Title
Ramos vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 64129-31
Decision Date
Nov 18, 1991
Fermina Ramos, as FSB branch manager, allowed unauthorized withdrawals against uncleared checks, conspiring to defraud the bank, leading to her conviction for estafa under Article 315(1)(b).
estafa
uncleared check deposits
imprisonment

Case Summary (G.R. No. 214087)

Factual Background

Petitioner’s appointment as Acting Branch Manager was on January 27, 1976, following the transfer of the then branch manager, Mr. Johnny Cuan, and she became Branch Manager effective February 16, 1976. During Cuan’s earlier management, the bank’s Assistant Vice President, Gerry Ramirez (FSB, Cebu City), authorized allowing withdrawals against uncleared check deposits to certain clients. The practice, however, allegedly violated the bank’s operation manual (O.M.S. No. 2:07). That manual required withdrawals to be approved and signed by an authorized officer, and it required verification that amounts were “available” and were not against check deposits not yet cleared, with additional verification where the check was presumed cleared.

During petitioner’s term, she received an order to stop DAUD. She communicated this compliance through a telegram dated March 30, 1976 to Ramirez, stating that she stopped DAUD but acknowledged that accommodation of depositors’ uncleared items had continued as an effect of prior practices. Ramirez responded on April 1, 1976, agreeing that responsibility should fall upon prior management, and instructing petitioner to follow the new instruction relayed by Lilian (De Leon).

Despite these instructions, the records showed that petitioner continued to grant DAUD accommodations to both old and newly admitted clients without authority from Ramirez or De Leon. The co-accused implicated included Lourdes Orpiano for Criminal Case No. 3349, and the spouses Lourdes and Francisco Gonzales for Criminal Cases Nos. 3350 and 3351. Petitioner’s approval and the resultant withdrawals were treated as the core acts underlying the three criminal charges remaining for appellate review.

The Informations and Charged Transactions

In Criminal Case No. 3349, petitioner and co-accused were charged with conspiracy and fraud by authorizing Lourdes Orpiano to withdraw against an uncleared check deposit. On May 19, 1976, Orpiano deposited an uncleared PCIB DVO Check No. 77946 for P28,000.00, at a time when her account balance was only P234.34. Petitioner allegedly allowed Orpiano to withdraw P28,000.00 immediately, using an FSB check (RCBC Check (Tagum) No. 85297) payable to Orpiano, who endorsed it to co-accused Mariano Barretto. When Orpiano’s PCIB check was presented for clearing, it was dishonored for insufficient funds, damaging the Family Savings Bank in P28,000.00.

In Criminal Case No. 3350, petitioner and co-accused were charged with allowing Lourdes Gonzales to withdraw against an uncleared check deposit. On May 19, 1976, Lourdes Gonzales deposited a BPI TAG Check No. 100190 for P38,400.00 into a joint savings account of the spouses, raising their balance above a small standing ledger balance. Petitioner allegedly allowed Lourdes to withdraw P20,440.00 in cash-form through BPI TAG Check No. 85325 payable to “Cash,” which was later deposited into Mariano Barretto’s savings account. The deposited BPI check was later dishonored on clearing, to the prejudice of the bank.

In Criminal Case No. 3351, the charge involved a similar DAUD accommodation with a different withdrawal and depositor arrangement. On May 19, 1976, Lourdes Gonzales was said to have deposited an uncleared check drawn by “alias E. Rivera” (RCBC CAG Check No. 1868051) for P39,000.00, into the Gonzales spouses’ joint savings account. Petitioner allegedly allowed a withdrawal of P18,560.00 paid through BPI TAG Check No. 241132 payable to “Cash,” which was deposited into petitioner’s personal account (Savings Account No. 6835) in the RCBC Tagum Branch. The deposited RCBC check was later dishonored, damaging the bank.

Trial Court Proceedings and Initial Convictions

The criminal charges were among twenty-three (23) complaints filed by the Provincial Fiscal of Davao against petitioner and other accused based on the DAUD accommodations and subsequent dishonor of checks. Several cases were dismissed for lack of basis, others for insufficiency of evidence, and the trial court found in some that the bank’s higher ranking officials had knowledge and consent to the acts, thus removing the bank’s cause to complain.

In the remaining cases assigned to Judge Felix L. Moya (and tried separately because other accused remained at large), the trial court did not convict petitioner for the charges as alleged. Instead, it convicted her of estafa thru reckless imprudence in each of the three cases now in issue: Criminal Cases Nos. 3349, 3350, and 3351. It imposed indeterminate penalties consistent with Article 365 in conjunction with Article 315 (1st), and it declined to order civil restitution due to the pendency of a separate civil action.

Appellate Court Modifications

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals modified the trial court’s ruling. It affirmed petitioner’s guilt but changed the offense from estafa thru reckless imprudence under Article 365 to estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence under Article 315 subparagraph 1(b). Consequently, the Court of Appeals set aside the penalties imposed by reference to Article 365 and imposed the penalty prescribed under Article 315 instead.

The Court of Appeals thus found that petitioner’s participation was not merely negligent. It treated petitioner as having conspired and cooperated deliberately with co-accused to defraud the bank by allowing withdrawals against worthless check deposits.

Issues Raised by Petitioner

In her petition for review, petitioner assigned several errors allegedly committed by the Court of Appeals: first, she challenged the appellate court’s finding of evidence in Crim. Case No. 3351 as though it was adequate even if incompetent; second, she challenged sufficiency and competency of evidence in Crim. Cases Nos. 3349 and 3350; third, she challenged the legal characterization of the acts as estafa under Article 315; and fourth, she challenged conspiracy, asserting that if defraudation existed it was deliberate defraudation attributable to more than negligence, and that the appellate court had erred in finding conspiracy where she was allegedly merely negligent.

Supreme Court’s Review of Evidence and Admissibility

The Court held that petitioner’s first two assignments of error were untenable. It emphasized the general rule that factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals deserved respect, and it found no persuasive basis to discredit the evidence admitted and relied upon for conviction.

Petitioner argued that audit worksheets and xerox copies of dishonored checks and return slips were inadmissible for not constituting best evidence. The Court ruled that the trial judge committed no reversible error in admitting the testimony of bank auditor Elrey Ramos based on the worksheets he prepared. The Court noted that such worksheets were organized data culled from pertinent bank documents and were not meant to replace the probative value of the underlying documents. Taken with other evidence—including account ledgers of the depositors, inter-office correspondence between petitioner and her superiors, xerox copies of uncleared checks, and checks issued by FSB corresponding to withdrawals—these documents provided proof that DAUD was allowed despite the practice being prohibited.

The Court further relied on corroboration. It observed that the evidence and the testimony of Francisco Juele, Jr., an FSB Tagum Branch employee, supported one another with respect to transactions, amounts, check numbers, depository banks, and signatures. It also held that the authenticity of the documents appeared from their alignment with the material dates, the involved amounts, the check details, and petitioner’s signature as the approving officer.

In rejecting the best-evidence contention, the Court invoked Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fireman’s Fund Ins., Co., holding that courts were not precluded from admitting other proofs of considerable weight where they were uncontradicted. It also applied Rule 130, Section 4(c) of the Rules of Court on entries repeated in the regular course of business, considering account ledger entries on file at the bank as originals for the relevant purpose.

Legal Characterization: From Article 365 to Article 315 (1)(b)

The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the cases did not involve violations of B.P. 22 or estafa under Article 315 (2)(d). It characterized the acts as estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence under Article 315 subparagraph 1(b). It adopted the appellate court’s reasoning that petitioner, together with co-accused, intentionally allowed withdrawals of bank funds against worthless check deposits, and that her conduct reflected intentional, deliberate, and malicious cooperation rather than unwitting or merely negligent action.

Accordingly, the Court held that the trial court erred in penalizing petitioner under Article 365 in connection with Article 315, instead of convicting her as co-principal under Article 315. Under the appellate view, the deception and abuse arose from misappropriation or conversion of money received under a duty involving administration or obligation to deliver or return, and petitioner’s role as branch manager established the fiduciary character of her position and the betrayal of bank trust.

Conspiracy: Proof Through Circumstantial Evidence

The Court also clarified that conspiracy could not be established merely by proving that deposited checks later bounced. It recognized the requirement of proof of conspiracy, but it held that conspiracy could be inferred from circumstantial evidence. It reiterated that direct proof was not essential and that, because conspiracies are often committed in secrecy, courts usually infer the assent of minds from conduct and surrounding circumstances that indicate parts of a coordinated whole.

Circumstances Supporting Malice, Conversion, and Conspiracy

The Court reviewed the specific pattern of DAUD accommodations approved by petitioner. It

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms