Ching v Sec. of Justice and Rizal Banking Corp.

G.R. No. L-23893

October 29, 1968
CASE DIGEST
Facts:
Sometime in September to October 1980, Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc. (PMBI),
through petitioner, Alfredo Ching, senior vice president applied with the Rizal Banking
Corporation, the respondent bank, for the issuance of commercial letters of credit to
finance its importation of assorted goods amounting to P6,940,280.06.
Respondent Bank approved application and issued an irrevocable letter of credit in
favor of petitioner. They agreed for the goods were delivered in trust to PBMI and
petitioner signed 13 trust receipts as surety acknowledging delivery of such goods.
They agreed to hold the goods in trust for said bank and to sell the same (but not by
way of conditional sale, pledge or otherwise), and in case of sale to turn over the
proceeds the proceeds thereof as soon as possible in payment of indebtedness to the
bank. And in case the goods were unsold to return the same to the respondent without
need of further demand.
Upon maturity, petitioner failed to return the goods and to return the value of the goods
despite demands prompting the bank to file a criminal complaint for estafa.
13 informations in violation under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the RPC, in relation to PD 115
(Trust Receipts Law) were filed against petitioner before RTC of Manila.
Petitioner appealed resolution to the then Minister of Justice and it was dismissed but
upon motion for reconsideration, the same was granted. The RTC, for its part, granted
the Motion to Quash the Information.
The sames cases were re-filed by respondent bank, after the SC rendered judgment in
Allied Banking Corp. v. Ordonez, holding that the non-payment of the amount covered
by a trust receipt is an act violative of the obligation of the entrustee to pay.
On Jule 13, 1999, the Secretary of justice issued Resolution no. 250 stating that
petitioner as Senior Vice President executed the trust receipts and as such, responsible
for the offense. In conformity, the city prosecutor filed the 13 Informations against
petitioner.
Petioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibiton and mandamus with the C, assailing the
resoultions issued by the Secretary of Justice. CA dismissed the petition.

Among others, petitioner contends that he entered into the transaction and was sued in
his capacity as PBMI Senior Vice-President and should therefore not be held criminally
liable.
Hence, this case.
Issue: Whether or not Ching should be held criminally.
Ruling: YES, he is criminally liable and also civilly liable.
Chings being a Senior Vice-President of the Philippine Blooming Mills does not
exculpate him from any liability.
If the crime is committed by a corporation or other juridical entity, the directors, officers,
employees or other officers thereof responsible for the offense shall be charged and
penalized for the crime, precisely because of the nature of the crime and the penalty
therefor. A corporation cannot be arrested and imprisoned; hence, cannot be penalized
for a crime punishable by imprisonment. However, a corporation may be charged and
prosecuted for a crime if the imposable penalty is fine. Even if the statute prescribes
both fine and imprisonment as penalty, a corporation may be prosecuted and, if found
guilty, may be fined.
The crime defined in P.D. No. 115 is malum prohibitum but is classified as estafa under
paragraph 1(b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, or estafa with abuse of
confidence. It may be committed by a corporation or other juridical entity or by natural
persons. However, the penalty for the crime is imprisonment for the periods provided in
said Article 315.
Moreover, PD 115 explicitly allows the prosecution of corporate officers without
prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense thus, the civil liability
imposed on respondent in RCBC vs. Court of Appeals case is clearly separate and
distinct from his criminal liability under PD 115