Republic
of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, - versus - AMELIO TRIA and JOHN DOE, Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 193250 Present: VELASCO,
JR., J., Chairperson, PERALTA, ABAD,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
JJ. Promulgated: April
25, 2012 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the January 18, 2012 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 108571 entitled Philippine National Bank v. Department of Justice, Amelio C. Tria and
John Doe which affirmed the Resolution dated December 26, 2007 issued by the
Department of Justice.
The Facts
Respondent Amelio C. Tria (Tria) was a former Branch Manager
of petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB), assigned at PNBs Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System Branch (PNB-MWSS) located within the Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) Compound,
On September 21, 2001, MWSS opened Current Account (C/A) No.
244-850099-6 with PNB-MWSS and made an initial deposit of PhP 6,714,621.13 on
October 10, 2001. The account was intended as a depository for a loan from the
Asian Development Bank (ADB) to fund Contract No. MS-O1C.
To withdraw from the account, PNB checks must be issued and
three signatures securedone signatory each from MWSS, Maynilad Water Services,
Inc. (MWSI), and the contractor, China-Geo Engineering Corporation (China-Geo).[2]
On April 16, 2003, C/A 244-850099-6 became dormant with a
balance of PhP 5,397,154.07.[3]
In the meantime, Tria requested a listing of the dormant
accounts of PNB-MWSS and borrowed the folders of MWSS and C/A 244-850099-6.[4] On
one occasion, Tria also inquired about the irregularities involving managers
checks committed by the banks former branch accountant.[5]
On April 22, 2004, PNB-MWSS received a letter-request from
MWSS instructing the deduction of PhP 5,200,000 (plus charges) from C/A
244-850099-6 and the issuance of the corresponding managers check in the same
amount payable to a certain Atty. Rodrigo A. Reyes. The letter-request was
purportedly signed and approved by the duly authorized signatories of MWSS.
Hence, C/A 244-850099-6 was re-activated in light of the letter-request.[6]
The letter-request, supporting documents, and Managers Check Application
Form were then evaluated by the banks Sales and Service Officer (SSO), Agnes
F. Bagasani, who found the same to be in order.[7]
Edsel B. Francisco (Francisco), who
was also designated to perform the tasks of a Fund Transfer Processor (FTP),
likewise verified the letter-request and the documents from the MWSS Current
Account folder of the bank. He then effected the transaction requested by
debiting C/A No. 244-850099-6 for the purchase of a Managers Check payable to
Atty. Rodrigo A. Reyes and prepared a Batch
Input Sheet listing the supporting documents for the transaction together
with the other transactions for that day.[8]
Managers
Check No. 1165848 was, thus, prepared and issued in the name of Atty. Rodrigo
A. Reyes (Atty. Reyes) for the amount of PhP 5,200,000 (five million two hundred
thousand pesos).[9]
On April 26, 2004, PNB-MWSS received cash delivery from PNBs
To confirm the issuance of Managers Check No. 1165848, Flandez called
PNB-MWSS and talked to its Sales and Service Head, Geraldine C. Veniegas
(Veniegas).[12] Veniegas confirmed that
PNB-MWSS issued a managers check in favor of Atty. Reyes and sent a
letter-confirmation through e-mail to PNB-Circle.[13]
While waiting for the confirmation, Flandez interviewed Atty. Reyes.
