G.R. No. 233015 - Co vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 233015)

Charges and Applicable Law

Original charge: Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as reflected in the original information.
Amended charge: Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC in the amended information (estafa by means of false pretenses or similar deceit).
Relevant criminal provisions and rules cited: Article 315 (Estafa) — par. 2(a); Article 171 (acts of falsification); Article 172 (falsification of private documents); Article 48 (complex crimes) of the RPC; Section 50, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court (opinion of ordinary witnesses).
Constitutional basis for decision (per instruction to use applicable constitution for decisions rendered in or after 1990): 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Prosecution’s Factual Allegations

Between March and December 1997, the petitioners allegedly caused the release of eight (8) manager’s checks totaling PhP3,032,909.00 as payments for purported security services rendered by ACME Investigation Services, Inc., which investigations revealed to be a fictitious entity (not registered with the SEC, not licensed by the PNP Security Agencies and Guards Supervision Division, and not a member of PADPAO). The prosecution adduced testimony (notably from Catalina Zamora, former Chief Accountant) and documentary exhibits showing billing statements, check vouchers, and manager’s checks prepared and processed with the signatures or approvals of the petitioners. Seven of the eight checks were shown to have been deposited into a Metrobank account (Account No. 7-310-500212) under names Nelson Sia and/or Antonio Santos; one check (No. 468) was deposited into a Citytrust account (Account No. 04-020-00743-1) in names including Henry Chua, Al Mendoza, Antonio Santos, and/or Amelia Santos. The prosecution alleged that these bank accounts were opened, owned, and controlled by the petitioners and that the names used were aliases of the petitioners, with withdrawals thereafter. Other prosecution witnesses included bank personnel, a PNP records officer, PADPAO’s general manager, a former messenger of Jade Bank, and PDIC liquidators.

Defense Version at Trial

Both petitioners denied involvement in creating fictitious billing or in diverting funds. Alvin Co asserted his role was Sales/Product Manager and Assistant VP focused on product expansion under supervision and denied connection with ACME, stating he only signed check vouchers after accounting certifications. Luis Co asserted he signed checks only upon receiving all accounting initials and approvals, claimed no authority to approve or disapprove billing statements, and maintained that Acme provided services though he could not recall details. Both petitioners testified; Luis did not file a formal offer of evidence and was deemed to have waived that right.

RTC Findings and Sentence

The RTC found the petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC, concluding they conspired to defraud Jade Bank by causing payments for services of a fictitious security agency. Sentence imposed: minimum of four (4) years prision correccional (medium) to a maximum of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day reclusion temporal (medium). The RTC also ordered indemnification of Jade Bank, its depositors and creditors, and the BSP in the amount of PhP3,032,909.00.

Court of Appeals Decision

The CA denied the petitioners’ appeal, affirmed the RTC’s findings with modification of the penalty. The CA imposed an indeterminate penalty ranging from four (4) years and two (2) months prision correccional (minimum) to twenty (20) years reclusion temporal (maximum), and ordered indemnification of PhP3,032,909.00 plus legal interest from filing of the complaint until fully paid, plus costs.

Issues Raised on Appeal to the Supreme Court

The petitioners principally asserted: (1) insufficiency of evidence to sustain conviction for estafa under Article 315(2)(a); (2) conviction rested on testimonies lacking probative value; and (3) the absence of proof of conspiracy between the petitioners.

Supreme Court’s Threshold Legal Determination: Proper Offense to Be Charged

The Supreme Court emphasized the controlling principle that the facts alleged in the information, not the label used, determine the offense charged. Although the amended information designated estafa (Art. 315(2)(a)), its factual allegations—specifically that defendants made it appear that Acme had rendered services by virtue of billing statements and related documents—showed that the commission of fraud necessarily rested on falsified private documents. Accordingly, the Court held the proper offense to have been charged was falsification of a private document (Article 171/172), not estafa, because the falsification was alleged as the necessary means to effect the fraud. The Court reiterated that there is no complex crime of falsification of private documents and estafa because the element of damage is common to both; where falsification of a private document is the means to defraud, the crime is falsification of a private document.

Elements of Falsification of a Private Document and Application to the Evidence

Article 172(2) requires: (1) commission of an act of falsification enumerated in Article 171 (except paragraph 7); (2) that the falsification be in a private document; and (3) that the falsification caused damage or was committed with intent to cause damage. The Supreme Court found the prosecution failed to establish the first element—authorship/falsification—beyond reasonable doubt, for several reasons drawn from the record:

The key accounting witness, Catalina Zamora, equivocated about personally witnessing petitioners’ signatures over the printed name of Arturo dela Cruz; her later testimony that signatures

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 233015)

Citation, Court, and Author of Decision

Reported at 865 Phil. 1056, FIRST DIVISION, G.R. No. 233015, October 16, 2019.
Decision penned by Chief Justice Bersamin (BERSAMIN, C.J.).
Case arose from a petition for review of the Court of Appeals decision promulgated December 22, 2015, which affirmed with modification the judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 15, Manila, dated February 11, 2013.

