Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Guingona Jr. v. City Fiscal of Manila PDF
Guingona Jr. v. City Fiscal of Manila PDF
SYLLABUS
DECISION
MAKASIAR , J : p
This is a petition for prohibition and injunction with a prayer for the immediate
issuance of restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction led by petitioners on
March 26, 1982.
On March 31, 1982, by virtue of a court resolution issued by this Court on the
same date, a temporary restraining order was duly issued ordering the respondents,
their o cers, agents, representatives and/or person or persons acting upon their
(respondents') orders or in their place or stead to refrain from proceeding with the
preliminary investigation in Case No. 81-31938 of the O ce of the City Fiscal of Manila
(pp. 47-48, rec.). On January 24, 1983, private respondent Clement David led a motion
to lift restraining order which was denied in the resolution of this Court dated May 18,
1983.
As can be gleaned from the above, the instant petition seeks to prohibit public
respondents from proceeding with the preliminary investigation of I.S. No. 81-31938, in
which petitioners were charged by private respondent Clement David, with estafa and
violation of Central Bank Circular No. 364 and related regulations regarding foreign
exchange transactions principally, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction in that the
allegations of the charged, as well as the testimony of private respondent's principal
witness and the evidence through said witness, showed that petitioners' obligation is
civil in nature.
For purposes of brevity, We hereby adopt the antecedent facts narrated by the
Solicitor General in its Comment dated June 28, 1982, as follows:
"On December 23, 1981, private respondent David led I.S. No. 81-31938 in
the O ce of the City Fiscal of Manila, which case was assigned to respondent
Lota for preliminary investigation (Petition, p. 8).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
"In I.S. No. 81-31938, David charged petitioners (together with one Robert
Marshall and the following directors of the Nation Savings and Loan Association,
Inc., namely Homero Gonzales, Juan Merino, Flavio Macasaet, Victor Gomez, Jr.,
Perfecto Mañalac, Jaime V. Paz, Paulino B. Dionisio, and one John Doe) with
estafa and violation of Central Bank Circular No. 364 and related Central Bank
regulations on foreign exchange transactions, allegedly committed as follows
(Petition, Annex 'A'):
"'From March 20, 1979 to March, 1981, David invested with the
Nation Savings and Loan Association, (hereinafter called NSLA) the sum
of P1,145,546.20 on time deposits, P13,531.94 on savings account
deposits (jointly with his sister, Denise Kuhne), US$10,000.00 on time
deposit, US$15,000.00 under a receipt and guarantee of payment and
US$50,000.00 under a receipt dated June 8, 1980 (all jointly with Denise
Kuhne), that David was induced into making the aforestated investments
by Robert Marshall, an Australian national who was allegedly a close
associate of petitioner Guingona Jr., then NSLA President, petitioner
Martin, then NSLA Executive Vice-President and petitioner Santos, then
NSLA General Manager; that on March 21, 1981 NSLA was placed under
receivership by the Central Bank, so that David led claims therewith for
his investments and those of his sister; that on July 22, 1981 David
received a report from the Central Bank that only P305,821.92 of those
investments were entered in the records of NSLA; that, therefore, the
respondents in I.S. No. 81-31938 misappropriated the balance of the
investments, at the same time violating Central Bank Circular No. 364 and
related Central Bank regulations on foreign exchange transactions; that
after demands, petitioner Guingona Jr. paid only P200,000.00, thereby
reducing the amounts misappropriated to P959,078.14 and US$75,000.00.
"But, after the presentation of David's principal witness, petitioners led the
instant petition because: (a) the production of the Promissory Notes, Banker's
Acceptance, Certi cates of Time Deposits and Savings Account allegedly showed
that the transactions between David and NSLA were simple loans, i.e., civil
obligations on the part of NSLA which were novated when Guingona, Jr. and
Martin assumed them; and (b) David's principal witness allegedly testi ed that
the duplicate originals of the aforesaid instruments of indebtedness were all on
le with NSLA, contrary to David's claim that some of his investments were not
recorded (Petition, pp. 8-9).
As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the sole issue for resolution is
whether public respondents acted without jurisdiction when they investigated the
charges (estafa and violation of CB Circular No. 364 and related regulations regarding
foreign exchange transactions) subject matter of I.S. No. 81-31938.
There is merit in the contention of the petitioners that their liability is civil in
nature and therefore, public respondents have no jurisdiction over the charge of estafa.
prLL
In the case of Central Bank of the Philippines vs. Morfe (63 SCRA 114, 119
[1975], We said:
"It should be noted that xed, savings, and current deposits of money in
banks and similar institutions are not true deposits. They are considered simple
loans and, as such, are not preferred credits (Art. 1980 Civil Code: In re Liquidation
of Mercantile Bank of China: Tan Tiong Tick vs. American Apothecaries Co., 65
Phil. 414; Paci c Coast Biscuit Co. vs. Chinese Grocers Association, 65 Phil. 375;
Fletcher American National Bank vs. Ang Cheng Lian, 65 Phil. 385; Paci c
Commercial Co. vs. American Apothecaries Co., 65 Phil. 429; Gopoco Grocery vs.
Pacific Coast Biscuit Co., 65 Phil. 443)."
This Court also declared in the recent case of Serrano vs. Central Bank of the
Philippines (96 SCRA 96, 102 [1980]) that: prLL
"Bank deposits are in the nature of irregular deposits. They are really loans
because they earn interest. All kinds of bank deposits, whether xed, savings, or
current are to be treated as loans and are to be covered by the law on loans (Art.
