7. Ching vs CA - G.R. 110844.docx - G.R No 110844 The four...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 8 pages.

G.R. No. 110844 April 27, 2000 ALFREDO CHING, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ZOSIMO Z. ANGELES, RTC- BR. 58, MAKATI, METRO MANILA, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION, respondents. BUENA, J.: Confronting the Court in this instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the task of resolving the issue of whether the pendency of a civil action for damages and declaration of nullity of documents, specifically trust receipts, warrants the suspension of criminal proceedings instituted for violation of Article 315 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to P.D. 115, otherwise known as the "Trust Receipts Law". Petitioner Alfredo Ching challenges before us the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 27 January 1993 in CA G.R. SP No. 28912, dismissing his "Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order/ Preliminary Injunction", on the ground of lack of merit. Assailed similarly is the resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals dated 28 June 1993 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. As borne by the records, the controversy arose from the following facts: On 04 February 1992, 3 petitioner was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Makati (RTC-Makati), Branch 58, with four counts of estafa punishable under Article 315 par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Presidential Decree 115, otherwise known as the "Trust Receipts Law". The four separate informations 4 which were couched in similar language except for the date, subject goods and amount thereof, charged herein petitioner in this wise: That on or about the (18th day of May 1981; 3rd day of June 1981; 24th day of June 1981 and 24th day of June 1981), in the Municipality of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused having executed a trust receipt agreement in favor of Allied Banking Corporation in consideration of the receipt by the said accused of goods described as "12 Containers (200 M/T) Magtar Brand Dolomites"; "18 Containers (Zoom M/T) Magtar Brand Dolomites"; "High Fired Refractory Sliding Nozzle Bricks"; and "High Fired Refractory Sliding Nozzle Bricks" for which there is now due the sum of (P278, 917.80; P419,719.20; P387, 551. 95; and P389,085.14 respectively) under the terms of which the accused agreed to sell the same for cash with the express obligation to remit to the complainant bank the proceeds of the sale and/or to turn over the goods, if not sold, on demand, but the accused, once in possession of said goods, far from complying with his obligation and with grave abuse of confidence, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously misappropriate, misapply and convert to his own personal use and benefit the said goods and/or the proceeds of the sale thereof, and despite repeated demands, failed and refused and still fails and refuses, to account for and/or remit the proceeds of sale thereof to the Allied Banking Corporation to the damage and prejudice of the said complainant bank in the aforementioned amount of (P278,917.80; P419,719.20; P387,551.95; and P389,085.14).
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 8 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • criminal law, Complaint, Pleading, Appellate court, Trial court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture