Ching vs CA

April 27, 2000 | Buena | Appeal | Competence and Credibility

PETITIONER: Alfredo Ching
RESPONDENT: Court of Appeals, Hon. Zosimo Angeles, People, Allied Banking Corp.
SUMMARY: Ching was criminally charged estafa in relation. Trust Receipts Law. He then filed a civil case, with Philippine
Blooming Mills Co, Inc., for declaration of nullity of documents and damages against Allied Bank, in his original complaint, he
alleged that the trust receipts was executed as security for a loan agreement (which was an admission). He amended his complaint
and alleged instead that they were only side documents.
DOCTRINE: Amended or superseded pleadings disappear from the record, lose their status as pleadings, and cease to be judicial
admissions. Admissions therein may still be used against the pleader as extrajudicial admissions, but should be formally offered in
evidence. If not offered in evidence, the admission contained will not be considered.

FACTS:
1. Alfredo Ching was charged (by Allied Bank) with estafa under RPC 315(b) in relation to the Trust Receipts Law.
2. He then filed a Civil Case against Allied Bank for declaration of nullity of documents and for damages. In his original complaint,
he alleged that that the trust receipts were inteneded as a mere collateral or security and the principal transaction was that of a
loan. In his amended complaint, which was filed 18 months later, he alleged that that the trust receipts were executed as additional
or side documents and the principal transaction was strictly that of a pure loan without any trust receipt arrangement.
3. In betwee, Ching filed a motion to suspend proceedings in the criminal case until after the civil case was resolved, arguing the
existence of a prejudicial question. This motion was denied by the trial court and affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON there exists a prejudicial question? NO
2. Syllabus issue: WON the admissions in the original complaint have been superseded by the amended complaint? YES
RATIO:
1.
The following must be present to show the existence of a prejudicial question: a) The civil action involves an
issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal action; and b) The resolution of such issue determines whether
or not the criminal action may proceed.
2. Under the circumstances of the case, the resolution of the civil case for declaration of nullity of the documents does not determine
the guilt of Ching in the criminal case for estafa. Even assuming that the documents are indeed declared null and void, his guilt
can still be proven by other evidence, including those that show that: (a) Ching received the subject goods in trust or under the
obligation to sell the same and to remit the proceeds thereof to Allied Bank, or to return the goods, if not sold; (b) that Ching
misappropriated or converted the goods and/or the proceeds of the sale; (c) that accused Ching performed such acts with abuse of
confidence to the damage and prejudice of Allied Bank; and (d) that demand was made by the bank to Ching. In sum, even on the
assumption that the documents are declared of null, it does not ipso facto follow that such declaration of nullity shall exonerate
the accused from criminal prosecution and liability.
3. As to whether or not Ching is still bound by the allegations he made in his original complaint, to the effect that the trust receipts
executed served as security to the principal loan agreement, the Supreme Court ruled in the negative, holding that Under the Rules,
pleadings superseded or amended disappear from the record, lose their status as pleadings and cease to be judicial admissions. While
they may nonetheless be utilized against the pleader as extrajudicial admissions, they must, in order to have such effect, be formally
offered in evidence. If not offered in evidence, the admission contained therein will not be considered.
4. Consequently, the original complaint, having been amended, lost its character as a judicial admission, which would have required
no proof, and became merely an extrajudicial admission, the admissibility of which, as evidence, required its formal offer. In virtue
thereof, the amended complaint takes the place of the original. The latter is regarded as abandoned and ceases to perform any further
function as a pleading. The original complaint no longer forms part of the record.