Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case 1:: Course: Stat Con Professor: Atty. Amit
Case 1:: Course: Stat Con Professor: Atty. Amit
Case 1:: Course: Stat Con Professor: Atty. Amit
● AUB was satisfied with the credit worthiness of RMSI, AUB granted it a
P250 million Omnibus Credit Line, under the name of Smartnet
Philippines, RMSI's Division
● RMSI submitted proof of authority to open the Omnibus Credit Line and
peso and dollar accounts in the name of Smartnet Philippines, Inc., which
Gilbert Guy, et al. represented as a division of RMSI.
● AUB believed that SPI is the same as Smartnet Philippines — the division of
RMSI, the bank granted $29,300.00
● RMSI further claimed that while Smartnet Philippines is an RMSI division, SPI,
is a subsidiary of RMSI, and hence, is a separate entity.
● The lower court and CA found probable cause against private respondents for
the crime of ESTAFA under Article 315, par 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code
What law or provisions of law is involved?
► The court noted that it was neither the petitioners’ act of borrowing money and
not paying it, nor their denial thereof, but their very act of deceiving AUB in
order for the latter to part with its money that is sought to be penalized.
How did the Supreme Court answer the
question of law?
“Whereas Clause” and “Corporation”
► This is bolstered by the third "whereas clause" of the quoted law which
states that the same also applies to other "corporations/associations
operating on funds solicited from the general public."
What rule of statutory construction was applied by the
Court resolving the question?