GR No.
180165, April 7, 2009
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner,
Vs.
HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE RAUL M. GONZALES, OLIVER T. YAO and DIANA
T. YAO, Respondents.
Facts:
Petitioner in this case is a banking institution duly authorized to engage in
the banking business while private respondents were the authorized
representatives of Visaland Inc.
Private respondents, on behalf of Visaland, applied with petitioner for 24
letters of credit, the aggregate amount of which reached the sum of Php
68,749,487.96 in order to finance the importation of materials necessary for
the operations of its sister company, Titan Ikeda Construction and
Development Corporation (TICDC). Simultaneous with the issuance of the
letters of credit, private respondents signed trust receipts in favor of the
petitioner. Private respondents bound themselves to sell the goods covered
by the letters of credit and to remit the proceeds to petitioner, if sold, or
return the goods, if not sold, if not sold, on or before their agreed dates.
When the trust receipts matured, private respondents failed to return the
goods to petitioner, or to return their value amounting Php 68,749,487.96
despite demand. Thus, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint for estafa
against Visaland and private respondents with the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Manila. Private respondents denied having entered into a trust
receipts agreement but a Contract of Loan with the petitioner. Finding no
probable cause, the information was dismissed for lack of probable cause
and lack of evidence that prior demand was made by petitioner. The City
Prosecutor underscored that for a charge of estafa with grave abuse of
confidence to prosper, previous demand is an indispensable requisite. This
was reversed after a motion for reconsideration was filed hence it was filed
in court. However, in the interim, private respondents appealed the
resolution of the prosecutor before the Secretary of Justice who ruled that
there was no probable cause to prosecute private respondent for estafa in
relation to PD No. 115 and directed the withdrawal of the information. The
directive was complied with. The Court of Appeals upheld the Secretary of
Justice’s Resolution.
ISSUE:
Is there probable cause to hold private respondents liable for estafa in
relation to violation of the Trust receipts Law?
Ruling of the Court:
Yes, there is ample evidence on record to warrant a finding that there is
probable cause to warrant the prosecution of private respondents for
estafa. Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is
sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed
that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. That
private respondents did not sell the goods under the trust receipt but
allowed it to be used by their sister company is of no moment. The offense
punished under PD No. 115 is in the nature of malum prohibitum.
A mere failure to deliver the proceeds of the sale or the goods, if not sold,
constitutes a criminal offense that causes prejudice not only to another, but
more to the public interest. Even more incredible is the contention of private
respondents that they did not give much significance to the documents they
signed, considering the enormous value of the transaction involved. Thus, it
is highly improbable to mistake trust receipt documents for a contract of loan
when the heading thereon printed in bold and legible letters reads: Trust
Receipts. Without prejudice, by merely glancing at the documents submitted
by petitioner entitled Trust Receipts and the arguments advanced by private
respondents, the court is convinced that there is probable cause to file the
case and to hold them for trial.
Q&A’s:
1. What is a ‘probable cause’?
Probable cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and
circumstance as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting
on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person
charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. It is
merely based on opinion and reasonable belief.
2. How to determine the existence of probable cause?
To determine the existence of probable cause, there is a need to
conduct preliminary investigation as a means of discovering which
persons may be reasonably charged with a crime.
3. What is the purpose of a PI?
Its basic purpose is to determine whether a crime has been committed
and whether there is a probable cause to believe that the accused is
guilty thereof. It is not an occasion for the full and exhaustive display
of the parties’ evidence.
