Ong v Court of Appeals 124 SCRA 578 (1983)

FACTS: Tramat delivered to Ong several machineries for display and sale. Ong issued a
Temporary Receipt with conditions to remit price in case of sale or return after 90 days if
unsold upon demand. Ong defaulted in his obligation and Tramat filed criminal action of
estafa under said temporary receipt. Ong filed a civil action, 3 months after for sum of
money.
Civil action ended with a compromise. Ong moved to dismiss criminal action on
account of novation under Compromise Agreement. The Regional Trial Court denied.
Court of Appeals affirmed as well as Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Novation extinguished Criminal liability under Estafa.

HELD: No. Compromise of estafa case arising from trust receipt transaction, after the
case has been filed in court does not amount to novation and does not erase the
criminal liability of the accused.

Vintola v Insular Bank of Asia and America 150 scra 140 (1987)

FACTS : Spouses Vintola (VINTOLAS) applied for and were granted a domestic letter of
credit by the Insular Bank of Asia and America (IBAA). The Letter of Credit authorized the
bank to negotiate for their account drafts drawn by their supplier, one Stalin Tan, on Dax
Kin
International for the purchase of puka and olive seashells.
VINTOLAS received from Stalin Tan the puka and olive shells and executed a Trust
Receipt agreement with IBAA. Under that Agreement, the VINTOLAS agreed to hold the
goods in
trust for IBAA as the "latter's property with liberty to sell the same for its account, " and
"in
case of sale" to turn over the proceeds.
Having defaulted on their obligation, IBAA demanded payment from the VINTOLAS. The
VINTOLAS, who were unable to dispose of the shells, responded by offering to return the
goods. IBAA refused to accept the merchandise, and due to the continued refusal of the
VINTOLAS to make good their undertaking, IBAA charged them with Estafa for having
misappropriated, misapplied and converted for their own personal use and benefit the
aforesaid goods.

The trial court acquitted the VINTOLAS of the offense charged. IBAA commenced a civil
action to recover the value of the goods. The court dismissed the case holding that the
complaint was barred by the judgment of acquittal in the criminal case.

ISSUE : Whether or not acquittal from criminal offense extinguish civil liability?
RULINGS: A letter of credit-trust receipt arrangement is endowed with its own
distinctive features and characteristics. Under that set-up, a bank extends a loan covered
by the Letter of Credit, with the trust receipt as a security for the loan. In other words,
the transaction involves a loan feature represented by the letter of credit, and a security
feature which is in the covering trust receipt.
A trust receipt, therefore, is a security agreement, pursuant to which a bank acquires a
"security interest" in the goods. "It secures an indebtedness and there can be no such
thing
as security interest that secures no obligation."
IBAA did not become the real owner of the goods. It was merely the holder of a security
title fr the advances it had made to the VINTOLAS The goods the VINTOLAS had
purchased
through IBAA financing remain their own property and they hold it at their own risk. The
trust
receipt arrangement did not convert the IBAA into an investor; the latter remained a
lender and creditor.
The foregoing premises considered, it follows that the acquittal of the VINTOLAS in the
Estafa case is no bar to the institution of a civil action for collection. It is inaccurate for
the VINTOLAS to claim that the judgment in the estafa case had declared that the facts
from
which the civil action might arise, did not exist, for, it will be recalled that the decision of
acquittal expressly declared that "the remedy of the Bank is civil and not criminal in
nature."
The VINTOLAS are liable ex contractu for breach of the Letter of Credit — Trust Receipt,
whether they did or they did not "misappropriate, misapply or convert" the
merchandise as
charged in the criminal case. Their civil liability does not arise ex delicto, the action for
the
recovery of which would have been deemed instituted with the criminal-action (unless
waived
or reserved) and where acquittal based on a judicial declaration that the criminal acts
charged do not exist would have extinguished the civil action. Rather, the civil suit
instituted
by IBAA is based ex contractu and as such is distinct and independent from any criminal
proceedings and may proceed regardless of the result of the latter.

Ramos v Court of Appeals

FACTS: The accused filed with Philippine National Cooperative Bank four
applications for letters of credit. Among the papers filed for the issuance of the
domestic letters of credit were commercial invoices of the different suppliers of the
merchandise sought to be purchase. The records of the PNCB which had been
presented in evidence show that the drafts drawn by the bank against the accused and
accepted by the latter were supposed to be due in 90 days from the dates thereof. No
payments were made excepting a partial payment of P3,900.00, Trinidad Ramos pleads
for acquittal on the proposition that the factual predicate on which her conviction is laid
is chiefly comprised of speculations, conjectures and presumptions without substantial
and actual support in the evidence. The proofs are indeed inadequate on these
propositions of fact. It is difficult to accept the prosecution's theory that it has furnished
sufficient proof of delivery by the introduction in evidence of the commercial invoices
attached to the applications for the letters of credit and of the trust receipts. The
invoices are actually nothing more than lists of the items sought to be purchased and
their prices.

HELD: Where proof of delivery of goods covered by a trust receipt to the accused is
insufficient, conviction of estafa can not lie. Introduction of commercial invoices
attached to the applications for letters of credit and of trust receipts, where such
invoices are actually not more than the list of items sought to be purchased and their
prices, does not amount to delivery receipt.