Atty. Reyes told Flandez that he was an MWSS contractor and the amount covered
by Managers Check No. 1165848 represented the proceeds of his recent contract
with MWSS. Atty. Reyes then showed his
drivers license and Integrated Bar of the
Upon receiving confirmation from PNB-MWSS
regarding the managers check, Flandez went to the Cash Center of PNB-Circle to
pick up the cash requisition. Tria and Atty. Reyes, however, followed him with
Tria telling Flandez: Pirmahan ko na
lang tong check, George. Identify ko na lang siya kasi nagmamadali siya. Dito
na lang i-receive. For security kasi nag-iisa lang siya.[15] Tria then placed his signature on the check
above the handwritten note PAYEE IDENTIFIED AMELIO C. TRIA.[16]
In August 2004, Veniegas, the Sales and
Service Head of PNB-MWSS, observed that Tria showed sudden concern with the
Minutes of the Meeting dated August 6, 2004 even if he was no longer involved
in the operations of the bank. Tria reminded her to prepare the Minutes of the
Meeting. Tria then made revisions therein.[17]
After the revised Minutes of the Meeting had been signed by all the attendees,
Tria sought to further amend the Minutes, as follows:
9. For your information, BM Tria, per delineation of functions has no approving authority except in the opening of current and savings account. The BM is purely on marketing clients and giving services to existing and new clients. Sometimes, we are requesting his assistance like:
- represent/follow up our operational needs in the Head Office;
- handles client complaints;
- assists in emergency cash requisitions;
- assists in accompanying valued client/clients to QC Circle Branch for encashment of MCs merely to identify the bearer/payee and confirmation of the MC whenever we are short in cash;
- we usually seek some advice and strategies on handling clients complaints and on other operational matters.[18]
On November 1, 2004, Tria retired as PNB-MWSS Manager under PNBs
regular retirement plan.[19]
On February 2, 2005, Zaida Pulida
(Pulida), the MWSS employee in charge of C/A No. 244-850099-6,[20]
inquired about the accounts outstanding balance. While she was trying to
reconcile the records of MWSS and PNB, she inquired about a debit entry dated
April 22, 2004 to C/A No. 244-850099-6 in the amount of PhP 5,200,000.
Veniegas verified that PhP 5,200,000 was indeed debited and was encashed
using Managers Check No. 1165848 in favor of Atty. Rodrigo A. Reyes. Veniegas
also attempted to retrieve the files for the transaction on April 22, 2004 but discovered
that the duplicate copy of Managers Check No. 1165848, the managers check
application form and the letter of authority were all missing.[21]
Pulida notified Veniegas that MWSS did
not apply for the issuance of the managers check payable to Atty. Reyes. Upon
verification with the Integrated Bar of the
On February 14, 2005, MWSS wrote the new
Branch Manager of PNB-MWSS, Ofelia Daway, about the unauthorized withdrawal
from their PNB C/A No. 244-850099-6.[23]
MWSS expressed surprise at the withdrawal of PhP 5,200,030 from its account
when it had not issued any PNB checks. The MWSS letter also stated that:
Our contractor has already submitted their final billing and we expect to withdraw the full amount deposited to the said account within a months time. We therefore demand the refund or restoration within five (5) days after receipt of this letter of the amount of P5,200,030.00 to PNB Account No. 244-850099-6 representing the amount withdrawn without MWSS authorization/instructions. Otherwise, we will use all the legal means available to MWSS to recover the amount.
PNB conducted its own investigation
and, at its conclusion, sought to hold Tria liable for qualified theft.[24]
Employees of PNB-MWSS, Veniegas,
Bagasani, and Francisco, and PNB-Circles SSO, Flandez, executed separate
complaint-affidavits to recount the circumstances of the issuance and
encashment of Managers Check No. 1165848, and accused Tria guilty of qualified
theft.
Tria, via his Counter-Affidavit, contended that (1) there was no taking
of personal property; (2) there was no intent to gain on his part; (3) the
personal property does not belong to PNB even if it is the depositary bank; (4)
there was no grave abuse of confidence on his part; and (5) his alleged
identification of the payee is not the operative act that triggered the payment
of the managers check by the PNB-MWSS Branch.[25]
Instead, Tria argued that it was Flandez who approved and paid the managers
check even beyond his authority. He added that it was the other bank employees
who should be held liable for the loss.
In his Reply-Affidavit dated February
20, 2006, Flandez contradicted Trias claim that Tria left PNB-Circle
immediately after signing Managers Check No. 1165848. According to Flandez, Tria
helped Atty. Reyes count the PhP 5,200,000 by the bundle and even asked the banks
security guard for a plastic bag for the cash.[26]
Following a preliminary investigation,
the Assistant City Prosecutor issued a Resolution[27]
on August 15, 2006 stating that Trias identification of the payee did not
consummate the payment of the Managers Check. Rather, it was held, the
consummation of the payment occurred during Flandez approval of the
encashment. The Resolutions dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Undersigned respectfully recommends the approval of the above and the dismissal of the charge for Qualified Theft against respondent Amelio C. Tria due to lack of evidence and probable cause.
