Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > September 1983 Decisions > G.R. No. L-58476 September 2, 1983 - FERNANDO ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS

209 Phil. 475:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-58476. September 2, 1983.]

FERNANDO ONG, Petitioner, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS and JUDGE P. PURISIMA, Respondents.

Alberto R. de Joya for Petitioner.

The Solicitor General for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; COMPROMISE AGREEMENT MADE AFTER FILING OF INFORMATION NOT SUFFICIENT TO DIVEST PROSECUTION OF POWER TO EXACT CRIMINAL LIABILITY. — The Court, speaking through J.B.L. Reyes in People v. Nery, 10 SCRA 244, said that "the Novation theory may perhaps apply prior to the filing 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 since the crime being an offense against the state, only the latter can renounce it" (People v. Gervacio, 54 Off. Gaz. 2898; People v. Velasco, 42 Phil. 76; U.S. v. Montañez, 8 Phil. 620). As regards the role of novation in a criminal case, the Court further stated 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 v. People, 90 Phil. 381; U.S. v. Villareal, 27 Phil. 481)."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; INFORMATION FOR ESTAFA; MOTION TO DISMISS; DENIAL, NOT A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. — The respondent Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss the criminal case of estafa on the basis of a compromise agreement made after the filing of the information, which petitioner claimed novated the contract embodied in the trust receipts on which the information was based and converted the transaction from a criminal violation to civil obligation.

TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; TRUST RECEIPT TRANSACTION GIVES RISE TO CIVIL LIABILITY WHEN A COMPROMISE AGREEMENT FOR DISCHARGE HAS BEEN MADE AFTER THE FILING OF INFORMATION. — The trust receipt transaction, more so when there has been a compromise agreement after the filing of the information for the discharge of petitioner-accused’s liability under the importation covered by the trust receipt, gives rise only to civil liability on the part of the said petitioner-accused. In People v. Cuevo, G.R. No. L-27607, May 7, 1981, the dissent of Justice Teehankee stated that the old capitalist orientation of putting importers in jail for supposed estafa or swindling for non-payment of the price of the imported goods released to them under trust receipts (a purely commercial transaction), under the fiction of the trust receipt device, should no longer be permitted in this day and age.


D E C I S I O N


RELOVA, J.:


Records show that on January 17, 1979, an information for estafa (Criminal Case No. 43423), was filed by the Assistant Fiscal before the then Court of First Instance of Manila alleging that herein petitioner "obtained and received from the Tramat Mercantile, Inc., . . . several units of machineries for a total value of P133,550.00, in trust, for the purpose of displaying and selling the machineries for cash, under the express obligation on the part of said accused (herein petitioner) of turning over to said Tramat Mercantile, Inc., the proceeds from the sale thereof, if sold, or of returning to the latter the said goods, if not sold, within ninety (90) days, or immediately upon demand . . . (p. 7, Rollo) Petitioner allegedly failed to turn over the proceeds of the sale or to return the goods under the aforementioned covenant.

On April 2, 1979, a few months after the case of estafa was filed against petitioner, Tramat Mercantile, Inc., filed a complaint against him in Civil Case No. 122842 for sum of money with the then Court of First Instance of Manila. The parties entered into a compromise agreement to settle the claim in said civil case, on the basis of which the trial court rendered judgment, dated March 27, 1980, approving the same.

On June 1, 1980, herein petitioner moved for the dismissal of the criminal charge of estafa (Criminal Case No. 43423) against him on the ground of novation because of the compromise agreement entered into between him and the complainant.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

