FACTS:

Anthony Ng engaged in the business of building

and fabricating telecommunication towers
o Under the trade name "Capitol Blacksmith and
Builders,"
Applied for a credit line of P3,, with
Asiatrust !e"elopment Bank
#n support of Asiatrust$s credit in"estigation,
Anthony Ng submitted documents%
&'( the contracts he had with #slacom, )mart,
and #nfocom*
&+( the list of pro,ects wherein he was
commissioned by the said telecommunication
companies to build se"eral steel towers* and
&3( the collectible amounts he has with the said
companies-
.n /ay 3, '001, Asiatrust appro"ed Anthony Ng$s
loan application- Anthony Ng was then re2uired to
sign se"eral documents, among which are the
Credit 3ine Agreement, Application and Agreement
for #rre"ocable 34C, 5rust 6eceipt Agreements,7 and
Promissory Notes- 5hough the Promissory Notes
matured on )eptember '8, '001, the two &+(
aforementioned 5rust 6eceipt Agreements did not
bear any maturity dates as they were left un9lled
or in blank by Asiatrust-:
After Anthony Ng recei"ed the goods, consisting of
chemicals and metal plates from his suppliers, he
utili;ed them to fabricate the communication
towers ordered from him by his clients which were
installed in three pro,ect sites, namely% #sabel,
3eyte* Panabo, !a"ao* and 5ongonan-
As Anthony Ng reali;ed di<culty in collecting from
his client #slacom, he failed to pay his loan to
Asiatrust- Asiatrust then conducted a surprise
ocular inspection of Anthony Ng$s business through
=illar"a )- 3inga, Asiatrust$s representati"e
appraiser- 3inga thereafter reported to Asiatrust
that he found that appro>imately 01? of the
sub,ect goods of the 5rust 6eceipts were "sold@out
and that only 3 ? of the goods pertaining to PN No-
'0A3 remained-" Asiatrust then endorsed Anthony
Ng$s account to its Account /anagement !i"ision
for the possible restructuring of his loan- 5he
parties thereafter held a series of conferences to
work out the problem and to determine a way for
Anthony Ng to pay his debts- Bowe"er, eCorts
towards a settlement failed to be reached-
.n /arch 'A, '000, 6emedial Account .<cer /a-
Dirlie C- Bernarde; 9led a Complaint@A<da"it
before the .<ce of the City Prosecutor of Eue;on
City- Conse2uently, on )eptember '+, '000, an
#nformation for Fstafa, as de9ned and penali;ed
under Art- 3':, par- '&b( of the 6PC in relation to
)ec- 3, P! '': or the 5rust 6eceipts 3aw, was 9led
with the 65C- 5he said #nformation reads%
5hat on or about the 3th day of /ay '001, in
Eue;on City, Philippines, the abo"e@named
Anthony Ng, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously defraud /a- Dirlie C- Bernarde; by
entering into a 5rust 6eceipt Agreement with said
complainant whereby said Anthony Ng as entrustee
recei"ed in trust from the said complainant "arious
chemicals in the total sum of P7-: million with the
obligation to hold the said chemicals in trust as
property of the entruster with the right to sell the
same for cash and to remit the proceeds thereof to
the entruster, or to return the said chemicals if
unsold* but said Anthony Ng once in possession of
the same, contrary to his aforesaid obligation
under the trust receipt agreement with intent to
defraud did then and there misappropriated,
misapplied and con"erted the said amount to his
own personal use and bene9t and despite repeated
demands made upon him, said Anthony Ng refused
and failed and still refuses and fails to make good
of his obligation, to the damage and pre,udice of
the said /a- Dirlie C- Bernarde; in the amount of
P+,01',A:-, Philippine Currency-
C.N56A6G 5. 3AH-
Upon arraignment, Anthony Ng pleaded not guilty
to the charges- 5hereafter, a full@blown trial
ensued-
!uring the pendency of the abo"ementioned case,
conferences between Anthony Ng and Asiatrust$s
6emedial Account .<cer, !aniel Gap, were held-
Afterward, a Compromise Agreement was drafted
by Asiatrust- .ne of the re2uirements of the
Compromise Agreement was for Anthony Ng to
issue si> &A( postdated checks- Anthony Ng, in
good faith, tried to comply by issuing two or three
checks, which were deposited and made good- 5he
remaining checks, howe"er, were not deposited as
the Compromise Agreement did not push through-
Ior his defense, Anthony Ng argued that% &'( the
loan was granted as his working capital and that