PNB moved for reconsideration but was denied in a Resolution[28]
dated April 13, 2007.
Undaunted, PNB filed a
petition for review with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and prayed for the
reversal of the August 15, 2006 and April 13, 2007 Resolutions issued by the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City (OCP).
On December 26, 2007, then
Justice Secretary Raul M. Gonzales issued a Resolution dismissing PNBs
petition for review. PNBs motion for reconsideration was denied in a
Resolution dated February 27, 2009.
PNB sought recourse before
the Court of Appeals (CA). It alleged that both the OCP and the DOJ committed
grave abuse of discretion in failing to consider that Tria and Atty. Reyes/John
Doe conspired in committing the crime of qualified theft; and the DOJ committed
grave abuse of discretion in failing to consider the existence of probable
cause in the instant case and affirming the OCPs findings that there is no
probable cause to hold Tria and Atty. Reyes/John Doe for trial in the crime of
qualified theft.
The Ruling of the CA
On January 18, 2010, the
CA decided in favor of Tria. In affirming the DOJ Resolution issued by
Secretary Gonzales, the CA took notice of how Managers Check No. 1165848 was
issued and paid by PNB after the verification made by PNBs own employees.
The CA ruled that probable
cause against Tria and Atty. Reyes was not established since the employees of
PNB made the encashment after their own independent verification of C/A No.
244-850099-6. Further, the CA deferred
to the DOJs determination of probable cause for the filing of an information
in court as it is an executive function and ruled that the resolutions were not
reversible as PNB was unable to show that these resolutions of the DOJ were
tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
The CA, thus, affirmed the OCPs finding that Trias identification of
the payee did not by itself bring about the payment of the subject managers
check and concluded that the element of taking of personal property belonging
to another without the owners consent is lacking since PNB consented to the
taking by Atty. Reyes.
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Resolutions dated December 26, 2007 and February 29, 2009, issued by Justice Secretary Raul M. Gonzales in I.S. No. 05-10093. are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
PNB, thus, questions the Decision of the CA by the instant
appeal.
The Ruling of this Court
We find petitioners appeal meritorious.
According to the CA, it
was the approval of the request for the issuance and for the encashment of the
managers check by the employees of PNB that resulted in the withdrawal of the
amount encashed by Atty. Reyes/John Doe.
Hence, according to the appellate court, the OCP was correct in not
pursuing the criminal case against Tria.
Clearly, the CA in the
instant case erroneously overlooked vital factual circumstances that call for a
reversal of its ruling.
While discretionary authority to determine probable cause in
a preliminary investigation to ascertain sufficient ground for the filing of an
information rests with the executive branch,[29] such
authority is far from absolute. It may be subject to review when it has been
clearly used with grave abuse of discretion.[30]
And indeed, grave abuse of discretion attended the decision to drop the charges
against Tria as there was more than
probable cause to proceed against him for qualified theft.
It must be emphasized at
the outset that what is necessary for the filing of a criminal information is
not proof beyond reasonable doubt that the person accused is guilty of the acts
imputed on him, but only that there is probable cause to believe that he is
guilty of the crime charged.
Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal
information, are such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty
thereof.[31] It is the existence of
such facts and circumstances 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 is to be prosecuted. [32] A finding of probable cause needs only to
rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed
and that it was committed by the accused.[33]
The acts of Tria and the relevant circumstances that led to
the encashment of the check provide more than sufficient basis for the finding
of probable cause to file an information against him and John Doe/Atty. Reyes
for qualified theft. In fact, it is easy to infer from the factual milieu of
the instant case the existence of all the elements necessary for the
prosecution of the crime of qualified theft.
As defined, theft is committed by any person who, with intent
to gain, but without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force
upon things, shall take the personal property of another without the latters
consent.[34] If committed with grave
abuse of confidence, the crime of theft becomes qualified.[35]
In prcis, qualified theft punishable under Article 310 in relation to Articles
308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is committed when the following elements
are present:
1. Taking of personal property;
2. That the said property belongs to
another;
3. That the said taking be done with intent
to gain;
4. That it be done without the owners
consent;
5. That it be accomplished without the use
of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; and
6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.
