Guingona vs.

City Fiscal of Manila, 128 SCRA 577

Facts:
Clement David made several investments with the National Savings and Loan
Association. On March 21, 1981, the bank was placed under receivership by the Central Bank so
David filed claims for his and his sister’s investments. Upon David’s request, petitioners
Guingona and Martin issued a joint promissory note, absorbing the obligations of the bank.
On July 22, 1981, David received a report that only a portion of his investments was
entered in the NSLA records.
On November 19, 1981, Guingona filed a civil case against David in the Court of First
Instance of Quezon City. He prayed for damages against David for his failure to accept payment
of a cashier’s check and to release one of the mortgaged properties.
On December 1981, David filed a complaint for estafa and violation of Central Bank
Circular No. 364 and related regulations regarding foreign exchange transactions before the
Office of the City Fiscal of Manila.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the charges against them for lack of jurisdiction
because David's claims allegedly comprised a purely civil obligation, but the motion was
denied. Petitioners then filed the herein petition for prohibition and injunction with a prayer for
immediate issuance of restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the public
respondents to proceed with the preliminary investigation on the ground that the petitioners’
obligation is civil in nature.
Issue:
Whether the contract between NSLA and David is a contract of depositor a contract of
loan, which answer determines whether the City Fiscal has the jurisdiction to file a case for
estafa
Held:
When private respondent David invested his money on nine. and savings deposits with
the aforesaid bank, the contract that was perfected was a contract of simple loan or mutuum and
not a contract of deposit. Hence, the relationship between the private respondent and the Nation
Savings and Loan Association is that of creditor and debtor; consequently, the ownership of the
amount deposited was transmitted to the Bank upon the perfection of the contract and it can
make use of the amount deposited for its banking operations, such as to pay interests on deposits
and to pay withdrawals. While the Bank has the obligation to return the amount deposited, it has,
however, no obligation to return or deliver the same money  that was deposited. And, the failure
of the Bank to return the amount deposited will not constitute estafa through misappropriation
punishable under Article 315, par. l(b) of the Revised Penal Code, but it will only give rise to
civil liability over which the public respondents have no jurisdiction.
 But even granting that the failure of the bank to pay the time and savings deposits of
private respondent David would constitute a violation of paragraph 1(b) of Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code, nevertheless any incipient criminal liability was deemed avoided, because
when the aforesaid bank was placed under receivership by the Central Bank, petitioners
Guingona and Martin assumed the obligation of the bank to private respondent David, thereby
resulting in the novation of the original contractual obligation arising from deposit into a contract
of loan and converting the original trust relation between the bank and private respondent David
into an ordinary debtor-creditor relation between the petitioners and private respondent.
Consequently, the failure of the bank or petitioners Guingona and Martin to pay the deposits of
private respondent would not constitute a breach of trust but would merely be a failure to pay the
obligation as a debtor. Moreover, while it is true that novation does not extinguish criminal
liability, it may however, prevent the rise of criminal liability as long as it occurs prior to the
filing of the criminal information in court.
In the case at bar, there is no dispute that petitioners Guingona and Martin executed a
promissory note on June 17, 1981 assuming the obligation of the bank to private respondent
David; while the criminal complaint for estafa was filed on December 23, 1981 with the Office
of the City Fiscal. Hence, it is clear that novation occurred long before the filing of the criminal
complaint with the Office of the City Fiscal. Consequently, as aforestated, any incipient criminal
liability would be avoided but there will still be a civil liability on the part of petitioners
Guingona and Martin to pay the assumed obligation.