the 5rust 6eceipt Agreements he signed with
Asiatrust were merely preconditions for the grant
and appro"al of his loan* &+( the 5rust 6eceipt
Agreement corresponding to 3etter of Credit No-
'0A3 and the 5rust 6eceipt Agreement
corresponding to 3etter of Credit No- '0A7 were
both contracts of adhesion, since the stipulations
found in the documents were prepared by Asiatrust
in 9ne print* &3( unfortunately for Anthony Ng, his
contract worth PhP '8,, with #slacom was
not yet paid since there was a s2uabble as to the
real ownership of the latter$s company, but
Asiatrust was aware of Anthony Ng$s recei"ables
which were more than su<cient to co"er the
obligation as shown in the "arious Pro,ect 3istings
with #slacom, )mart Communications, and #nfocom*
&7( prior to the #slacom problem, he had been
faithfully paying his obligation to Asiatrust as
shown in .<cial 6eceipt Nos- :70', :70+,
:A:::8, :11'08, :11'00, and :0708A,A thus
debunking Asiatrust$s claim of fraud and bad faith
against him* &:( during the pendency of this case,
Anthony Ng e"en attempted to settle his
obligations as e"idenced by the two United
Coconut Planters Bank Checks1 he issued in fa"or
of Asiatrust* and &A( he had already paid PhP '-8
million out of the PhP +-01' million he owed as per
)tatement of Account dated January +A, +-
6uling of the 5rial Court
After trial on the merits, the 65C, on /ay +0, +',
rendered a !ecision, 9nding Anthony Ng guilty of
the crime of Fstafa- 5he fallo of the !ecision reads
as follows%
HBF6FI.6F, ,udgment is hereby rendered 9nding
the Anthony Ng, Anthony 3- Ng DU#35G beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of Fstafa de9ned in
and penali;ed by Article 3':, paragraph '&b( of the
6e"ised Penal Code in relation to )ection 3 of
Presidential !ecree '':, otherwise known as the
5rust 6eceipts 3aw, and is hereby sentenced to
suCer the indeterminate penalty of from si> &A(
years, eight &8( months, and twenty one &+'( days
of prision mayor, minimum, as the minimum
penalty, to twenty &+( years of reclusion temporal
ma>imum, as the ma>imum penalty-
5he Anthony Ng is further ordered to return to the
Asiatrust !e"elopment Bank #nc- the amount of
5wo /illion, Nine Bundred )e"enty .ne and )i>
Bundred Iifty Pesos &P+,01',A:-( with legal rate
of interest computed from the 9ling of the
Page 1 of 5
information on )eptember +','000 until the
amount is fully paid-
#5 #) ). .6!F6F!-
#n rendering its !ecision, the trial court held that
Anthony Ng could not simply argue that the
contracts he had entered into with Asiatrust were
"oid as they were contracts of adhesion- #t
reasoned that Anthony Ng is presumed to ha"e
read and understood and is, therefore, bound by
the pro"isions of the 3etters of Credit and 5rust
6eceipts- #t said that it was clear that Asiatrust had
furnished Anthony Ng with a )tatement of Account
enumerating therein the precise 9gures of the
outstanding balance, which he failed to pay along
with the computation of other fees and charges*
thus, Asiatrust did not "iolate 6epublic Act No-
31A: &5ruth in 3ending Act(- Iinally, the trial court
declared that Anthony Ng, being the entrustee
stated in the 5rust 6eceipts issued by Asiatrust, is
thus obliged to hold the goods in trust for the
entruster and shall dispose of them strictly in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the
trust receipts* otherwise, he is obliged to return the
goods in the e"ent of non@sale or upon demand of
the entruster, failing thus, he e"idently "iolated the
5rust 6eceipts 3aw-
6uling of the Appellate Court
Anthony Ng then ele"ated the case to the CA by
9ling a Notice of Appeal on August A, +'- #n his
Appellant$s Brief dated /arch +:, ++, Anthony
Ng argued that the court a 2uo erred% &'( in
changing the name of the oCended party without
the bene9t of an amendment of the #nformation
which "iolates his right to be informed of the
nature and cause of accusation against him* &+( in
making a 9nding of facts not in accord with that
actually pro"ed in the trial and4or by the e"idence
pro"ided* &3( in not considering the material facts
which if taken into account would ha"e resulted in
his ac2uittal* &7( in being biased, hostile, and
pre,udiced against him* and &:( in considering the