On July 17, 1980, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss the estafa case for lack of merit. Thereafter, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the then Court of Appeals which dismissed the petition on the grounds, among others, that "novation does not extinguish the criminal liability if the crime of estafa had been completed. (2 REYES 670, 1975 ed., citing People v. Clemente, CA, 65 O.G. 6892). In the instant case the crime of estafa had been consummated long before the compromise settlement was agreed upon. In fact, the criminal case had already been filed in the court. Therefore, the subsequent agreement did not affect the criminal culpability of the petitioner." (p. 16, Rollo) Hence, the filing of the instant petition for certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and for a writ of preliminary injunction, with prayer that "the Decision of the respondent Court of Appeals be reversed and set aside; and that respondent judge of First Instance be prohibited permanently from further proceeding in said criminal case and to command him to dismiss said case after due hearing of this petition . . ." (p. 11, Rollo)

It is the position of herein petitioner that the compromise agreement in the civil case novated the contract embodied in the trust receipts on which the information in Criminal Case No. 43423 was based, "inasmuch as there was a change of object or principal conditions, under Article 1291 of the Civil Code. There being a novation, it is respectfully submitted that even if the novation took place after the filing of the Information in the criminal case, the transaction had nonetheless been converted from a criminal violation to civil obligation, which would therefore necessitate the consequent dismissal of the criminal case." (p. 8, Rollo).

We are not persuaded. The Court, speaking through Justice J.B.L. Reyes, in People v. Nery, 10 SCRA 244, said that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The novation theory may perhaps apply to the filing 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 v. Gervacio, 54 Off. Gaz. 2898; People v. Velasco, 42 Phil. 76; U.S v. 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 v. People, 90 Phil. 681; U.S. v. Villareal, 27 Phil. 481)."cralaw virtua1aw library

Thus, it is clear that the respondent Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss the criminal case of estafa on the basis of a compromise agreement made after the filing of the information.

ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


TEEHANKEE, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I dissent from the majority opinion on the ground that the trust receipt transaction, more so when there has been a compromise agreement after the filing of the information for the discharge of petitioner-accused’s liability under the importation covered by the trust receipt, gives rise only to civil liability on the part of the said petitioner-accused. As previously stated by me in my dissent in People v. Cuevo, G.R. No. L-27607, May 7, 1981 (which is herein reproduced by reference for brevity’s sake), the old capitalist orientation of putting importers in jail for supposed estafa or swindling for non-payment of the price of the imported goods released to them under trust receipts (a purely commercial transaction), under the fiction of the trust receipt device, should no longer be permitted in this day and age.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1983 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-30811 September 2, 1983 - ANTONIO A. NIEVA v. MANILA BANKING CORPORATION

    209 Phil. 361

  • G.R. No. L-32521 September 2, 1983 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GUARDSON R. LOOD

  • G.R. No. L-33929 September 2, 1983 - PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK v. GREGORIO T. LANTIN, ET AL.

    209 Phil. 382

  • G.R. No. L-37748 September 2, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUERRERO ALMEDA

    209 Phil. 393

  • G.R. No. L-54958 September 2, 1983 - ANGLO-FIL TRADING CORPORATION v. HON. ALFREDO LAZARO

    09 Phil. 400

  • G.R. No. L-55212 September 2, 1983 - SATURNINO DOMINGO v. MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENSE

    209 Phil. 436

  • G.R. No. L-56576 September 2, 1983 - ZENAIDA SANTARIN v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    209 Phil. 455

  • G.R. No. L-58164 September 2, 1983 - JOSE GUERRERO v. ST. CLARE’S REALTY CO., LTD.

    209 Phil. 459

  • G.R. No. L-58476 September 2, 1983 - FERNANDO ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS

    209 Phil. 475

  • G.R. No. L-62961 September 2, 1983 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

    209 Phil. 480

  • G.R. No. L-63723 September 2, 1983 - SARKIES TOURS PHILIPPINES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

    209 Phil. 484

  • G.R. No. L-36446 September 9, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN C. MAGUDDATU

    209 Phil. 489

  • G.R. No. L-56864 September 15, 1983 - ROQUE GABAYAN v. EXALTACION A. NAVARRO

    209 Phil. 497

  • G.R. No. L-64183 September 15, 1983 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

