PEOPLE v.

GO (SUPRA)
Del Castillo / August 6, 2014
Digest by Aaron Valdez
FACTS: The Monetary Board of the BSP issued a resolution closing the Orient
Commercial Banking Corporation and placing it under receivership with the
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation. As statutory receiver, the PDIC took
charge of OCBCs assets and liabilities. It began collecting on OCBCs past due
loans receivable by sending demand letters to its borrowers, and among these
borrowers are Timmys Inc and Asia Textile Mills, Inc.
The PDIC discovered the loans in Timmys and Asia Textile were released in
managers checks to Zeta International and Philippine Recyclers, said checks
thereafter deposited to the account of respondent Jose Go. The PDIC filed two
counts for estafa against Go and two others in the Office of the City Prosecutor.
The respondents filed a demurrer to the evidence, which the RTC granted, and
which is now the subject of appeal, after being upheld by the CA.
ISSUE(S): Whether or not the prosecution sufficiently proved estafa YES, the
prosecution successfully proved that the elements of estafa were present.
TOPICAL:
1. As to the 2nd element of estafa (misappropriation or conversion of such
money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt) the
evidence establishes that the Managers Checks were encashed using the
banks funds and then deposited to Gos accounts. These amounts were then
used to fund Gos personal checks. The evidence strongly indicates Go
converted OCBC funds for his personal use and benefit.
2. In proving the element of conversion or misappropriation, a legal
presumption of misappropriation arises when the accused fails to deliver the
proceeds of the sale or to return the items to be sold and fails to give an
account of their whereabouts. The mere presumption or misappropriation or
conversion is enough to conclude that a probable cause exists for the
indictment.
Whether or not respondents were guilty of falsification of commercial document
YES, the prosecution also successfully proved that the elements of falsification of
commercial document were present
TOPICAL (presumption of forgery)
1. Whenever someone has in his possession falsified documents which he used
to his advantage and benefit, the presumption that he authored it arises.
2. This is especially true if the use or uttering of the forged documents was so
closely connected in time with the forgery that the user or possessor may be
proven to have the capacity of committing the forgery, or to have close
connection with the forgers, and therefore, had complicity in the forgery. In
the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who is found in possession of
a forged document and who used or uttered it is presumed to be the forger.