Parties and Roles

Petitioners: Luis L. Co and Alvin Milton S. Co (father and son).
Respondents: People of the Philippines; Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas; Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC).
Petitioners were shareholders and officers of Jade Progressive Savings and Mortgage Bank (Jade Bank) during the period material to the case: Luis as director/Acting President, Alvin as Assistant Vice President/Sales/Product Manager at various times.

Procedural History

Original Information charged the petitioners with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
Motion to quash original Information denied; RTC directed prosecution to amend the Information.
Amended Information charged petitioners with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC.
Petitioners moved to quash the amended Information on procedural grounds (lack of Chief State Prosecutor signature/certification and substantive change of offense); motion denied.
Accused pleaded not guilty; pre-trial concluded; trial conducted with prosecution and defense witnesses.
RTC convicted petitioners of estafa under Art. 315(2)(a) and sentenced them; ordered indemnity to Jade Bank and others.
Court of Appeals affirmed RTC decision but modified the penalty and ordered indemnity with legal interest.
Petitioners filed this appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the facts established support conviction for estafa under Art. 315(2)(a) of the RPC.
Whether the conviction lacks evidentiary basis because it rested on witnesses of little probative value.
Whether the facts proved the existence of a conspiracy between the two petitioners.

Allegations in the Amended Information (substance)

Petitioners, as President and Assistant Vice-President of Jade Bank, allegedly conspired to defraud the bank by means of false pretenses/fraudulent acts asserting the existence of a contract with ACME INVESTIGATION SERVICES, INC. (alleged non-existent).
They allegedly authorized release and collection of P3,032,909.00 from bank funds purportedly to pay Acme, knowing Acme did not exist and no services were rendered, and then converted the funds for their personal use to the damage of Jade Bank and its depositors, creditors, and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

Relevant Trial Evidence Presented by the Prosecution

Eight prosecution witnesses: Catalina Zamora (former Chief Accountant, Jade Bank); Minviluz Rubrico (former Deputy Liquidator, Jade Bank); Col. Ernesto Jimeno (General Manager, PADPAO); Julie Mae Barrios (Metrobank Branch Head); Spenser Say (Metrobank Cluster Head); PSI Wilfredo Rayos (PNP Security Agencies/Guards Supervision Division); Raul Permejo (former messenger, Jade Bank); Rodolfo Rante (Assisting Deputy Liquidator, Jade Bank).
Documentary and transactional evidence presented included check vouchers and manager’s checks allegedly issued in favor of Acme and corresponding letter billings.
Eight manager’s checks alleged to have been released, totaling P3,032,909.00, with transaction dates and amounts listed by the prosecution:
- April 21, 1997 (voucher 2235, check 348) P242,900.00
- April 21, 1997 (voucher 2238, check 350) P262,250.00
- May 16, 1997 (voucher 2239, check 468) P400,250.00
- June 17, 1997 (voucher 2554, check 584) P401,250.00
- July 21, 1997 (voucher 2826, check 722) P313,838.00
- August 14, 1997 (voucher 3291, check 845) P524,500.00
- September 16, 1997 (voucher 3585, check 1077) P627,676.00
- December 2, 1997 (voucher 4246, check 1438) P260,245.00
Allegation that Acme was fictitious: not registered with the SEC, not licensed by PNP Security Agencies and Guards Supervision Division, not a PADPAO member.
Allegation that seven of the eight checks were deposited in Metrobank Account No. 7-310-500212 under names Nelson Sia and/or Antonio Santos; one check deposited in Citytrust Account No. 04-020-00743-1 under names Henry Chua, Al Mendoza, Antonio Santos, and/or Amelia Santos.
Prosecution’s assertion that the Metrobank and Citytrust accounts were opened, owned, and controlled by the petitioners; that Nelson Sia and Antonio Santos were aliases used by Alvin and Luis respectively; and that deposits were ultimately withdrawn.

Defense Theory and Testimony

Petitioners denied the allegations in entirety.
Alvin: claimed role as Sales/Product Manager and Assistant VP responsible for sales/product expansion, supervised by Arcatomy Guarin; denied connection to Acme; asserted he only signed check vouchers after Zamora certified billing accuracy; claimed Luis approved payment orders.
Luis: testified that he signed checks because the required accounting initials were present and that he relied on the accounting department; claimed he was not in a position to approve or disapprove billing statements; asserted Acme provided security services to Jade Bank but he had no direct participation in Acme.
On cross-examination Luis admitted uncertainty whether Acme actually provided security guards to Jade Bank.
Luis did not file a formal offer of evi