    209 Phil. 500

  • G.R. No. L-28772 September 21, 1983 - ASSOCIATION OF BAPTISTS FOR WORLD EVANGELISM, INC. v. FIELDMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC

    209 Phil. 505

  • G.R. No. L-53830 September 21, 1983 - SILVESTRE ESPAÑOL v. COURT OF APPEALS

    209 Phil. 508

  • G.R. No. L-55943 September 21, 1983 - EUGENIO JUAN GONZALES v. COURT OF APPEALS

    209 Phil. 515

  • G.R. No. L-56076 September 21, 1983 - PALAY, INC. v. JACOBO C. CLAVE

    209 Phil. 523

  • G.R. No. L-58575 September 21, 1983 - CESAR JARDIEL v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

    209 Phil. 534

  • G.R. No. L-60073 September 23, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NENITO C. FERRER

    209 Phil. 546

  • G.R. No. L-60990 September 23, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE GACHO

    209 Phil. 553

  • G.R. No. L-39502 September 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI IBANGA

    209 Phil. 567

  • G.R. No. L-39743 September 24, 1983 - JUSTINIANO CAJIUAT v. ISMAEL MATHAY, SR.

    209 Phil. 579

  • G.R. No. L-47724 September 24, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO A. MARANAN

    209 Phil. 585

  • G.R. No. L-59593 September 24, 1983 - FRANCISCO B. ASUNCION, JR. v. ROSALIO C. SEGUNDO

    209 Phil. 597

  • G.R. No. L-39746 September 27, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLANDINO B. SAN MIGUEL

    209 Phil. 600

  • A.C. No. 2251 September 29, 1983 - FELICIDAD TOLENTINO v. VICTORIA C. MANGAPIT

    209 Phil. 607

  • G.R. No. L-29822 September 29, 1983 - JOSE T. JAMANDRE v. LUZON SURETY COMPANY, INC.

    209 Phil. 612

  • G.R. No. L-36530 September 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEBASTIAN JERVOSO

    209 Phil. 616

  • G.R. No. L-40445 September 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONALD MOSQUERA

    209 Phil. 625

  • G.R. No. L-46418 September 29, 1983 - CHACON ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS

    209 Phil. 634

  • G.R. No. L-47437 September 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAMELO O. MARIANO

    209 Phil. 651

  • G.R. No. L-48290 September 29, 1983 - NATY CASTILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    209 Phil. 656

  • G.R. No. L-50523 September 29, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO M. AQUINO

    209 Phil. 681

  • G.R. No. L-56135 September 29, 1983 - RICARDO CORTEZ v. SERAFIN E. CAMILON

    209 Phil. 707

  • G.R. No. L-60898 September 29, 1983 - GAUDENCIO R. MABUTOL v. ARTURO B. PASCUAL

    209 Phil. 710

  • G.R. No. L-61643 September 29, 1983 - LUZVIMINDA V. LIPATA v. EDUARDO C. TUTAAN

    209 Phil. 719

  • G.R. No. L-30442 September 30, 1983 - CORNELIO BALMACEDA v. UNION CARBIDE PHILIPPINES, INC.

    209 Phil. 723

  • G.R. No. L-35000 September 30, 1983 - SALUD YOUNG v. OLIVIA YOUNG

    209 Phil. 727

  • G.R. No. L-37788 September 30, 1983 - ARTEMIO CASTILLO v. FILTEX INTERNATIONAL CORP.

    209 Phil. 728

  • G.R. No. L-38644 September 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE MOSTOLES, JR.

    209 Phil. 734

  • G.R. No. L-48255 September 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIELITO DEMETERIO

    209 Phil. 742

  • G.R. No. L-50476 September 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMANDO SIMBULAN

    209 Phil. 753

  • G.R. No. L-62945 September 30, 1983 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CANDIDO DE CASTRO

    209 Phil. 761

  • G.R. No. L-64250 September 30, 1983 - SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. LUIS L. VICTOR

    209 Phil. 764