prosecution$s e"idence which did not pro"e the
guilt of Anthony Ng beyond reasonable
doubt-'a""phi'
.n August +0, +3, the CA rendered a !ecision
a<rming that of the 65C, the fallo of which reads%
HBF6FI.6F, the foregoing considered, the instant
appeal is !FN#F!- 5he decision of the 6egional 5rial
Court of Eue;on City, Branch 0: dated /ay +0,
+' is AII#6/F!-
). .6!F6F!-
5he CA held that during the course of the trial,
Anthony Ng knew that the complainant Bernarde;
and the other co@witnesses are all employees of
Asiatrust and that she is suing in behalf of the
bank- )ince Anthony Ng transacted with the same
employees for the issuance of the sub,ect 5rust
6eceipts, he cannot feign ignorance that Asiatrust
is not the oCended party in the instant case- 5he
CA further stated that the change in the name of
the complainant will not pre,udice and alter the
fact that Anthony Ng was being charged with the
crime of Fstafa in relation to the 5rust 6eceipts
3aw, since the information clearly set forth the
essential elements of the crime charged, and the
constitutional right of Anthony Ng to be informed of
the nature and cause of his accusations is not
"iolated-8
As to the alleged error in the appreciation of facts
by the trial court, the CA stated that it was
undisputed that Anthony Ng entered into a trust
receipt agreement with Asiatrust and he failed to
pay the bank his obligation when it became due-
According to the CA, the fact that Anthony Ng
acted without malice or fraud in entering into the
transactions has no bearing, since the oCense is
punished as malum prohibitum regardless of the
e>istence of intent or malice* the mere failure to
deli"er the proceeds of the sale or the goods if not
sold constitutes the criminal oCense-
Hith regard to the failure of the 65C to consider the
fact that Anthony Ng$s outstanding recei"ables are
su<cient to co"er his indebtedness and that no
written demand was made upon him hence his
obligation has not yet become due and
demandable, the CA stated that the mere 2uery as
to the whereabouts of the goods and4or money is
tantamount to a demand-0
Concerning the alleged bias, hostility, and
pre,udice of the 65C against Anthony Ng, the CA
said that Anthony Ng failed to present any
substantial proof to support the aforementioned
allegations against the 65C-
After the receipt of the CA !ecision, Anthony Ng
mo"ed for its reconsideration, which was denied by
the CA in its 6esolution dated July +:, +A-
5hereafter, Anthony Ng 9led this Petition for
6e"iew on Certiorari- #n his /emorandum, he
raised the following issues%
#ssues%
5he prosecution failed to adduce e"idence beyond
a reasonable doubt to satisfy the +nd essential
element that there was misappropriation or
con"ersion of sub,ect money or property by
Anthony Ng-
5he state was unable to pro"e the 3rd essential
element of the crime that the alleged
misappropriation or con"ersion is to the pre,udice
of the real oCended property-
5he absence of a demand &7th essential element(
on Anthony Ng necessarily results to the dismissal
of the criminal case-
5he Court$s 6uling
He 9nd the petition to be meritorious-
Fssentially, the issues raised by Anthony Ng can be
summed up into oneKwhether or not Anthony Ng
is liable for Fstafa under Art- 3':, par- '&b( of the
6PC in relation to P! '':-
#t is a well@recogni;ed principle that factual 9ndings
of the trial court are entitled to great weight and
respect by this Court, more so when they are
a<rmed by the appellate court- Bowe"er, the rule
is not without e>ceptions, such as% &'( when the
conclusion is a 9nding grounded entirely on
speculations, surmises, and con,ectures* &+( the
inferences made are manifestly mistaken* &3( there
is gra"e abuse of discretion* and &7( the ,udgment
is based on misapprehension of facts or premised
on the absence of e"idence on record-' Fspecially
in criminal cases where the accused stands to lose
his liberty by "irtue of his con"iction, the Court
must be satis9ed that the factual 9ndings and
conclusions of the lower courts leading to his
con"iction must satisfy the standard of proof
beyond reasonable doubt-
#n the case at bar, Anthony Ng was charged with
Fstafa under Art- 3':, par- '&b( of the 6PC in
relation to P! '':- 5he 6PC de9nes Fstafa as%
Page 2 of 5
A65- 3':- )windling &estafa(-KAny person who
