EN BANC
[G.R. Nos. L-17603-04. May 31, 1962. ]
CEFERINA SAMO, Petitioner, v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., Respondents.
Francisco de la Fuente for Petitioner.
Solicitor General for Respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. WORDS AND PHRASES; TRUST RECEIPT. — A trust receipt is considered as a security transaction intended to aid in financing importers and retail dealers who do not have sufficient funds or resources to finance the importation or purchase of merchandise, and who may not be able to acquire credit except through utilization, as collateral, of the merchandise imported or purchased (53 Am. Jur. 961).
2. CRIMINAL LAW; ESTAFA; FAILURE TO TURN OVER PROCEEDS OF SALE OF GOODS COVERED BY TRUST RECEIPTS OR THE SAID GOODS. — Where it is shown that notwithstanding repeated oral and written demands by the bank, petitioner had failed either to turn over to the said Bank the proceeds of the sale of the goods, or to return said goods if they were not sold, held: that the petitioner is guilty of having violated the provisions of Art. 315, 1-(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
3. ID.; ID.; PAYMENT DOES NOT EXTINGUISH CRIMINAL LIABILITY. — The fact that, subsequent to the filing of the cases in the Court of First Instance, petitioner made partial payments on account does not alter the situation. Payment does not extinguish criminal liability for estafa.
2. CRIMINAL LAW; ESTAFA; FAILURE TO TURN OVER PROCEEDS OF SALE OF GOODS COVERED BY TRUST RECEIPTS OR THE SAID GOODS. — Where it is shown that notwithstanding repeated oral and written demands by the bank, petitioner had failed either to turn over to the said Bank the proceeds of the sale of the goods, or to return said goods if they were not sold, held: that the petitioner is guilty of having violated the provisions of Art. 315, 1-(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
3. ID.; ID.; PAYMENT DOES NOT EXTINGUISH CRIMINAL LIABILITY. — The fact that, subsequent to the filing of the cases in the Court of First Instance, petitioner made partial payments on account does not alter the situation. Payment does not extinguish criminal liability for estafa.
D E C I S I O N
DIZON, J.:
Petition to review by writ of certiorari the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. Nos. 20844-45-R entitled "People of the Philippines v. Ceferina Samo" convicting petitioner, in both cases, of the crime of estafa as defined in paragraph 1(b) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentencing her, in each case, to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from four months of arresto mayor to one year and eight months of prision correccional, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, to indemnify the Bank of the Philippine Islands in the sum of P5,385.91 and P4,656.70, or a total of P10,042.61, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
Several years prior to the two transactions in question, the complainant Bank of the Philippine Islands had been extending credit facilities to petitioner in connection with her import business. To facilitate the importation of 1487 cases (cartons) of tins of squids valued at P12,800.00, and 889 cartons of canned Rosebowl brand sardines valued at P11,076.94, petitioner opened sometime in 1954 two letters of credit with said bank, in connection with which she was required to put up 30% of the full cost of the goods as a marginal deposit. Upon the arrival of the goods the bank advanced or paid the balances due in order that the goods could be released, and required petitioner to execute two trust receipts in its favor as a condition for the turning over of their possession to her. On July 20, 1954 and July 29, 1954 petitioner executed said trust receipts wherein she acknowledged having received in trust from the bank the aforementioned goods and obligated herself to hold them in trust for the latter. The document authorized her to sell the goods for the account of the bank, under the obligation to remit to the latter the proceeds of the sale — if sold — or to return them, if not sold on or before July 31, 1954.
Petitioner having failed to account for the goods and, or the proceeds thereof despite repeated oral and written demands by the bank, Criminal Cases Nos. 30784 and 30875 for estafa were instituted against her in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
After the filing of said cases, petitioner made the following payments, on account, to the bank, to wit: P1,200.00 on May 5, 1955; P800.00 on October 5, 1955; P300.00 on October 18, 1955; and P1,997.11, the latter sum representing an amount deposited by her on account of a letter of credit which was cancelled.
After a joint trial the Court of First Instance of Manila convicted petitioner. On appeal, as above stated, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
Petitioner’s main contention in this appeal is that the violation of the terms of the trust receipts already mentioned does not constitute "estafa" and gives rise only to civil liability. In this connection she argues that, under the facts of the case, part of the money paid for the goods covered by said trust receipts belonged to her, the complainant bank having only advanced the balance due on the purchase; that the money thus advanced constituted a loan; that the requirement and execution of the trust receipts was a mere formality "in order to comply with the standard banking procedure, the true relation being that of creditor and debtor."cralaw virtua1aw library
Petitioner’s contention is untenable.
A trust receipt is considered as a security transaction intended to aid in financing importers and retail dealers who do not have sufficient funds or resources to finance the importation or purchase of merchandise, and whom may not be able to acquire credit except through utilization, as collateral, of the merchandise imported or purchased (53 A m. Jur. 961).
In the case of the Philippine National Bank v. Vda.
Several years prior to the two transactions in question, the complainant Bank of the Philippine Islands had been extending credit facilities to petitioner in connection with her import business. To facilitate the importation of 1487 cases (cartons) of tins of squids valued at P12,800.00, and 889 cartons of canned Rosebowl brand sardines valued at P11,076.94, petitioner opened sometime in 1954 two letters of credit with said bank, in connection with which she was required to put up 30% of the full cost of the goods as a marginal deposit. Upon the arrival of the goods the bank advanced or paid the balances due in order that the goods could be released, and required petitioner to execute two trust receipts in its favor as a condition for the turning over of their possession to her. On July 20, 1954 and July 29, 1954 petitioner executed said trust receipts wherein she acknowledged having received in trust from the bank the aforementioned goods and obligated herself to hold them in trust for the latter. The document authorized her to sell the goods for the account of the bank, under the obligation to remit to the latter the proceeds of the sale — if sold — or to return them, if not sold on or before July 31, 1954.
Petitioner having failed to account for the goods and, or the proceeds thereof despite repeated oral and written demands by the bank, Criminal Cases Nos. 30784 and 30875 for estafa were instituted against her in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
After the filing of said cases, petitioner made the following payments, on account, to the bank, to wit: P1,200.00 on May 5, 1955; P800.00 on October 5, 1955; P300.00 on October 18, 1955; and P1,997.11, the latter sum representing an amount deposited by her on account of a letter of credit which was cancelled.
After a joint trial the Court of First Instance of Manila convicted petitioner. On appeal, as above stated, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
Petitioner’s main contention in this appeal is that the violation of the terms of the trust receipts already mentioned does not constitute "estafa" and gives rise only to civil liability. In this connection she argues that, under the facts of the case, part of the money paid for the goods covered by said trust receipts belonged to her, the complainant bank having only advanced the balance due on the purchase; that the money thus advanced constituted a loan; that the requirement and execution of the trust receipts was a mere formality "in order to comply with the standard banking procedure, the true relation being that of creditor and debtor."cralaw virtua1aw library
Petitioner’s contention is untenable.
A trust receipt is considered as a security transaction intended to aid in financing importers and retail dealers who do not have sufficient funds or resources to finance the importation or purchase of merchandise, and whom may not be able to acquire credit except through utilization, as collateral, of the merchandise imported or purchased (53 A m. Jur. 961).
In the case of the Philippine National Bank v. Vda.