1980, Civil Code; Gullas vs. Phil. National Bank, 62 Phil. 519). Current and savings
deposits are loans to a bank because it can use the same. The petitioner here in
making time deposits that earn interests with respondent Overseas Bank of
Manila was in reality a creditor of the respondent Bank and not a depositor. The
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
respondent Bank was in turn a debtor of petitioner. Failure of the respondent Bank
to honor the time deposit is failure to pay its obligation as a debtor and not a
breach of trust arising from a depository's failure to return the subject matter of
the deposit" (emphasis supplied).
Hence, the relationship between the private respondent and the Nation Savings
and Loan Association is that of creditor and debtor; consequently, the ownership of the
amount deposited was transmitted to the Bank upon the perfection of the contract and
it can make use of the amount deposited for its banking operations, such as to pay
interests on deposits and to pay withdrawals. While the Bank has the obligation to
return the amount deposited, it has, however, no obligation to return or deliver the same
money that was deposited. And, the failure of the Bank to return the amount deposited
will not constitute estafa through misappropriation punishable under Article 315, par.
1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, but it will only give rise to civil liability over which the
public respondents have no jurisdiction.
WE have already laid down the rule that:
"In order that a person can be convicted under the above-quoted provision,
it must be proven that he has the obligation to deliver or return the same money,
goods or personal property that he received. Petitioners had no such obligation to
return the same money, i.e., the bills or coins, which they received from private
respondents. This is so because as clearly stated in criminal complaints, the
related civil complaints and the supporting sworn statements, the sums of money
that petitioners received were loans.
"The nature of simple loan is de ned in Articles 1933 and 1953 of the Civil
Code.
But even granting that the failure of the bank to pay the time and savings
deposits of private respondent David would constitute a violation of paragraph 1(b) of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, nevertheless any incipient criminal liability was
deemed avoided, because when the aforesaid bank was placed under receivership by
the Central Bank, petitioners Guingona and Martin assumed the obligation of the bank
to private respondent David, thereby resulting in the novation of the original contractual
obligation arising from deposit into a contract of loan and converting the original trust
relation between the bank and private respondent David into an ordinary debtor-
creditor relation between the petitioners and private respondent. Consequently, the
failure of the bank or petitioners Guingona and Martin to pay the deposits of private
respondent would not constitute a breach of trust but would merely be a failure to pay
the obligation as a debtor.
Moreover, while it is true that novation does not extinguish criminal liability, it
may however, prevent the rise of criminal liability as long as it occurs prior to the ling
of the criminal information in court. Thus, in Gonzales vs. Serrano ( 25 SCRA 64, 69
[1968]) We held that: LexLib
"As pointed out in People vs. Nery, novation prior to the ling of the
criminal information — as in the case at bar — may convert the relation between
the parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor relation, and place the complainant in
estoppel to insist on the original transaction or 'cast doubt on the true nature'
thereof."
Again, in the latest case of Ong vs. Court of Appeals (L-58476, 124 SCRA 578,
580-581 [1983]), this Court reiterated the ruling in People vs. Nery ( 10 SCRA 244
[1964]), declaring that:
"The novation theory may perhaps apply prior to the ling of the criminal
information in court by the state prosecutors because up to that time the original
trust relation may be converted by the parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor
situation, thereby placing the complainant in estoppel to insist on the original
trust. But after the justice authorities have taken cognizance of the crime and
instituted action in court, the offended party may no longer divest the prosecution
of its power to exact the criminal liability, as distinguished from the civil. The
crime being an offense against the state, only the latter can renounce it (People
vs. Gervacio, 54 Off. Gaz. 2898; People vs. Velasco, 42 Phil. 76; U.S. vs. Montañes,
8 Phil. 620).
"It may be observed in this regard that novation is not one of the means
recognized by the Penal Code whereby criminal liability can be extinguished;
hence, the role of novation may only be to either prevent the rise of criminal
liability or to cast doubt on the true nature of the original basic transaction,
whether or not it was such that its breach would not give rise to penal
responsibility, as when money loaned is made to appear as a deposit, or other
similar disguise is resorted to (cf. Abeto vs. People, 90 Phil. 581; U.S. vs. Villareal,
27 Phil. 481)."
In the case at bar, there is no dispute that petitioners Guingona and Martin
executed a promissory note on June 17, 1981 assuming the obligation of the bank to
private respondent David; while the criminal complaint for estafa was led on
December 23, 1981 with the O ce of the City Fiscal. Hence, it is clear that novation
occurred long before the ling of the criminal complaint with the O ce of the City
Fiscal.
Consequently, as aforestated, any incipient criminal liability would be avoided but
there will still be a civil liability on the part of petitioners Guingona and Martin to pay the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
assumed obligation.
Petitioners herein were likewise charged with violation of Section 3 of Central
Bank Circular No. 364 and other related regulations regarding foreign exchange
transactions by accepting foreign currency deposit in the amount of US$75,000.00
without authority from the Central Bank. They contend however, that the US dollars
intended by respondent David for deposit were all converted into Philippine currency
before acceptance and deposit into Nation Savings and Loan Association. LLphil
Likewise, in Lopez vs. The City Judge, et al. (18 SCRA 616, 621-622 [1966]), We
held that: cdll