Case Summary (G.R. No. 164317)
Failure to Return Goods and Initial Criminal Complaint
Upon maturity of the receipts, petitioner neither returned the goods nor paid their value, totaling ₱6,940,280.66. RCBC filed criminal complaints for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) RPC in relation to P.D. No. 115. The City Prosecutor found probable cause, and thirteen Informations were filed before RTC Manila Branch 31 (Criminal Cases Nos. 86-42169 to 86-42181).
Minister of Justice Proceedings and Quashal by RTC
Petitioner appealed to the Minister of Justice; on March 17, 1987, probable cause was initially dismissed. The Minister granted reconsideration on December 23, 1987, reversing the finding and ordering withdrawal of the Informations. RCBC’s motion for reconsideration was denied (February 24, 1988). RTC Manila granted petitioner’s motion to quash, ruling allegations insufficient for estafa.
Supreme Court Precedent on Trust Receipts
In Allied Banking Corp. v. Ordoñez (Dec. 10, 1990), the Supreme Court clarified that P.D. No. 115 applies broadly to any breach of trust receipt obligations, not limited to resale transactions. Non-payment under a trust receipt constitutes a violation regardless of intended use of goods.
Refiling and Secretary of Justice Resolution
On February 27, 1995, RCBC re-filed the complaints. The City Prosecutor found no probable cause on December 8, 1995, deeming petitioner liable only civilly as surety. RCBC petitioned the DOJ. On July 13, 1999, the Secretary of Justice issued Resolution No. 250, finding petitioner—by virtue of executing the trust receipts as PBMI’s Senior Vice-President—responsible under P.D. No. 115 and Article 315(1)(b) RPC, and ordering the filing of thirteen new Informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 99-178596 to 99-178608) before RTC Branch 52.
Petition for Certiorari Before the Court of Appeals
Petitioner filed for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the Court of Appeals, alleging:
- Unequal and oppressive application of power in allowing prosecution without evidence of participation.
- Grave abuse of discretion by the Secretary of Justice due to undue delay in preliminary investigation.
- Lack of basis for continued prosecution despite no proof of participation.
Court of Appeals Ruling on Procedural Defect
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, finding petitioner’s certification of non-forum shopping defective for failing to state prior actions involving the same issues as required under Rule 46, Section 3, and Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. Substantial compliance was not established, and no compelling reason excused strict application.
Court of Appeals Ruling on Merits
On the merits, the CA upheld the Secretary of Justice’s resolutions. It ruled:
• Petitioner, as the signatory and corporate officer, was the “official responsible” under Section 13 of P.D. No. 115.
• Allied Banking Corp. precedent barred petitioner from contesting the law’s scope.
• Petitioner’s dual capacity—as PBMI surety and corporate official—permitted both civil and criminal proceedings.
• No grave abuse of discretion or lack of jurisdiction occurred.
Supreme Court Standards for Certiorari Review
Under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, certiorari will lie where a tribunal or officer acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Probable cause determinations in preliminary investigations must be supported by evidence showing more likely than not that a crime occurred.
Definition and Scope of Trust Receipt Transactions
P.D. No. 115 defines trust receipt transactions as arrangements where an entruster releases goods, documents, or instruments to an entrustee who binds to hold them in trust, sell or dispose of them, turn over proceeds, or return unsold items per agreed terms. The law
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 164317)
Background and Trust Receipt Transaction
- Alfredo Ching was Senior Vice-President of Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc. (PBMI).
- Between September and October 1980, PBMI applied with Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. for commercial letters of credit to finance importation of various industrial goods.
- The bank approved and issued irrevocable letters of credit; goods were delivered to PBMI in trust.
- Ching signed thirteen trust receipts as surety, acknowledging receipt of goods worth P6,940,280.66, with specific maturity dates and terms.
- Trust receipts provided that PBMI would hold goods in trust, sell them only for the bank’s account, return unsold goods on maturity, or remit sale proceeds to the bank.
Initial Criminal Complaint and Preliminary Investigation (1984–1987)
- Respondent bank filed a criminal complaint for estafa under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to P.D. No. 115 for failure to return goods or proceeds.
- The City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed thirteen informations before the RTC of Manila (Crim. Cases No. 86-42169 to 86-42181).
- Ching appealed to the Minister of Justice, which initially dismissed but later, upon reconsideration, reversed the finding of probable cause (December 23, 1987).
- The RTC granted Ching’s motion to quash the informations for lack of estafa.
Allied Banking Corporation v. Ordoñez Precedent
- Supreme Court held in G.R. No. 82495 (1990) that P.D. No. 115 covers any breach of trust receipt obligations, not limited to resale transactions.
- Non-payment of the amount due under a trust receipt constitutes a violation.
Re-institution of Proceedings and Department of Justice Reversal (1995–2000)
- In February 1995, the bank re-filed the complaint (I.S. No. 95B-07614); the City Prosecutor again found no probable cause, ruling Ching’s liability purely civil as surety.
- The bank appealed to the Secretary of Justice via petition for review.
- On July 13, 1999, the Secretary issued Resolution No. 250, finding Ching, as PBMI officer and signatory, criminally responsible under P.D. No. 115.
- The Department of Justice ordered refiling of thirteen informations (Crim. Cases No. 99-178596 to 99-178608) before RTC Branch 52.
- Ching’s motion for reconsideration was denied (January 17, 2000).