shall defraud another by any of the means
mentioned hereinbelow > > >
Hith unfaithfulness or abuse of con9dence,
namely%
o > > >
o By misappropriating or con"erting, to the
pre,udice of another, money, goods, or any
other personal property recei"ed by the
oCender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other
obligation in"ol"ing the duty to make
deli"ery of or to return the same, e"en
though such obligation be totally or
partially guaranteed by a bond* or by
denying ha"ing recei"ed such money,
goods, or other property > > >-''
Based on the de9nition abo"e, the essential
elements of Fstafa are% &'( that money, goods or
other personal property is recei"ed by the oCender
in trust or on commission, or for administration, or
under any obligation in"ol"ing the duty to make
deli"ery of or to return it* &+( that there be
misappropriation or con"ersion of such money or
property by the oCender, or denial on his part of
such receipt* &3( that such misappropriation or
con"ersion or denial is to the pre,udice of another*
and &7( there is demand by the oCended party to
the oCender-'+
3ikewise, Fstafa can also be committed in what is
called a "trust receipt transaction" under P! '':,
which is de9ned as%
)ection 7- Hhat constitutes a trust receipts
transaction-KA trust receipt transaction, within the
meaning of this !ecree, is any transaction by and
between a person referred to in this !ecree as the
entruster, and another person referred to in this
!ecree as entrustee, whereby the entruster, who
owns or holds absolute title or security interests
o"er certain speci9ed goods, documents or
instruments, releases the same to the possession
of the entrustee upon the latter$s e>ecution and
deli"ery 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 o"er to the
entruster the proceeds thereof to the e>tent of the
amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the
trust receipt or the goods, documents or
instruments themsel"es if they are unsold or not
otherwise disposed of, in accordance with the
terms and conditions speci9ed in the trust receipt,
or for other purposes substantially e2ui"alent to
any of the following%
#n the case of goods or documents% &a( to sell the
goods or procure their sale* or &b( to manufacture
or process the goods with the purpose of ultimate
sale% Pro"ided, 5hat, in the case of goods deli"ered
under trust receipt for the purpose of
manufacturing or processing before its ultimate
sale, the entruster shall retain its title o"er the
goods whether in its original or processed form
until the entrustee has complied full with his
obligation under the trust receipt* or &c( to load,
unload, ship or transship or otherwise deal with
them in a manner preliminary or necessary to their
sale* or
#n the case of instruments% &a( to sell or procure
their sale or e>change* or &b( to deli"er them to a
principal* or &c( to eCect the consummation of
some transactions in"ol"ing deli"ery to a
depository or register* or &d( to eCect their
presentation, collection or renewal-
5he sale of good, documents or instruments by a
person in the business of selling goods, documents
or instruments for pro9t who, at the outset of
transaction, has, as against the buyer, general
property rights in such goods, documents or
instruments, or who sells the same to the buyer on
credit, retaining title or other interest as security
for the payment of the purchase price, does not
constitute a trust receipt transaction and is outside
the pur"iew and co"erage of this !ecree-
#n other words, a trust receipt transaction is one
where the entrustee has the obligation to deli"er to
the entruster the price of the sale, or if the
merchandise is not sold, to return the merchandise
to the entruster- 5here are, therefore, two
obligations in a trust receipt transaction% the 9rst
refers to money recei"ed under the obligation
in"ol"ing the duty to turn it o"er &entregarla( to the
owner of the merchandise sold, while the second
refers to the merchandise recei"ed under the
obligation to "return" it &de"ol"era( to the owner-'3
A "iolation of any of these undertakings constitutes
Fstafa de9ned under Art- 3':, par- '&b( of the 6PC,
as pro"ided in )ec- '3 of P! '':, "i;%
)ection '3- Penalty Clause-K5he failure of an
