G.R. No. 255367 , October 02, 2024
Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc., Petitioner, vs. The People of the Philippines, and Ruby O. Alda, Respondents.

FACTS

Upon a complaint by Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc. (BDO), an Information for Estafa through Misappropriation under Article 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code was filed against Ruby O. Alda (Ruby), Elizabeth O. Alda, and Michael S. Bungque. The charge alleged that from March to November 2008, the accused conspired to misappropriate PHP 46,829,806.14, which resulted from an over-crediting of money to Ruby’s Fast Card account, with an obligation to return the amount to BDO. The case was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 143. Ruby and Bungque pleaded not guilty; Elizabeth remained at large.
The prosecution established that Elizabeth applied for a Fast Card with Equitable PCI Bank (EPCI), which later merged with BDO. The card was for her daughter Ruby, who was in Dubai. Elizabeth made deposits in Taiwan Dollars, and Ruby and Bungque made withdrawals in Dubai Dirhams. BDO’s investigation revealed that from March to November 2008, only PHP 1,662,483.57 was actually deposited into the Fast Card account, but the total withdrawals and service charges amounted to PHP 64,123,974.42, resulting in an over-credit of PHP 62,461,490.85. When confronted, Ruby and Bungque admitted to the scheme. Ruby executed a Deed of Dation in Payment, and Bungque caused a deposit of PHP 5,281,000.00 to BDO. They accounted for only PHP 15,631,684.71, leaving PHP 46,829,806.14 unaccounted for.
The RTC found Ruby guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Estafa through Misappropriation and sentenced her to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years of Prision Correccional maximum as minimum to 20 years of Reclusion Temporal maximum as maximum. She was also ordered to pay BDO PHP 45,799,007.28 as actual damages, PHP 100,000.00 as moral damages, PHP 100,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and costs. Bungque was acquitted for insufficiency of evidence. An alias warrant was issued for Elizabeth.
Ruby appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). During the pendency of the appeal, BDO filed a motion to intervene, arguing it had a legal interest in the civil liability aspect of the case. The CA denied BDO’s motion, stating that as the private complainant, BDO was already considered a party to the case with the right to be heard on the civil aspect. The CA also noted the motion was filed beyond the reglementary period. BDO’s motion for reconsideration was denied. BDO then filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc.’s motion to intervene in the appealed criminal case.

RULING

No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Resolutions.
The Supreme Court held that intervention is not allowed in criminal proceedings. A criminal case is a litigation between the State and the accused, and the private offended party’s role is limited to the civil liability arising from the crime. The Rules of Court on intervention apply only to civil actions. Since BDO was the private complainant, it was already considered a party to the case with respect to the civil aspect. Its rights were adequately protected as it could file a comment on Ruby’s appeal brief to protect its interest in the civil liability. The CA correctly recognized BDO as a party and noted its right to be heard. Furthermore, the CA correctly found that BDO’s motion to intervene was filed out of time, as it was submitted long after Ruby had filed her Appellant’s Brief and the CA had already issued a resolution requiring the filing of briefs. The purpose of an appeal in a criminal case is to review errors of law or fact committed by the trial court, and the participation of the private complainant is subordinate to the State’s pursuit of the criminal action. Therefore, the CA committed no reversible error in denying the motion to intervene.