In a trust receipt transaction, failure to remit proceeds from the sale of goods or return the goods themselves constitutes estafa, a form of fraud under Philippine law. The Supreme Court clarified that Presidential Decree No. 115 (PD 115), or the Trust Receipts Law, remains valid and enforceable, emphasizing the criminal liability of entrustees who violate the terms of trust receipts, reinforcing the protection afforded to entrusters in commercial dealings.

From Loan to Liability: When a Trust Receipt Turns Criminal

The case of Albert K.S. Tan II v. People of the Philippines revolves around a loan agreement between AT Intergrouppe, Inc. (ATII), represented by Albert K.S. Tan II, and the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). ATII sought the loan to finance the purchase of materials and equipment for an automotive painting and finishing system intended for export to Indonesia. DBP approved an omnibus credit facility of P260,500,000.00, secured by a real estate mortgage. As part of the agreement, ATII availed of a Letter of Credit/Trust Receipt Facility, leading to the issuance of domestic letters of credit by DBP, which ATII used to pay its suppliers.

In connection with these transactions, ATII, through Tan, executed three trust receipts in favor of DBP, explicitly agreeing to hold the goods in trust for the bank, with permission to sell them for DBP’s account. The trust receipts stipulated that ATII was obligated to remit the sales proceeds to DBP or return the goods if unsold. When ATII defaulted on its loan payments and failed to either pay the loan or turn over the items covered by the trust receipts, DBP filed a criminal complaint against Tan and other officers of ATII for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in relation to PD 115. The central legal question is whether Tan’s failure to comply with the terms of the trust receipts constitutes criminal liability for estafa or merely a civil obligation.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially dismissed the case, reasoning that the transaction was a simple loan secured by trust receipts, and failure to pay would only result in civil liability. DBP then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the case. The CA reversed the RTC’s decision, holding that the transactions fell under the ambit of trust receipt transactions as contemplated by PD 115, and that there was probable cause to prosecute Tan for estafa. The CA remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings, leading Tan to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, in resolving the matter, considered several key issues, including whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the RTC’s dismissal, whether Tan’s right to a speedy disposition of cases was violated, and whether double jeopardy had attached in favor of Tan. The Court began by addressing the procedural argument that Tan’s petition raised factual issues inappropriate for a petition for review on certiorari. It clarified that the petition raised issues of law, specifically the interpretation and application of rules on double jeopardy, inordinate delay, and the CA’s authority to grant extensions for filing petitions, making it appropriate for review.

The Court then addressed the substantive issue of whether the CA correctly reversed the RTC’s dismissal of the criminal case against Tan. The Supreme Court emphasized that the RTC’s reliance on the case of Sia v. People was misplaced, as that case involved a trust receipt arrangement initiated before the promulgation of PD 115. Furthermore, the Court underscored that PD 115 is explicit in its penal clauses, stating that the failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale or to return the goods constitutes the crime of estafa.

Section 13 of PD 115 provides a clear penalty clause:

The failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or instruments covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods, documents or instruments if they were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime of estafa, punishable under the provisions of Article Three hundred and fifteen, paragraph one (b) of Act Numbered Three thousand eight hundred and fifteen, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code.

Section 4 of PD 115 defines a trust receipt transaction as follows:

A trust receipt transaction, within the meaning of this Decree, is any transaction by and between a person referred to in this Decree as the entruster, and another person referred to in this Decree as entrustee, whereby the entruster, who owns or holds absolute title or security interests over certain specified goods, documents or instruments, releases the same to the possession of the entrustee upon the latter’s execution and delivery to the entruster of a signed document called a “trust receipt” wherein the entrustee binds himself to hold the designated goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods, documents or instruments with the obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or the goods, documents or instruments themselves if they are unsold or not otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the trust receipt.

The Court reiterated that PD 115 remains good law and has been consistently applied in cases involving the failure of an entrustee to comply with the terms of a trust receipt. The Court cited several cases, including Ng v. People and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Perez, et al., to illustrate the application of PD 115 in various contexts. Moreover, the Supreme Court pointed out that the RTC failed to analyze whether the evidence presented by the prosecution supported a finding of probable cause for estafa, focusing instead on its erroneous interpretation of PD 115. The Court noted that the prosecution had presented the trust receipts, a demand letter from DBP, and Tan’s admission that he received the goods in trust for DBP, all of which supported a finding of probable cause. Furthermore, the goods subject to the trust receipts were intended for sale, as they were to be exported to Indonesia as part of an automotive painting and finishing system.