entrustee to turn o"er the proceeds of the sale of
the goods, documents or instruments co"ered by a
trust receipt to the e>tent 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
pro"isions of Article 5hree hundred 9fteen,
paragraph one &b( of Act Numbered 5hree
thousand eight hundred and 9fteen, as amended,
otherwise known as the 6e"ised Penal Code- > > >
&Fmphasis supplied-(
A thorough e>amination of the facts obtaining in
the instant case, howe"er, re"eals that the
transaction between Anthony Ng and Asiatrust is
not a trust receipt transaction but one of simple
loan-
P! '': !oes Not Apply
#t must be remembered that Anthony Ng was
transparent to Asiatrust from the "ery beginning
that the sub,ect goods were not being held for sale
but were to be used for the fabrication of steel
communication towers in accordance with his
contracts with #slacom, )mart, and #nfocom- #n
these contracts, he was commissioned to build, out
of the materials recei"ed, steel communication
towers, not to sell them-
5he true nature of a trust receipt transaction can
be found in the "whereas" clause of P! '': which
states that a trust receipt is to be utili;ed "as a
con"enient business de"ice to assist importers and
merchants sol"e their 9nancing problems-"
.b"iously, the )tate, in enacting the law, sought to
9nd a way to assist importers and merchants in
their 9nancing in order to encourage commerce in
the Philippines-
As stressed in )amo "- People,'7 a trust receipt is
considered a security transaction intended to aid in
9nancing importers and retail dealers who do not
ha"e su<cient funds or resources to 9nance the
importation or purchase of merchandise, and who
may not be able to ac2uire credit e>cept through
utili;ation, as collateral, of the merchandise
imported or purchased- )imilarly, American
Jurisprudence demonstrates that trust receipt
Page 3 of 5
transactions always refer to a method of "9nancing
importations or 9nancing sales-"': 5he principle is
of course not limited in its application to 9nancing
importations, since the principle is e2ually
applicable to domestic transactions-'A 6egardless
of whether the transaction is foreign or domestic, it
is important to note that the transactions discussed
in relation to trust receipts mainly in"ol"ed sales-
Iollowing the precept of the law, such transactions
aCect situations wherein the entruster, who owns
or holds absolute title or security interests o"er
speci9ed goods, documents or instruments,
releases the sub,ect goods to the possession of the
entrustee- 5he release of such goods to the
entrustee is conditioned upon his e>ecution and
deli"ery to the entruster of a trust receipt wherein
the former binds himself to hold the speci9c 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 o"er to the entruster the proceeds to the
e>tent of the amount owing to the entruster or the
goods, documents or instruments themsel"es if
they are unsold- )imilarly, we held in )tate
#n"estment Bouse "- CA, et al- that the entruster is
entitled "only to the proceeds deri"ed from the sale
of goods released under a trust receipt to the
entrustee-"'1
Considering that the goods in this case were ne"er
intended for sale but for use in the fabrication of
steel communication towers, the trial court erred in
ruling that the agreement is a trust receipt
transaction-
#n applying the pro"isions of P! '':, the trial court
relied on the /emorandum of Asiatrust$s appraiser,
3inga, who stated that the goods ha"e been sold
by Anthony Ng and that only 3? of the goods
remained in the warehouse where it was pre"iously
stored- But for reasons known only to the trial
court, the latter did not gi"e weight to the
testimony of 3inga when he testi9ed that he
merely presumed that the goods were sold, "i;%
C.U65 &to the witness(
E )o, in other words, when the goods were not
there anymore- Gou presumed that, that is already
soldL
A Ges, your Bonor-
Undoubtedly, in his testimony, 3inga showed that
he had no real personal knowledge or proof of the
fact that the goods were indeed sold- Be did not
notify Anthony Ng about the inspection nor did he
talk to or in2uire with Anthony Ng regarding the
whereabouts of the sub,ect goods- Neither did he
con9rm with Anthony Ng if the sub,ect goods were
in fact sold- 5herefore, the /emorandum of 3inga,
