7/24/2019 01 Ching vs SJ Digested

1/3

ALFREDO CHING vs.THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, ASST. CITY PROSECUTORECILYN BURGOS-VILLAVERT, JUDGE EDGARDO SUDIAM of th R!"o#$% T&"$%Co'&t, M$#"%$, B&$#(h )*+ RIAL COMMERCIAL BANING CORP. $# THEPEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

F$(ts/

Alfredo Ching was the Senior Vice-President of Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc.(PBMI). Sometime in Septemer to !ctoer "#$%, PBMI, thro&gh Ching, applied withthe 'ial Commercial Baning Corporation for the iss&ance of commercial letters ofcredit to *nance its importation of assorted goods.

'CBC appro+ed the application, and irre+ocale letters of credit were iss&ed in fa+orof Ching. he goods were p&rchased and deli+ered in tr&st to PBMI. Ching signed "tr&st receipts as s&ret, acnowledging deli+er of the goods.

/nder the receipts, Ching agreed to hold the goods in tr&st for the said an, witha&thorit to sell &t not wa of conditional sale, pledge or otherwise0 and in case

s&ch goods were sold, to t&rn o+er the proceeds thereof as soon as recei+ed, toappl against the relati+e acceptances and pament of other indetedness torespondent an. In case the goods remained &nsold within the speci*ed period, thegoods were to e ret&rned to respondent an witho&t an need of demand. h&s,said 1goods, man&fact&red prod&cts or proceeds thereof, whether in the form ofmone or ills, recei+ales, or acco&nts separate and capale of identi*cation1 wererespondent an2s propert.

3hen the tr&st receipts mat&red, Ching failed to ret&rn the goods to 'CBC, or toret&rn their +al&e amo&nting to P4,#5%,6$%.44 despite demands. h&s, the an*led a criminal complaint for estafa against Ching in the !7ce of the CitProsec&tor of Manila.

Petitioner posits that, e8cept for his eing the Senior Vice-President of the PBMI,there is no iota of e+idence that he was a participes crimines in +iolating the tr&streceipts s&ed &pon0 and that his liailit, if at all, is p&rel ci+il eca&se he signedthe said tr&st receipts merel as a 888 s&ret and not as the entr&stee.

Iss'/3hether or not Ching sho&ld e held criminall liale.

R'%"#!/

Section " of P9 "": states in part, +i; &dicial entities, the penaltpro+ided for in this 9ecree shall e imposed &pon the directors, o7cers, emploeesor other o7cials or persons therein responsile for the o=ense, witho&t pre>&dice tothe ci+il liailities arising from the criminal o=ense.2

1here is no disp&te that it was the respondent, who as senior +ice-president ofPBM, e8ec&ted the thirteen (") tr&st receipts. As s&ch, the law points to him as theo7cial responsile for the o=ense. Since a corporation cannot e proceeded againstcriminall eca&se it cannot commit crime in which personal +iolence or malicio&s

7/24/2019 01 Ching vs SJ Digested

2/3

intent is re?&ired, criminal action is limited to the corporate agents g&ilt of an actamo&nting to a crime and ne+er against the corporation itself (3est Coast @ife Ins.Co. +s. &rd, 6 Phil. 5%"0 imes, IDnc. +. 'ees, # SC'A %). h&s, the e8ec&tion respondent of said receipts is eno&gh to indict him as the o7cial responsile for+iolation of P9 "":.

Petitioner2s eing a Senior Vice-President of the Philippine Blooming Mills does note8c&lpate him from an liailit. Petitioner ha+ing participated in the negotiationsfor the tr&st receipts and ha+ing recei+ed the goods for PBM, it was ine+itale thatthe petitioner is the proper corporate o7cer to e proceeded against +irt&e ofthe PBM2s +iolation of P.9. Eo. "":.

In the case at ar, the transaction etween petitioner and respondent an falls&nder the tr&st receipt transactions en+isaged in P.9. Eo. "":. 'espondent animported the goods and entr&sted the same to PBMI &nder the tr&st receipts signed petitioner, as entr&stee, with the an as entr&ster.

ho&gh the entr&stee is a corporation, ne+ertheless, the law speci*call maes the

o7cers, emploees or other o7cers or persons responsile for the o=ense, witho&tpre>&dice to the ci+il liailities of s&ch corporation andFor oard of directors, o7cers,or other o7cials or emploees responsile for the o=ense. he rationale is that s&cho7cers or emploees are +ested with the a&thorit and responsiilit to de+isemeans necessar to ens&re compliance with the law and, if the fail to do so, areheld criminall acco&ntale0 th&s, the ha+e a responsile share in the +iolations ofthe law.

If the crime is committed a corporation or other >&ridical entit, the directors,o7cers, emploees or other o7cers thereof responsile for the o=ense shall echarged and penalied for the crime, precisel eca&se of the nat&re of the crimeand the penalt therefor. A corporation cannot e arrested and imprisoned0 hence,

cannot e penalied for a crime p&nishale imprisonment. owe+er, acorporation ma e charged and prosec&ted for a crime if the imposale penalt is*ne. G+en if the stat&te prescries oth *ne and imprisonment as penalt, acorporation ma e prosec&ted and, if fo&nd g&ilt, ma e *ned.

A crime is the doing of that which the penal code forids to e done, or omitting todo what it commands. A necessar part of the de*nition of e+er crime is thedesignation of the a&thor of the crime &pon whom the penalt is to e inHicted.3hen a criminal stat&te designates an act of a corporation or a crime andprescries p&nishment therefor, it creates a criminal o=ense which, otherwise,wo&ld not e8ist and s&ch can e committed onl the corporation. B&t when apenal stat&te does not e8pressl appl to corporations, it does not create an o=ensefor which a corporation ma e p&nished. !n the other hand, if the State, stat&te, de*nes a crime that ma e committed a corporation &t prescries thepenalt therefor to e s&=ered the o7cers, directors, or emploees of s&chcorporation or other persons responsile for the o=ense, onl s&ch indi+id&als wills&=er s&ch penalt. Corporate o7cers or emploees, thro&gh whose act, defa&lt oromission the corporation commits a crime, are themsel+es indi+id&all g&ilt of thecrime.

7/24/2019 01 Ching vs SJ Digested

3/3

he principle applies whether or not the crime re?&ires the conscio&sness ofwrongdoing. It applies to those corporate agents who themsel+es commit the crimeand to those, who, +irt&e of their managerial positions or other similar relation tothe corporation, co&ld e deemed responsile for its commission, if +irt&e oftheir relationship to the corporation, the had the power to pre+ent the act.:Moreo+er, all parties acti+e in promoting a crime, whether agents or not, are

principals.:5 3hether s&ch o7cers or emploees are ene*ted their delict&alacts is not a to&chstone of their criminal liailit. Bene*t is not an operati+e fact.

In this case, petitioner signed the tr&st receipts in ?&estion. e cannot, th&s, hideehind the cloa of the separate corporate personalit of PBMI. In the words of Chief

&stice Garl 3arren, a corporate o7cer cannot protect himself ehind a corporationwhere he is the act&al, present and e7cient actor.