The Supreme Court also rejected Tan’s argument that double jeopardy had attached, emphasizing that the dismissal of the criminal case against him was not based on a full-blown trial or a determination of guilt or innocence. For double jeopardy to apply, there must be a valid indictment, a court of competent jurisdiction, arraignment, a valid plea, and acquittal or conviction, or dismissal without the accused’s express consent. In this case, the fifth requisite was lacking, as the dismissal was upon Tan’s motion and not based on insufficiency of evidence or a violation of his right to speedy disposition of cases.

The Court acknowledged that double jeopardy could attach even if the dismissal was upon the accused’s motion, but only if the dismissal was based on insufficiency of evidence or a violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases. The RTC’s dismissal was based on its incorrect interpretation of PD 115, without analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence, thus negating the applicability of double jeopardy. Additionally, the Court found that Tan failed to establish a violation of his right to a speedy disposition of cases. The Court noted that the delay in the preliminary investigation was not solely attributable to the prosecution and that Tan had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the delay was oppressive or prejudicial.

The Supreme Court clarified that the standard is not merely the length of delay, but whether the delay was inordinate considering the circumstances of the case, adhering to the guidelines set in Cagang v. Sandiganbayan. It requires an examination of the facts and circumstances, considering the time periods prescribed by applicable laws or rules for the proceeding in question. The Court determined that the time periods prescribed in Rule 112 of the Rules of Court were not unduly violated, and thus there was no violation of Tan’s right to speedy disposition of the case.

Finally, the Court addressed the issue of whether the CA erred in declaring that the RTC judge should have inhibited from resolving the case against Tan. While the CA suggested that the judge should have inhibited himself due to bias, the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the dismissal was through a motion by Tan, and there was no evidence that the judge’s decision was based on personal interest or extraneous information. The Court emphasized that bias and prejudice must be proven with clear and convincing evidence, and bare allegations of partiality are insufficient.

While the CA erred in asserting that the RTC judge should have inhibited, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision to reverse the RTC’s dismissal of the criminal case against Tan. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, emphasizing the importance of upholding the provisions of PD 115 and ensuring that entrustees are held accountable for failing to comply with the terms of trust receipts. The ruling reinforces the protection afforded to entrusters in commercial transactions and underscores the criminal liability for violations of trust receipt agreements.

FAQs

What is a trust receipt transaction?	It is a transaction where the entruster (usually a bank) releases goods to the entrustee, who agrees to hold the goods in trust and sell them, remitting the proceeds to the entruster.
What is estafa in the context of trust receipts?	Estafa is a form of fraud under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. In trust receipt cases, it refers to the entrustee’s failure to remit the proceeds from the sale of goods or return the goods themselves.
What does PD 115 (Trust Receipts Law) say about violations?	PD 115 explicitly states that failure to comply with the terms of a trust receipt, such as not remitting proceeds or returning goods, constitutes the crime of estafa.
When does double jeopardy apply?	Double jeopardy applies when a person is tried for the same offense twice after a valid indictment, before a competent court, arraignment, a valid plea, and acquittal or conviction.
What was the main issue in Tan v. People?	The main issue was whether Albert Tan’s failure to comply with the terms of trust receipts constituted criminal liability for estafa or merely a civil obligation.
Why did the Supreme Court reverse the RTC’s decision?	The Supreme Court reversed the RTC because the lower court incorrectly interpreted PD 115 and failed to analyze whether the prosecution’s evidence supported a finding of probable cause for estafa.
Can a judge be forced to inhibit from a case?	A judge can be forced to inhibit if they have a direct interest in the case, are related to a party, or have presided over the case in a lower court. Otherwise, inhibition is voluntary and based on the judge’s discretion.
What is the significance of the Cagang case in determining delays?	The Cagang case provides guidelines for determining whether there has been an inordinate delay in legal proceedings, emphasizing that it is not just about the length of the delay but the circumstances surrounding it.
Does the CA have the power to allow the parties to have extensions of time to file a petition for certiorari?	The Supreme Court has ruled that motions for extension may be allowed, subject to this Court’s sound discretion, and only under exceptional and meritorious cases.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to the terms of trust receipt agreements and the potential criminal consequences of failing to do so. It serves as a reminder to entrustees of their obligations and the legal ramifications of non-compliance, reinforcing the significance of trust and good faith in commercial transactions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Albert K.S. Tan II v. People, G.R. No. 242866, July 06, 2022