which was based only on his presumption and not
any actual personal knowledge, should not ha"e
been used by the trial court to pro"e that the
goods ha"e in fact been sold- At the "ery least, it
could only show that the goods were not in the
warehouse-
Ba"ing established the inapplicability of P! '':,
this Court 9nds that Anthony Ng$s liability is only
limited to the satisfaction of his obligation from the
loan- 5he real intent of the parties was simply to
enter into a simple loan agreement-
5o emphasi;e, the 5rust 6eceipts 3aw was created
to "to aid in 9nancing importers and retail dealers
who do not ha"e su<cient funds or resources to
9nance the importation or purchase of
merchandise, and who may not be able to ac2uire
credit e>cept through utili;ation, as collateral, of
the merchandise imported or purchased-" )ince
Asiatrust knew that Anthony Ng was neither an
importer nor retail dealer, it should ha"e known
that the said agreement could not possibly apply to
Anthony Ng-
/oreo"er, this Court 9nds that Anthony Ng is not
liable for Fstafa both under the 6PC and P! '':-
Doods Here Not 6ecei"ed in 5rust
5he 9rst element of Fstafa under Art- 3':, par- '&b(
of the 6PC re2uires that the money, goods or other
personal property must be recei"ed by the oCender
in trust or on commission, or for administration, or
under any other obligation in"ol"ing the duty to
make deli"ery of, or to return it- But as we already
discussed, the goods recei"ed by Anthony Ng were
not held in trust- 5hey were also not intended for
sale and neither did Anthony Ng ha"e the duty to
return them- 5hey were only intended for use in the
fabrication of steel communication towers-
No /isappropriation of Doods or Proceeds
5he second element of Fstafa re2uires that there
be misappropriation or con"ersion of such money
or property by the oCender, or denial on his part of
such receipt-
5his is the "ery essence of Fstafa under Art- 3':,
par- '&b(- 5he words "con"ert" and
"misappropriated" connote an act of using or
disposing of another$s property as if it were one$s
own, or of de"oting it to a purpose or use diCerent
from that agreed upon- 5o misappropriate for one$s
own use includes not only con"ersion to one$s
personal ad"antage, but also e"ery attempt to
dispose of the property of another without a
right-'8
Anthony Ng is correct- 5hus, assuming arguendo
that the pro"isions of P! '': apply, Anthony Ng is
not liable for Fstafa because )ec- '3 of P! '':
pro"ides that an entrustee is only liable for Fstafa
when he fails "to turn o"er the proceeds of the sale
of the goods > > > co"ered by a trust receipt to the
e>tent of the amount owing to the entruster or as
appears in the trust receipt > > > in accordance
with the terms of the trust receipt-"
Clearly, Anthony Ng was only obligated to turn o"er
the proceeds as soon as he recei"ed payment-
Bowe"er, the e"idence re"eals that Anthony Ng
e>perienced di<culties in collecting payments from
his clients for the communication towers- !espite
this fact, Anthony Ng endea"ored to pay his
indebtedness to Asiatrust, which payments during
the period from )eptember '001 to July '008 total
appro>imately PhP ',:,- 5hus, absent proof
that the proceeds ha"e been actually and fully
recei"ed by Anthony Ng, his obligation to turn o"er
the same to Asiatrust ne"er arose-
Hhat is more, under the 5rust 6eceipt Agreement
itself, no date of maturity was stipulated- 5he
pro"ision left blank by Asiatrust is as follows%
> > > and in consideration thereof, #4we hereby
agree to hold said goods in 5rust for the said Bank
and as its property with liberty to sell the same for
its account within MMMMMMMM days from the date of
e>ecution of the 5rust 6eceipt > > >+
#n fact, Asiatrust purposely left the space
designated for the date blank, an action which in
ordinary banking transactions would be noted as
highly irregular- Bence, the only way for the
obligation to mature was for Asiatrust to demand
Page 4 of 5
from Anthony Ng to pay the obligation, which it
ne"er did-
Again, it also makes the Court wonder as to why
Asiatrust decided to lea"e the pro"isions for the
maturity dates in the 5rust 6eceipt agreements in
blank, since those dates are elemental part of the
loan- But then, as can be gleaned from the records
