Case Digest (G.R. No. 19190)
Facts:
The People of the Philippine Islands v. Venancio Concepcion, G.R. No. 19190, November 29, 1922, the Supreme Court En Banc, Malcolm, J., writing for the Court.The respondent in the criminal information was Venancio Concepcion, President and a member of the board of directors of the Philippine National Bank (PNB); the People of the Philippine Islands prosecuted him for violating Section 35 of Act No. 2747. The prosecution alleged that between April 10 and May 7, 1919, by telegrams and confirming letter, Concepcion authorized the manager of the Aparri branch to extend a credit of P300,000 to the firm Puno y Concepcion, S. en C., despite a May 17, 1918 memorandum by President Concepcion limiting the local manager’s loan-discounting discretion to P5,000 (in some cases up to P10,000) absent special authorization.
Pursuant to the presidential authorization, the Aparri branch extended credit aggregating P300,000 to Puno y Concepcion, S. en C., the only security being six demand notes; those notes and accrued interest were paid by July 17, 1919. The firm was capitalized at P100,000; Rosario San Agustin, described as “casada con Gral. Venancio Concepcion,” contributed P50,000, facts relied upon by the prosecution to show the defendant’s indirect interest in the borrowing firm.
Concepcion was charged in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan with violating Section 35 (which forbade loans to board members and agents of branch banks) in relation to Section 49 (penalty) of Act No. 2747. The trial court, Hon. Enrique V. Filamor, found Concepcion guilty and sentenced him to one year and six months imprisonment, a fine of P3,000 (with subsidiary imprisonment for insolvency), and costs. Although Sections 35 and 49 were in force in 1919, they were later repealed by Act No. 2938 on January 30, 1921; this repeal was relied on by defense counsel in the trial and on appeal.
The defendant assigned ten errors to the trial court’s judgment. The Attorney-General answered. The case came before the Supreme Court on appeal from the Court of First Instance; the Court reviewed the evidence and the legal questions raised, and the opinion that follows resolv...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the repeal of Sections 35 and 49 of Act No. 2747 by Act No. 2938 bar prosecution and conviction under the repealed provisions for acts committed in 1919?
- Does Section 35 of Act No. 2747, read with Section 49, furnish a penal sanction applicable to an officer who procures the bank to do the prohibited act?
- Was the granting of a P300,000 credit to Puno y Concepcion, S. en C. a "loan" within the meaning of Section 35 of Act No. 2747?
- If it was not a loan, was the transaction instead a bank "discount" excluded from the prohibition?
- Was the transaction an "indirect loan" to Concepcion because his wife held substantial interest in the partnership?
- Does defendant’s asserted good faith (reliance on Insular Auditor rulings and the...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)