3 G.R. No.

191015               August 6, 2014 RTC: Order was promulgated by the respondent RTC judge finding the
private respondents’ Demurrer to Evidence to be meritorious and dismissing
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Petitioner, the Criminal Case Nos. 00-187318 and 00-187319 and acquitting all of
vs. the accused in these cases.
JOSE C. GO, AIDA C. DELA ROSA, and FELECITAS D. NECOMEDES
 The prosecution, through the OSG, filed Petition for Certiorari
FACTS assailing the order of the RTC. It argued that the prosecution was
deprived of its day in court; and that the trial court disregarded the
 BSP issued Resolution No. 1427 ordering the closure of the evidence presented, which undoubtedly showed that respondents
Orient Commercial Banking Corporation (OCBC) and placing committed the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial
such bank under the receivership of the Philippine Deposit documents.
Insurance Corporation (PDIC). PDIC, as the statutory receiver of
OCBC, effectively took charge of OCBC’s assets and liabilities. CA: assailed July 2, 2007 Order of the trial court became final since the
prosecution failed to move for the reconsideration thereof, and thus double
 While all the aforementioned events were transpiring, PDIC began jeopardy attached.
collecting on OCBC’s past due loans receivable by sending
demand letters to its borrowers for the immediate settlement oftheir The CA further held that the prosecution failed to present a witness who
outstanding loans. could testify, based on personal knowledge, that the loan documents were
falsified by the respondents; that the prosecution should not have relied on
 Allegedly among these borrowers of OCBC are Timmy’s, Inc. and
Asia Textile Mills, Inc. which appeared to have obtained a loanof "letters and unverified ledgers," and it "should have trailed the money from
[P]10 Million each. A representative of Timmy’s, Inc. denied being the beginning to the end;" that while the documentary evidence showed that
granted any loan by OCBC and insisted that the signatures on the the signatures in the loan documents were falsified, it has not been shown
loan documents were falsified. who falsified them. It added that since only two of the alleged 13 manager’s
checks were being questioned, there arose reasonable doubt as to whether
 The PDIC conducted an investigation and allegedly came out estafa was committed, as to these two checks; instead, there is an
with a finding that the loans purportedly in the names of "inescapable possibility that an honest mistake was made in the preparation
Timmy’s, Inc. and Asia Textile Mills, Inc. were released in the of the two questioned manager’s checks since these checks were made out
form of manager’ checks in the name of Philippine Recycler’s
to the names of different payees and not in the names of the alleged
and Zeta International, Inc. These manager’s checks were then
applicants of the loans.
allegedly deposited to the savings account of the private
respondent Jose C. Go with OCBC and, thereafter, were *** During the examination and inquiry into OCBC’s operations, Go
automatically transferred to his current account in order to fund
issued and sent a letter to the BSP, through Maria Dolores Yuviengco,
personal checks issued by him earlier.
Director of the Departmentof Commercial Banks, specifically requesting
 PDIC filed a complaint for two (2) counts of Estafa thru Falsification that the BSP refrain from sending any communication to Timmy’s, Inc.
of Commercial Documents in the Office of the City Prosecutor of the and Asia Textile Mills, Inc., among others. He manifested that he was
City of Manila against the private respondents in relation to the "willing to assume the viability and full payment" of the accounts
purported loans of Timmy’s, Inc.and Asia Textile Mills, Inc under investigation and examination, including the Timmy’s, Inc.
 Informations were filed against the private respondents. and AsiaTextile Mills, Inc. accounts.

 Private respondents filed their Demurrer to Evidence praying for the ISSUE
dismissal of the criminal cases instituted against them due to the
failure of the prosecution to establish their guilt beyond reasonable Whether or not Go’s letter to the BSP may be considered as an implied
doubt. admission of guilt.

RULING
YES. petitioner’s documentary evidence was admitted in full by the trial court. With
respect to evidence consisting of private documents, the presumption
What the trial and appellate courts disregarded, however, is that the OCBC remains that the recording of private transactions has been fair and regular,
funds ended up in the personal bank accounts of respondent Go, and were and that the ordinary course of business has been followed.
used to fund his personal checks, even as he was not entitled thereto.
These, if not rebutted, are indicative of estafa, as may be seen from the Go’s January 28, 1998 letter to the BSP stating that he was "willing to
afore-cited Sorianocase. assume the viability and full payment" of the accounts under
examination – which included the Timmy’s, Inc. and Asia Textile Mills,
The bank money (amounting to ₱8million) which came to the possession of Inc. accounts, among others – is an offer of compromise, and thus an
petitioner was money held in trust or administration by him for the bank, in implied admission of guilt under Rule 130, Section 27 of the Revised
his fiduciary capacity as the President of said bank. It is not accurate to say Rules on Evidence.
that petitioner became the owner of the ₱8 million because it was the
proceeds of a loan. That would have been correct if the bank knowingly In addition, appellant’s act of pleading for his sister-in-law’s forgiveness
extended the loan to petitioner himself. But that is not the case here. may be considered as analogous to an attempt to compromise, which
According to the information for estafa, the loan was supposed to be in turn can be received as an implied admission of guilt under Section
for another person, a certain "Enrico Carlos"; petitioner, through 27, Rule 130 x x x.
falsification, made it appear that said "Enrico Carlos" applied for the
loan when infact he ("Enrico Carlos") did not. Through such fraudulent Sec. 27. Offer of compromise not admissible. – In civil cases, an
device, petitioner obtained the loan proceeds and converted the same. offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is not
Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner became admissible in evidence against the offeror.
the legal owner of the ₱8 million. Thus, petitioner remained the bank’s
fiduciary with respect to that money, which makes it capable of In criminal cases, except those involving quasi-offenses (criminal
misappropriation or conversion in his hands.67 negligence) or those allowed by law to be compromised, an offer of
compromise by the accused may be received in evidence as an
Thus, it is irrelevant that the proceeds of the supposed loans were made implied admission of guilt.
payable to entities other than the alleged borrowers.Besides, the manager’s
checks themselves indicate that they were the proceeds of the purported
Timmy’s, Inc.’s and Asia Textile Mills, Inc.’s loans, through the alpha numeric
codes specifically assigned to them that are printed on the face of the
checks; the connection between the checks and the purported loans is thus
established. In the same vein, the CA’s supposition that there is an
"inescapable possibility that an honest mistake was made int he preparation
of the two questioned manager’s checks" is absurd; even so, the bottom line
is that they were encashed using bank funds, and the proceeds thereof were
deposited in Go’s bank savings and current accounts and used to fund his
personal checks.

Furthermore, as correctly pointed out by petitioner, it is superfluous to require