In the instant case, the first and second elements are
unquestionably present. The money involved is the personal property of Trias
employer, PNB. Trias argument that the
amount does not belong to PNB even if it is the depositary bank is erroneous
since it is well established that a bank acquires ownership of the money
deposited by its clients.[36]
The third element, intent
to gain or animus lucrandi, is an internal act that is presumed
from the unlawful taking by the offender of the thing subject of asportation.[37]
This element is immediately discernable from the circumstances narrated in the
affidavits submitted by PNBs employees. In particular, it is plain from Trias
misrepresentation that the person he called Atty. Reyes was a valued client of
PNB-MWSS who was authorized to encash the managers check and his act of
revising his functions as stated in the Minutes of the Meeting referred to by
Veniegas to make it appear that he had been tasked with accompanying valued
client/clients to QC Circle Branch for encashment of MCs merely to identify the
bearer/payee and confirmation of the MC whenever we are short in cash.
The fifth element is
undisputed, while the last element, that the taking be done with grave abuse of confidence, is sufficiently shown by
the affidavits of PNB and Trias own admission of the position he held at the
Bank. A banks employees are entrusted with the possession of money of
the bank due to the confidence reposed in them and as such they occupy
positions of confidence.[38]
It is the existence of the fourth elementthe taking be done
without the owners consentthat is the crux of contention. While the
appellate court, together with the DOJ and OCP, maintains the negative and
equates the cumulative acts of the other PNB employees as the consent of PNB in
the issuance and encashment of the managers check, this Court cannot find
itself to sustain such opinion.
On the contrary, the facts portray the stark absence of
consent on the part of PNB for the issuance of managers check payable to
Atty. Rodrigo A. Reyes and its felonious encashment by John Doe/Atty. Reyes
in complicity with Tria.
Tria, it must be reiterated, was PNBs bank manager for its
MWSS branch. The check in question was a
managers check. A managers check is one drawn by a banks manager,
Tria in this case, upon the bank itself. We have held that it stands on the
same footing as a certified check, which is deemed to have been accepted by the
bank that certified it, as it is an order of the bank to pay, drawn upon
itself, committing in effect its total resources, integrity and honor behind
its issuance. By its peculiar character and general use in commerce, a managers check is regarded
substantially to be as good as the money it represents.[39]
In fact, it is obvious from the PNB affidavits that the MWSS C/A was deducted
upon the issuance of the managers check and not upon its encashment. Indeed,
as the banks own check, a managers check becomes the primary obligation of
the bank and is accepted in advance
by the act of its issuance.[40]
Taking this fact into consideration, it cannot be denied that
the wheels of the felony started turning days before the misrepresentations
made by Tria at PNB-Circle. And the encashment was a mere culmination of the
crime that was commenced in PNB-MWSS.
The felony of qualified theft started with the use of the now
missing falsified letter-request and supporting documents for the issuance of
the managers check and the re-activation of the MWSS C/A. It was the pretense of an authority from MWSS that deprived PNB the
liberty to either withhold or freely give its consent for the valid
reactivation of the account and issuance of the check. Quoting from Black v. State,[41] this Court held in Gaviola v. People[42]
that such pretense does not validate a
taking:
In all cases where one in good faith takes anothers property under claim of title in himself, he is exempt from the charge of larceny, however puerile or mistaken the claim may in fact be. And the same is true where the taking is on behalf of another, believed to be the true owner. Still, if the claim is dishonest, a mere pretense, it will not protect the taker.
