G.R. No. 233015 , October 16, 2019
LUIS L. CO AND ALVIN S. CO, PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS AND PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners Luis L. Co and Alvin S. Co, President and Assistant Vice President, respectively, of Jade Progressive Savings and Mortgage Bank, were charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The information alleged that from March to December 1997, they conspired to defraud the bank by authorizing the release of PHP 3,032,909.00 from the bank’s funds as payment for security services supposedly rendered by “ACME INVESTIGATION SERVICES, INC.,” a non-existent agency. They accomplished this by means of false pretenses, such as making it appear there was a contract and that services were rendered. The amounts were deposited into bank accounts controlled by the petitioners using aliases. The prosecution presented evidence that ACME was fictitious, not registered with the SEC or PNP, and not a member of PADPAO. The defense denied the allegations, claiming they merely signed the checks based on the accounting department’s certifications. The Regional Trial Court convicted them of Estafa, a decision affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the facts alleged in the information and proven constitute the crime of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, or Falsification of a Private Document.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and acquitted the petitioners. The Court ruled that the facts charged and established constitute the crime of Falsification of a Private Document under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code, not Estafa. The information essentially alleged that the petitioners forged the letter billings from the non-existent ACME to make it appear that services were rendered, and used these forged documents to authorize the release and misappropriation of bank funds. When the information charges the accused with having forged a private document to commit fraud, the crime is falsification of a private document. The designation of the offense in the information is not controlling; it is the recital of facts constitutive of the offense that determines the crime charged. Furthermore, there can be no complex crime of falsification of private documents and estafa in this case because the element of damage essential in both crimes is the same. The damage alleged (the release of bank funds) resulted from and was the element of the falsification, and thus estafa cannot exist independently without its own element of damage. Since the petitioners were charged with and tried for Estafa, not Falsification, and the prosecution failed to prove all elements of Estafa beyond reasonable doubt, they are entitled to acquittal. The Court ordered the dismissal of the criminal case.