of this case, Asiatrust also knew that the capacity
of Anthony Ng to pay for his loan also hinges upon
the latter$s recei"ables from #slacom, )mart, and
#nfocom where he had ongoing and future pro,ects
for fabrication and installation of steel
communication towers and not from the sale of
said goods- Being a bank, Asiatrust acted
inappropriately when it left such a sensiti"e bank
instrument with a "oid circumstance on an
elementary but "ital feature of each and e"ery loan
transaction, that is, the maturity dates- Hithout
stating the maturity dates, it was impossible for
Anthony Ng to determine when the loan will be
due-
Iurthermore, Asiatrust was informed at the time of
Anthony Ng$s application for the loan that the
payment for the loan would be deri"ed from the
collectibles of his clients- Anthony Ng informed
Asiatrust that he was ha"ing e>treme di<culties in
collecting from #slacom the full contracted price of
the towers- 5hus, the duty of Anthony Ng to remit
the proceeds of the goods has not yet arisen since
he has yet to recei"e proceeds of the goods- Again,
Anthony Ng could not be said to ha"e
misappropriated or con"erted the proceeds of the
transaction since he has not yet recei"ed the
proceeds from his client, #slacom-
5his Court also takes ,udicial notice of the fact that
Anthony Ng has fully paid his obligation to
Asiatrust, making the claim for damage and
pre,udice of Asiatrust baseless and unfounded-
Di"en that the acceptance of payment by Asiatrust
necessarily e>tinguished Anthony Ng$s obligation,
then there is no longer any obligation on Anthony
Ng$s part to speak of, thus precluding Asiatrust
from claiming any damage- 5his is e"idenced by
Asiatrust$s A<da"it of !esistance+' acknowledging
full payment of the loan-
6easonable !oubt F>ists
#n the 9nal analysis, the prosecution failed to pro"e
beyond reasonable doubt that Anthony Ng was
guilty of Fstafa under Art- 3':, par- '&b( of the 6PC
in relation to the pertinent pro"ision of P! '': or
the 5rust 6eceipts 3aw* thus, his liability should
only be ci"il in nature-
Hhile Anthony Ng admits to his ci"il liability to
Asiatrust, he ne"ertheless does not ha"e criminal
liability- #t is a well@established principle that person
is presumed innocent until pro"ed guilty- 5o
o"ercome the presumption, his guilt must be
shown by proof beyond reasonable doubt- 5hus, we
held in People "- /ariano++ that while the principle
does not connote absolute certainty, it means the
degree of proof which produces moral certainty in
an unpre,udiced mind of the culpability of the
accused- )uch proof should con"ince and satisfy
the reason and conscience of those who are to act
upon it that the accused is in fact guilty- 5he
prosecution, in this instant case, failed to rebut the
constitutional innocence of Anthony Ng and thus
the latter should be ac2uitted-
At this point, the ruling of this Court in Colinares "-
Court of Appeals is "ery apt, thus%
5he practice of banks of making borrowers sign
trust receipts to facilitate collection of loans and
place them under the threats of criminal
prosecution should they be unable to pay it may be
un,ust and ine2uitable, if not reprehensible- )uch
agreements are contracts of adhesion which
borrowers ha"e no option but to sign lest their loan
be disappro"ed- 5he resort to this scheme lea"es
poor and hapless borrowers at the mercy of banks,
and is prone to misinterpretation > > >-+3
)uch is the situation in this case-
Asiatrust$s intention became more e"ident when,
on /arch 3, +0, it, along with Anthony Ng, 9led
their Joint /otion for 3ea"e to Iile and Admit
Attached A<da"it of !esistance to 2ualify the
A<da"it of !esistance e>ecuted by Ielino B-
Fs2ui"as, Jr-, attorney@in@fact of the Board of
Asiatrust, which acknowledged the full payment of
the obligation of the Anthony Ng and the
successful mediation between the parties-
Irom the foregoing considerations, we deem it
unnecessary to discuss and rule upon the other
issues raised in the appeal-
HBF6FI.6F, the CA !ecision dated August +0,
+3 a<rming the 65C !ecision dated /ay +0,
+' is )F5 A)#!F- Anthony Ng AN5B.NG 3- ND is
hereby ACEU#55F! of the charge of "iolation of Art-
3':, par- '&b( of the 6PC in relation to the pertinent
pro"ision of P! '':- ). .6!F6F!--
Page 5 of 5