In more conventional words, this Court sustained the finding of qualified
theft in People v. Salonga,[43]
where the taking was done through the issuance of a check by the very person
responsible for, and in custody of, the said check, viz:
The crime charged is Qualified Theft through Falsification of Commercial Document. The information alleged that the accused took P36,480.30 with grave abuse of confidence by forging the signature of officers authorized to sign the subject check and had the check deposited in the account of Firebrake Sales and Services, a fictitious payee without any legitimate transaction with Metrobank. Theft is qualified if it is committed with grave abuse of confidence. The fact that accused-appellant as assistant cashier of Metrobank had custody of the aforesaid checks and had access not only in the preparation but also in the release of Metrobank cashiers checks suffices to designate the crime as qualified theft as he gravely abused the confidence reposed in him by the bank as assistant cashier. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
Similar to the bank involved in Salonga, PNB was deprived of the discretion to withhold its consent
since, as the circumstances establish, the very person responsible for the
custody and the issuance of the check is the one guilty for its felonious
issuance and encashment, its former branch manager Tria.
Indeed, the pretense made in PNB-MWSS that led to the
issuance of the Managers Check cannot be imputed on anyone other than Tria.
His role as the branch manager of PNB-MWSS who had the responsibility over the functions
of the employees of PNB-MWSS cannot be overlooked. As branch manager, Tria
signs managers checks. He serves as the
last safeguard against any pretense resorted to for an illicit claim over the
banks money. The acts of the other bank officials in the MWSS branch in
processing the managers checks pass through the supervision and approval of
Tria. Thus, the processing and approval of the check are the responsibility of
Tria.
As such, Tria is duty-bound to verify from the banks client
any supposed authority given for the issuance of a managers check. He was,
therefore, duty-bound to confirm with MWSS whether the letter-authorization for
the deduction of P5.2 million from the MWSS C/A is genuine, legal and binding.
Tria is required to exercise the highest degree of care since the degree of
diligence required of banks is more than that of a good father of a family
where the fiduciary nature of their relationship with their depositors is
concerned.[44] This degree of diligence
was wanting in Trias failure to determine the veracity of said
letter-authority considering that the amount to be deducted is large, with the
withdrawal of almost the entire amount of the deposit leaving only less than PhP
200, more so when the account has been dormant since April 16, 2003.
As standard banking
practice intended precisely to prevent unauthorized and fraudulent withdrawals,
a bank manager verifies with the client-depositor to authenticate and confirm
that he/she has validly authorized such withdrawal. Such failure of Tria as bank manager to
verify the legitimacy of the requested withdrawal lends credence to the
accusation that he colluded with Atty. Reyes to feloniously take money from PNB,
and his complicity includes depriving the bank of its opportunity to deny and
withhold the consent for the necessary issuance of Managers Check No. 1165848.
It cannot, therefore, be gainsaid that PNB
did not consent to the issuance of the check and its eventual encashmentwhich
both constitute the taking of personal propertyas respondents had made sure
that the bank was rendered inutile and incapable to give its consent. The
fourth element of the crime clearly exists.
Furthermore, a branch manager normally stays at his branch to
perform his functions and duties in such position in said branch except on
official business as prescribed by the bank.
Certainly, it is not one of the duties of a branch manager to leave his
office and personally accompany a payee of a managers check it issued to
another branch to encash said check. It is, therefore, unusual and highly
suspicious for Tria to leave his office located in Balara, Diliman,
Tria could just have waited for a call from the branch
manager of the PNB Quezon City Circle Branch to verify the authenticity of said
check. Such extra effort and unexplained
gesture on the part of Tria to provide assistance to Atty. Reyes, a fake
lawyer, to ensure the encashment of the check leaves one to believe that he is
in cahoots with the impostor.
