20. Ching V.

Secretary of Justice, 481 SCRA 609 (2006) FACTS:

Ching was the Senior Vice President of Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc (PBMI). PBMI, through Ching applied with the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) for the issuance of Commercial Letters of Credit to finance its importation of assorted goods. RCBC approved the application, and irrevocable Letters of Credit were issued in favor of Ching (PBMI). The goods were purchased and delivered in trust to PBMI. Ching signed 13 trust receipt as SURETY, acknowledging delivery of the goods. When the trust receipt matured, Ching failed to return the goods to RCBC or to return their value despite repeated demands. Thus, RCBC filed a criminal complaint for estafa against Ching. City Prosecutor found probable cause for estafa, thus 13 information were filed. Ching appealed to the Minister of Justice which ordered the withdrawal of the information. RCBC refilled the criminal complaint for estafa before the office of the City Prosecutor. City Prosecutor ruled that there was no probable cause to charge Ching as his liability was only civil and not criminal having signed the trust receipts as surety. RCBC appealed to the Secretary of Justice which reversed the resolution of the City prosecutor, holding that Ching as senior Vice-President of PBMI, executed the 13 trust receipts and as such, was one responsible for the offense. The execution of said receipts is enough to indict Ching as the official responsible for the violation of PD 115.

CA: -Affirmed the Decision of Secretary of Justice. ISSUE: -Whether Ching can be held criminally liable for violation of the Trust Receipts Law when he signed the trust receipts merely as a surety and not as the entrustee. HELD:

An officer of a corporation who signed a trust receipt cannot hide behind the cloak of the separate corporate personality of the corporation and cannot avoid criminal prosecution even though he had no physical possession of the goods nor are benefitted by the delictual acts. Though the entrustee is a corporation, nevertheless, the law specifically makes the officers, employees and other officers or persons responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities of such corporation and/or board of directors, officers, or other officials or employees responsible for the offense.

The rationale is that such officers or employees are vested with authority and responsibility to devise means necessary to ensure compliance with the law and, if they fail to do so, are held criminally accountable. A corporation cannot be arrested and imprisoned; hence, cannot be penalized for a crime punishable by imprisonment. However a corporation may be charged and prosecuted for a crime if the imposable penalty is FINE.