You are on page 1of 1
roric: Deposits People vs. Dick Ong. 24 SCRA 942.1991) Facts Aceused Dick Ong. one of the depositars ofthe Home Savings Bank and Trust Company (HSBTC) opened a savings account with HSBTC with an inital deposit of P22.14 in cash and PI0,000.00 in check, (Ong wa allowed to withdraw from is savings account with the Bank the sum of 5,000.00, without his check undergoing ‘the usual and reglementary clearance. The withdrawal slip was signed and approved by Lino Morfe. then the Braneh Manager, and accused Lucila Talabis, the Branch Cashier Subsequcntly, Ong deposited cleven checks in his savings acco! against ts amount. Auuin, the withdrawal ofthe amount by Ong was made before said cheeks were cleared and the Bank hal collected their amounts and with he approval of Talabis However, when the Bank presented the eleven cheeks isucd deposi ist which Ong made withdrawals against, its amounts, to their spective drawee banks for payment, they were all dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds Because of this. the Bunk filed a criminal action for Esiafa against Ong. and the Bank’s officer in charge Villaran and Tala Talabis testified that the approval ofthe withdrawals of Ong against his uneleared eheeks was in accordance with the instruction of their then bank manager and that ndof accommodation given to Ong and alse a common practice of the Bank RIC ruled Ong as guilty forthe crime of estafa but aequitted Villain and Talabis as their guilt were pot proven beyond reasonable doubt. CA affirmed RTCS decisions, Issue: ‘L. Whats the nature of bank deposits? 2. WON Ong is guilty of Estala, No. Rating: 11, The Supreme Court ek that bank deposits ae inthe nature of irregular deposit Bunk deposits are rally loans because they ear interest, Whether ied, savings, or curren all bank Adeposits ‘are tobe treated as lors and are to be covered by the law on loans. 2. The elements ofthis kind of estas are the following: (1) postdaing or isuance of a eheek in payment of an ‘obligation contracted at the time the check was issued: (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to eover the cheek; and {3) damage tothe payee thereot In this ease, the fact was established that Ong either issued or indorsed the subject checks. However, it must be remembered that the reason for the conviction of an accused of the crime of estafa is his guilty knowledge of the fact that he had no funds in the bank when he negotiated the spurious check. In the present ease, however, the prosecution failed to prove that Ong had knowledge with respect to the checks hh indorsed. Moreover, it has also been proven that it was the Bank which granted him a drawn against uncollected deposit (DAUD) privilege without need of any pretensions on his part. The privilege this privilee was not only for the subject checks, but for other past transactions. I'ever, he, indeed acted tr aaudulently, he could not have done so without the active cooperation of the Banks employees. Since Talabis and Villaran were declared innocent ofthe crimes charged against them, the same should be said for the Ong. Thus, Ong cannot be held criminally liable ay incurred damages. ist the Bank, He ean only be held civilly Hiable as the Bank