Ching v. Secretary of Justice

Doctrines: 

- The law specifically makes the officers, employees or 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. 

- If the crime is committed by a corporation or other juridical entity, the directors, officers, employees or other officers thereof responsible for the offense shall be charged and penalized for the crime; A corporation may be charged and prosecuted for a crime if the imposable penalty is fine. 

Facts: Petitioner was the Senior Vice-President of Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc. . Sometime in September to October 1980, PBMI, through petitioner, applied with the Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (respondent bank) for the issuance of commercial letters. Respondent bank approved the application, and irrevocable letters of credit were issued in favor of petitioner. The goods were purchased and delivered in trust to PBMI. Petitioner agreed to hold the goods in trust for the said bank, with authority to sell but not by way of conditional sale, pledge or otherwise; and in case such goods were sold, to turn over the proceeds thereof as soon as received, to apply against the relative acceptances and payment of other indebtedness to respondent bank. When the trust receipts matured, petitioner failed to return the goods to respondent bank, or to return their value amounting to P6,940,280.66 despite demands. Thus, the bank filed a criminal complaint for estafa against petitioner in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. Petitioner appealed to the Minister of Justice but was dismissed. Petitioner moved for reconsideration and was granted. The City Prosecutor was ordered to move for the withdrawal of Informations. Respondent bank filed an MR but was denied. The RTC granted the Motion to Quash the Informations filed by petitioner.

In 1995, respondent bank re-filed the compaint for estafa. Respondent bank appealed the resolution to DOJ via petition for review and was granted. Petitioner filed a petition for certirari with the CA, but the CA dismissed the petition.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred.

Held: Yes.

Though the entrustee is a corporation, nevertheless, the law specifically makes the officers, employees or 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 the authority and responsibility to devise means necessary to ensure compliance with the law and, if they fail to do so, are held criminally accountable; thus, they have a responsible share in the violations of the law. 

If the crime is committed by a corporation or other juridical entity, the directors, officers, employees or other officers thereof responsible for the offense shall be charged and penalized for the crime, precisely because of the nature of the crime and the penalty therefor. 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. Even if the statute prescribes both fine and imprisonment as penalty, a corporation may be prosecuted and, if found guilty, may be fined.