Case Summary (G.R. No. L-11847)
Procedural History
- Four informations for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) RPC in relation to PD 115 filed against Ching in RTC–Makati (Feb 1992).
- Ching moved to strike informations, for preliminary investigation, and to suspend criminal proceedings (Feb–Mar 1992).
- Ching and Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. filed Civil Case No. 92-60600 for nullity of trust receipts and damages in RTC–Manila (Mar 1992).
- RTC–Makati denied suspension (Aug & Sept 1992); petitioner sought certiorari in the Court of Appeals.
- Court of Appeals dismissed the petition (Jan 27 1993) and denied reconsideration (June 28 1993).
- Ching filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 in the Supreme Court.
Factual Background
Ching executed trust‐receipt agreements with Allied Banking to finance the importation of refractory goods. He was accused of misappropriating goods or proceeds of sale, damaging the bank by approximately P1.5 million in four transactions.
Civil Action for Nullity of Trust Receipts
In Civil Case No. 92-60600, Ching asserted the trust receipts were void or merely side documents to a pure loan, prayed for nullity of specified trust receipts, and sought damages.
Petition for Suspension and RTC Orders
Ching invoked the civil action as a prejudicial question to criminal estafa, seeking suspension of RTC–Makati proceedings. The trial court required a preliminary investigation but later denied suspension and reconsideration, setting the case for arraignment and pretrial.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The appellate court held that the civil suit on nullity of trust receipts did not raise a prejudicial question determinative of guilt or innocence in the criminal estafa proceedings; thus, suspension was unwarranted.
Prejudicial Question Doctrine
Under Section 5, Rule 111, a “prejudicial question” must:
a) involve an issue in the civil case identical or intimately related to the criminal action; and
b) be determinative of whether the criminal case may proceed, yet cognizable only by the civil court.
Analysis on Prejudicial Question
Even if trust receipts are declared null, criminal estafa under Article 315(1)(b) may be proven by other evidence: receipt in trust, misappropriation or conversion, abuse of confidence, demand and refusal. Nullity of documents does not automatically exonerate the accused.
Applicable Law Under the 1987 Constitution
The trial and appellate courts applied procedural and substantive criminal‐justice principles consistent with the 1987 Constitution, ensuring due process and speedy disposition.
Trust Receipts Law and Estafa
PD 115 § 13 penalizes the failure to remit sale proceeds or return goods under a trust receipt as estafa under RPC Article 315(1)(b). Violation of trust‐receipt obligations is one mode, not the sole basis, of estafa.
Civil vs. Criminal Liabilities
Civil invalidation of trust receipts addresses contractual rights and security interests; criminal liability depends on proving the elements of estafa—receipt in trust and conversion—regardless of contractual validity.
Supreme Court’s Exercise of Plenary Power
To promote finality and prevent remand, the Supreme Court resolved the prejudicial‐question issue on existing records, consistent with its authority to dispose of all matters in controversy in one proceeding.
Nature of Trust Receipts
A trust receipt is a security agreement granting the lender a security interest in goods; the borrower may sell goods and must remit proceeds or return unsold goods. It is not a mere ancillary document but a binding obligation.
Judic
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-11847)
Facts
- On February 4, 1992, Alfredo Ching was charged before RTC-Makati, Branch 58, with four counts of estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the RPC in relation to P.D. 115 (“Trust Receipts Law”).
- Four informations, each alleging trust-receipt agreements with Allied Banking Corporation covering specified imported goods and corresponding debts (ranging from ₱278,917.80 to ₱419,719.20), accused Ching of misappropriation and conversion of the goods or sale proceeds.
- Ching filed an omnibus motion (February 10, 1992) to strike out the informations, require a preliminary investigation, or suspend further criminal proceedings.
- RTC-Makati ordered a preliminary investigation and stayed criminal proceedings (February 13, 1992).
Procedural History
- March 5, 1992: Ching and Philippine Blooming Mills Co. filed Civil Case No. 92-60600 in RTC-Manila, Branch 53, for nullity of trust receipts and damages.
- August 7, 1992: Ching petitioned RTC-Makati for suspension of criminal proceedings on grounds of prejudicial question.
- August 26, 1992: RTC-Makati denied suspension and set arraignment and pre-trial.
- September 4, 1992: Motion for reconsideration denied; criminal cases set for further proceedings.
- January 27, 1993: Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed Ching’s certiorari and prohibition petition for lack of merit.
- June 28, 1993: CA denied motion for reconsideration.
- November 19, 1993: RTC-Manila admitted Ching’s amended civil complaint, altering the theory of the transaction.
Issue
- Whether the pendency of a civil action for declaration of nullity of trust receipts and for damages constitutes a prejudicial question warranting suspens