3. Ching v.

CA (Rein) PETITIONER: Alfredo Ching

April 27, 2000 | Buena, J. | Prejudicial Question RESPONDENTS: C.A., Hon. Angeles, RTC BR.58, People of the PH

SUMMARY:

Petitioner Ching was charged with 4 counts of estafa on the ground that he
violated the trust receipt agreement he executed in favor of Allied Banking Corp
(ABC) by failing to remit the proceeds of the sale of the imported goods he
received which he was obligated to sell for cash and for failing to turn over the
goods to ABC should he fail to sell it. Ching and PBM filed a civil case with RTC
Manila for the declaration of nullity of documents. Thereafter, he filed an
omnibus motion with RTC Makati to suspend further proceedings in the criminal
cases on the ground of prejudicial question in a civil action. The issue Is whether
or not prejudicial question exist. The SC held that there is no prejudicial question.
A violation of a trust receipt arrangement is not the sole basis for incurring
liability under the Penal Code (Estafa). Thus, the criminal action may be
resolved even without the resolution of the civil case.

DOCTRINE:

- Prejudicial question is a question based on a fact distinct and separate from the
crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or
innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must
appear not only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon
which the criminal prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution
of the issue or issues raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the
accused would necessarily be determined.
- 2 Requisites:
A. The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the
issue raised in the criminal action; and
B. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal
action may proceed.

FACTS:
1. Ching was charged with 4 counts of estafa (RTC makati) in relation to Trust
Receipts Law. The 4 separate informations were couched in similar language
except for the date, subject goods and amount.
2. Ching executed a trust receipt agreement in favor of Allied Banking Corporation
(ABC) in consideration for Ching’s receipt of goods described as 12 Containers
(200 M/T) and 18 Containers (Zoom M/T) Magtar Brand Dolomites; High Fired
Refractory Sliding Nozzle Bricks; and High Fired Refractory Sliding Nozzle
Bricks (the sum due is P278,917.80; P419,719.20; P387,551.95; and
P389,085.14 respectively, around 14M) under the terms of which Ching agreed
to sell the same for cash with the express obligation to remit to Allied the
proceeds of the sale and/or to turn over the goods, if not sold, on demand,
3. However, Ching willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriated,
misapplied and converted to his own personal use and benefit the said goods
and/or the proceeds of the sale thereof. Despite repeated demands, Ching failed
and refused to account for and remit the proceeds of sale to the damage and
prejudice of Allied.
4. RTC Makati (BR 58) & RTC Manila- Ching filed omnibus motion to strike
info, to require conduct of prelim. Investigation, and suspend for the meantime
further proceedings in the criminal cases w/c was granted by RTC Makati BR.
58. In RTC Manila, Ching with PH Blooming Mills filed for declaration of
nullity of docs and damages (PBM v. ABC). Ching filed before RTC Makati a
petition for suspension of the criminal proceedings on the ground of prejudicial
question in a civil action (denied). Ching filed an MR (denied also).
5. CA - petition for certiorari and prohibition to declare RTC’s orders null and
prohibit further proceedings. Ching filed MR (denied). However, RTC Manila
admitted Ching’s amended complaint to declare trust receipts void and the
transaction is a simple loan without any trust receipt agreement/ trust receipt.
6. SC - Ching filed Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) and prayed that criminal cases
(People v. Ching pending in RTC Makati) be suspended until final determination
of civil case (PBM & Ching v. ABC pending in RTC Manila).
ISSUES:
- W/N the pendency of a civil action for damages and declaration of nullity of
documents, specifically trust receipts, warrants the suspension of criminal
proceedings instituted for violation of Article 315 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code,
in relation to P.D. 115, otherwise known as the "Trust Receipts Law” (W/N
prejudicial question exist) - NO.
RATIO:
- There is no prejudicial question. A violation of a trust receipt arrangement
is not the sole basis for incurring liability under the Penal Code (Estafa).
(Other grounds that can be used are (a) the accused received the subject goods in
trust or under the obligation to sell the same and to remit the proceeds thereof to
Allied Banking Corporation, or to return the goods, if not sold; (b) that accused
Ching misappropriated or converted the goods and/or the proceeds of the sale; (c)
that accused Ching performed such acts with abuse of confidence to the damage
and prejudice of Allied Banking Corporation; and (d) that demand was made by
the bank to herein petitioner.)
- Records show that Ching signed and executed an application and agreement for
a commercial letter of credit to finance the purchase of imported goods. Also,
petitioner signed and executed trust receipt documents in favor of ABC.
- The Court does not agree with Ching’s claim that documents were intended
merely as "additional or side documents covering the said loan” (in contrast to
petitioners claim that it’s a security) since a trust receipt partakes the nature of a
security transaction. Also, in the civil case, Ching alleged that the receipts were
used as security/collateral. (Pursuant to the rules, such particular allegation
in the complaint is tantamount to a judicial admission on the part of Ching
to which he must be bound. )Perhaps, this made Ching turned around and filed
a motion to file amended complaint.
- Such was admitted by lower court which meant that Ching’s admission was
superseded. (Under the Rules, pleadings superseded or amended disappear
from the record, lose their status as pleadings and cease to be judicial
admissions. While they may nonetheless be utilized against the pleader as
extrajudicial admissions, they must, in order to have such effect, be formally
 offered in evidence. If not offered in evidence, the admission contained
therein will not be considered.) Also, Ching filed the amended complaint after
promulgation of assailed decision of CA and there’s a lapse of almost 18 months,
which lead the Court to doubt the genuine purpose of Ching in filing the amended
complaint.
- To reiterate, the civil action for declaration of nullity of documents and for
damages does not constitute a prejudicial question to the criminal cases for estafa
filed against petitioner Ching.

Separate Opinion: None