?
- Did the prosecution prove the second element of estafa—misappropriation or conversion—beyond reasonable doubt?
- Did the prosecution prove the third element of estafa—that any misappropriation or conversion was to the prejudice of the offended party—beyond reasonable doubt?
- Did the prosecution prove the fourth element of estafa—demand—such that criminal liability attached?
- Was the transaction between petitioner and Asiatrust a trust receipt transaction subject to PD 115, thereby giving rise to crimina...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)