What is more, it is curious that Tria accompanied John
Doe/Atty. Reyes to encash the managers check in another branch under the
pretext that his own branch is short of cash when in fact more than PhP 8
million has just been delivered to PNB-MWSS. Such misrepresentation can only be
considered as an attempt to cover the crime and pass the blame to other PNB
employees, as in fact the CA ruled that Flandez is to blame. This attempt is
further reinforced by the curious case of the missing fictitious letter-request
and its supporting documents, which were last seen in the vault of PNB-MWSS
which can be accessed by Tria. Furthermore, the allegation of Veniegas that Tria
unilaterally and secretly revised the banks Minutes of the Meeting to reflect
that he had no approval authority beyond opening accounts but was
specifically requested by the bank to assist valued clients in encashing
checks at the Quezon City Circle Branch shows an ingenious ploy by Tria to
cover his tracks upon the eventual discovery of the theft and is in
contravention of the General Banking Law
of 2000.[45]
Nonetheless, nothing is more damning than the fact that Tria
vouched for the identity of John Doe/Atty. Reyes, even claimed that Atty. Reyes
is a valued client of PNB-MWSS, affixed his signature at the back portion of
the check to guarantee that Atty. Reyes is the true and legal payee, and
ultimately guaranteed that the Managers check is legally effective and valid
and everything is aboveboard. PNB-Circle
could have verified from MWSS if the deduction is authorized especially
considering that the money will be deducted from an account of a government
corporation. The identification by Tria of Atty. Reyes
as payee precluded and preempted the bank officials from verifying the
transaction from MWSS. Thus, the
identification made by Tria impliedly warranted to the PNB-Circle that said
Managers check was validly issued with the consent of PNB, and that the
encashment is legal and warranted.
It must also be noted that Tria likewise made representations to the
PNB-Circle that the Managers check is legal and valid as evidenced by the
annotation at the dorsal portion of the check ok for payment per confirmation
and approval of PNB MWSS. The act of Tria in confirming and approving
the encashment of the check by Reyes is the pretense of the consent given to
him by PNB to authorize the issuance of the managers check that resulted in
the taking of PhP 5.2 million from PNB. Tria must, therefore, be prosecuted
and tried before the courts of justice.
While it is truly imperative to relieve a person from the pain of going
through the rigors of trial, it is more imperative to proceed with the prosecution
of a criminal case to ensure that the truth is revealed and justice served when
there is a prima facie case against
him.[46]
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 108571 is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The Office of the
City Prosecutor of Quezon City is ORDERED
to file an Information charging Amelio C. Tria and Atty. Reyes/John Doe for
Qualified Theft.
SO
ORDERED.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD JOSE
CATRAL
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
A
T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 10-20. Penned by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid and concurred in by Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Florito S. Macalino.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Annex H, id. at 100.
[9]
[10]
[11] Id at 55-56.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] Also referred to as Zenaida Pulido in other parts of the CA Decision.
[21] Rollo, p. 57.
[22]
[23]
[24] Id at 57.
[25]
[26]
[27] The Resolution was issued by Assistant City Prosecutor Alessandro D. Jurado.
[28] The Resolution was issued by 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Rogelio A. Velasco.
[29] Asetre v. Asetre, G.R. No. 171536, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 471, 483.
[30] UCPB v. Looyuko, G.R. No. 156337, September 28, 2007, 534 SCRA 322, 331.
[31] Borlongan v. Pea, G.R. No. 143591, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 221, 236; citing Sarigumba v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 154239-41, February 16, 2005, 451 SCRA 533, 550.
[32]
[33]
[34] Revised Penal Code, Art. 308, par. 1.
[35]
[36] People v. Puig, G.R. Nos. 173654-765, August 28, 2008, 563 SCRA 564, 575.
[37] Matrido v. People, G.R. No. 179061, July 13, 2009, 592 SCRA 534.
[38]
[39] Equitable PCI Bank v. Ong, G.R. No. 156207, September 15, 2006, 502 SCRA 119, 132; citing Tan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108555, December 20, 1994, 239 SCRA 310, 322.
[40] Security Bank and Trust Corporation v. Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 170984, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 407, 414.
[41] 3 So. 814 (1888).
[42] G.R. No. 163927, January 27, 2006, 480 SCRA 436, 445-447.
[43] G.R. No. 131131, June 21, 2001, 359 SCRA 310, 323.
[44] Associated Bank v. Tan, G.R. No. 156940, December 14, 2004, 446 SCRA 282, 291; citing Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of Appeals, 336 Phil. 667, 681 (1997).
[45] Republic Act No. 8791 states:
Sec. 55. Prohibited
Transactions:
55.1.
No director, officer, employee, or agent of any bank shall
(a) Make false entries in any
bank report or statement or participate in any fraudulent transaction, thereby
affecting the financial interest of, or causing damage to, the bank or any
person.
[46] People v. Puig, supra note 36.