Intent Matters: Overvaluing Property and Criminal Liability Under the General Banking Law

G.R. No. 253026, December 06, 2023

Imagine you’re applying for a loan, and the bank’s appraiser significantly inflates the value of your collateral. Should the appraiser face criminal charges if the loan later defaults? This scenario highlights the complexities of financial regulations and the importance of intent in determining criminal liability. The Supreme Court’s decision in Aaron Christopher P. Mejia v. People of the Philippines clarifies when overvaluing property becomes a criminal act under the General Banking Law, emphasizing the crucial element of intent to influence the bank’s decision.

This case revolves around Aaron Christopher Mejia, a bank appraiser convicted of violating the General Banking Law for overvaluing a property used as collateral for a loan. The central legal question is whether the act of overvaluing property alone is sufficient for a conviction, or if the prosecution must also prove the appraiser’s intent to influence the bank’s actions.

The Legal Landscape: General Banking Law and the Element of Intent

The General Banking Law of 2000 (Republic Act No. 8791) aims to regulate banking activities and protect the financial system. Section 55.1(d) specifically addresses prohibited transactions, stating that “No director, officer, employee, or agent of any bank shall—Overvalue or aid in overvaluing any security for the purpose of influencing in any way the actions of the bank or any bank.”

This provision is crucial because it doesn’t simply prohibit overvaluation; it requires that the overvaluation be done *for the purpose* of influencing the bank. This distinction is vital, as it introduces the element of specific intent. Unlike crimes that are inherently wrong (mala in se), some acts are only wrong because a law prohibits them (mala prohibita). However, even within special laws, the requirement of specific intent can transform an act from malum prohibitum to something closer to malum in se, requiring proof of a guilty mind.

To illustrate, consider two scenarios: In one, an appraiser genuinely miscalculates the value of a property due to an honest mistake. In another, an appraiser deliberately inflates the value to help a friend secure a loan. While both involve overvaluation, the presence of intent to influence the bank’s decision is what separates a simple error from a potential crime. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused acted with this specific intent.

The Case Unfolds: Mejia’s Appraisal and the Discrepancies

Aaron Christopher Mejia, an appraiser at BPI Family Savings Bank, appraised a property at PHP 22,815,328.00 for a housing loan application by Baby Irene Santos. Based on this appraisal, Santos received a loan of PHP 18,253,062.40.

However, Santos defaulted, and during foreclosure, an external appraiser (Royal Asia Appraisal Corporation) valued the property at only PHP 10,333,000.00. An internal appraisal by BPI Family Savings also yielded a lower value of PHP 8,668,197.30. The significant discrepancy raised concerns, leading to Mejia’s prosecution for violating Section 55.1(d) of the General Banking Law.

The core of the discrepancy lay in the building’s classification. Mejia reported it as a two-story structure with 843.52 square meters, while the other appraisers deemed it a one-story split-level building with significantly smaller floor areas.

• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Mejia, stating that good faith was not a defense since the violation of the General Banking Law was mala prohibita.
• Mejia appealed, and the Court of Appeals (CA) disagreed with the RTC’s characterization, stating that intent was indeed necessary for conviction. However, the CA still affirmed Mejia’s conviction, finding sufficient evidence of intent to influence the bank.

Mejia elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his intent to influence BPI Family Savings. He maintained that he acted in good faith and that the discrepancy was due to software limitations and his supervisor’s approval.

The Supreme Court quoted the Court of Appeals findings:

“[T]here were areas that [Mejia] accounted for twice on the assumption that the building had multiple floors. When [Jaybel] Castillon [(BPI Family Savings’s Real Estate Appraisal Review Officer and Appraisal Section Head)] inspected the property, he noted that the elevated portion where the bedrooms were located was only one meter from the ground.”

The spaces under the rooms which were only one meter off the ground should not have been considered as part of the total floor area of the building.

Supreme Court Ruling: Intent and the Duty of Disclosure

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing the importance of proving intent in cases involving Section 55.1(d) of the General Banking Law. While the law itself is special, the specific wording requires that the act of overvaluing be done “for the purpose of influencing in any way the actions of the bank.”

The Court found that Mejia was aware of the discrepancy in the building’s description and valuation. His explanation about the software limitation was not convincing, as he could have clarified the issue in the remarks section of his report. By failing to do so, he effectively misrepresented the property’s value and influenced the bank’s decision to approve the loan.

Key Lessons:

• Overvaluing property under the General Banking Law requires proof of intent to influence the bank’s actions.
• Appraisers have a duty to accurately represent property values and disclose any limitations or discrepancies in their reports.
• Good faith is not a sufficient defense if there is evidence of deliberate misrepresentation or omission.

Practical Implications: Protecting Banks and Ensuring Fair Appraisals

This case highlights the importance of due diligence in property appraisals, especially when used for loan applications. Banks must ensure that their appraisers are qualified, independent, and thorough in their assessments. Appraisers, in turn, must be transparent and accurate in their reports, disclosing any factors that might affect the property’s value.

For businesses, property owners, or individuals involved in real estate transactions, this ruling serves as a reminder to scrutinize appraisal reports and seek independent verification when necessary. It also underscores the potential legal consequences of deliberately misrepresenting property values to influence financial institutions.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the General Banking Law?

A: The General Banking Law of 2000 (Republic Act No. 8791) is a law that governs the regulation, supervision, and control of banks and other financial institutions in the Philippines.

Q: What does Section 55.1(d) of the General Banking Law prohibit?

A: It prohibits bank directors, officers, employees, or agents from overvaluing any security for the purpose of influencing the actions of the bank.

Q: Is intent required for a conviction under Section 55.1(d)?

A: Yes, the prosecution must prove that the overvaluation was done with the specific intent to influence the bank’s decision.

Q: What is the difference between mala in se and mala prohibita?

A: Mala in se refers to acts that are inherently wrong, while mala prohibita refers to acts that are wrong because a law prohibits them.

Q: What should I do if I suspect an appraisal report is inaccurate?

A: Seek independent verification from another qualified appraiser and report any discrepancies to the relevant authorities.

Q: What are the potential consequences for overvaluing property to influence a bank?

A: Imprisonment and other penalties as prescribed under the General Banking Law and related regulations.

Q: How does this ruling affect future cases involving property appraisals?

A: It emphasizes the importance of proving intent and the appraiser’s duty to accurately represent property values.

ASG Law specializes in banking and finance law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.