Case Summary (G.R. No. 78693)
Petitioner
People of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General and the City Prosecutor of Manila
Respondents
Jose C. Go, Aida C. Dela Rosa, Felecitas D. Nicomedes
Key Dates
• February 5, 1997 – Issuance of two manager’s checks (Nos. 3340, 3347) purportedly as proceeds of loans to Timmyas, Inc. and Asia Textile Mills, Inc.
• October 14, 1998 – BSP Resolution closing OCBC; PDIC assumes receivership
• September 24, 1999 – PDIC files complaint for estafa through falsification of commercial documents
• January 17, 2007 – Respondents file demurrer to evidence
• July 2, 2007 – RTC grants demurrer and acquits respondents
• September 30, 2009 – Court of Appeals (CA) affirms acquittal
• August 6, 2014 – Supreme Court issues decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Revised Penal Code: Article 315(1)(b) (estafa by abuse of confidence), Articles 171–172 (falsification of documents)
• Rules of Court: Rule 65 (certiorari), Rule 119 § 23 (demurrer to evidence)
Factual Antecedents
- PDIC, as OCBC receiver, demanded loan settlements from record debtors, including Timmyas, Inc. and Asia Textile Mills, Inc.
- Both companies denied ever receiving loans; their representatives disavowed signatures on loan documents.
- Investigation revealed that manager’s checks representing P9,985,075.00 each for the two alleged loans were issued to Philippine Recyclers, Inc. and Zeta International, Inc., encashed, and deposited into Go’s OCBC savings account.
- Automatic transfers funded Go’s previously dishonored personal checks, financed by these proceeds.
Proceedings Below
• RTC: After prosecution rests, respondents secured leave and filed a demurrer to evidence. RTC granted the demurrer (acquittal) on grounds of insufficient proof and lack of witnesses to establish who falsified documents. Public prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration was deemed not timely or lacking formal conformity.
• Court of Appeals: Denied CA petition for certiorari, holding that the RTC order became final for lack of timely motion by the public prosecutor, invoking double jeopardy; also found no grave abuse of discretion and deemed any error one of judgment.
Issues on Review
(a) Whether the CA erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion in the grant of the demurrer to evidence;
(b) Whether the acquittal order became final and immunized respondents via double jeopardy;
(c) Whether alleged errors were mere misappreciations rather than jurisdictional defects.
Petitioner’s Arguments
• The public prosecutor effectively joined PDIC’s motion for reconsideration, excusing minor delay;
• The prosecution proved respondents’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt;
• The CA misapplied double jeopardy and mischaracterized errors as non-jurisdictional, depriving the People of due process.
Respondents’ Arguments
• The grant of demurrer constituted acquittal, now final under double jeopardy;
• Public prosecutor failed to timely conform to PDIC’s motion, invalidating any further challenge;
• Evidence was inconclusive: no proof that loans existed, checks were endorsed, or funds misappropriated.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
• Granted the petition and set aside CA and RTC orders.
• Held that the demurrer was granted with grave abuse of discretion, rendering the acquittal void and removing any double jeopardy bar.
• Ordered reinstatement of the criminal cases for further proceedings.
Legal Analysis—Demurrer to Evidence
• A demurrer tests legal sufficiency of prosecution evidence; if granted, it amounts to acquittal and may be reviewed only by certiorari on jurisdictional grounds.
• Grave abuse of discretion exists when a court acts capriciously or whimsically, evading a duty or refusing to apply the law.
Legal Analysis—Estafa by Abuse of Confidence (Art. 315(1)(b))
Elements:
- Receipt of money or property in trust or for administration (depositors’ funds held in trust by bank officers)
- Misappropriation or conversion of such funds
- Prejud
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 78693)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeks to set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision of September 30, 2009 and its January 22, 2010 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 101823.
- These CA rulings affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila Branch 49 Orders of July 2, 2007 (granting demurrer to evidence, dismissing estafa charges and acquitting respondents) and October 19, 2007 (denying prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration).
- The People (Office of the Solicitor General) contend that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion and that double jeopardy did not attach, seeking reinstatement of Criminal Cases No. 00-187318 and 00-187319 for estafa through falsification of commercial documents.
Factual Background
- On October 14, 1998, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas ordered closure of Orient Commercial Banking Corporation (OCBC), placing it under PDIC receivership.
- PDIC, as OCBC’s statutory receiver, collected past-due loan receivables including purported P10 million loans to Timmy’s, Inc. and Asia Textile Mills, Inc.
- Representatives of both corporations denied ever obtaining OCBC loans and alleged forgery of their signatures on loan documents.
- PDIC’s investigation revealed that two manager’s checks, each for P9,985,075.00 (bearing loan codes CL-484 and CL-477), were issued in favor of Philippine Recyclers, Inc. and Zeta International, Inc., then deposited into respondent Go’s OCBC savings account and transferred to his current account to cover previously dishonored personal checks.
Proceedings in the Trial Court
- PDIC filed complaint for two counts of estafa thru falsification of commercial documents.
- Informations were filed October 1999; respondents pleaded not guilty; pre-trial and trial ensued; prosecution rested.
- Respondents moved for leave to file demurrer to evidence; judge granted leave, and demurrer in January 2007.
- By Order dated July 2, 2007, RTC granted the demurrer, dismissed the cases, and acquitted respondents.
- Prosecutor’s motion for reconsideration was denied October 19, 2007; PDIC’s motion lacked public prosecutor’s written conformity.
Court of Appeals Decision
- On certiorari petition, CA denied relief and affirmed RTC Orders as final and executory due to the failure of the public prosecutor to file timely m