CHING VS SEC OF JUSTICE

FACTS:

Sept-Oct 1980: PBMI, through Ching, Senior VP of Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc.
(PBMI), 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. The goods were
purchased and delivered in trust to PBMI. Ching signed 13 trust receipts as surety,
acknowledging delivery of the goods Under the receipts, Ching agreed to hold the goods in
trust for RCBC, with authority to sell but not by way of conditional sale, pledge or otherwise
In case such goods were sold, to turn over the proceeds thereof as soon as received,to apply
against the relative acceptancesand payment of other indebtedness torespondent bank.In case
the goods remained unsold withinthe specified period, the goods were to bereturned to RCBC
without any need ofdemand. goods, manufactured products or proceedsthereof, whether in the
form of money orbills, receivables, or accounts separateand capable of identification -
RCBCspropertyWhen the trust receipts matured, Chingfailed to return the goods to RCBC, or
toreturn their value amountingtoP6,940,280.66 despite demands.RCBC filed a criminal
complaintfor estafa against petitioner in the Oceof the City Prosecutor of Manila.December 8,
1995: no probable cause tocharge petitioner with violating P.D. No.115, as petitioners liability
was onlycivil, not criminal, having signed the trustreceipts as suretyRCBC appealed the
resolution to theDepartment of Justice (DOJ) via petitionfor reviewOn July 13, 1999: reversed
the assailedresolution of the City Prosecutorexecution of said receipts is enough toindict the
Ching as the ocial responsiblefor violation of P.D. No. 115April 22, 2004: CA dismissed the
petitionfor lack of merit and on procedural. grounds Ching filed a petition for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus with the CA

ISSUE: W/N Ching should be held criminally liable.

HELD:

YES. DENIED for lack of merit There is no dispute that it was the Ching executed
the 13 trust receipts. law points to him as the ocial responsible for the oense Since a
corporation CANNOT be proceeded against criminally because it CANNOT commit crime in
which personal violence or malicious intent is required, criminal action is limited to the
corporate agents guilty of an act amounting to a crime and never against the corporation
itself execution by Ching of receipts is enough to indict him as the ocial responsible for
violation of PD 115 RCBC is estopped to still contend that PD 115 covers only goods
which are ultimately destined for sale and not goods, like those imported by PBM, for use in
manufacture. Moreover, PD 115 explicitly allows the prosecution of corporate ocers
without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the criminal oense thus, the civil
liability imposed on respondent in RCBC vs. Court of Appeals case is clearly separate and
distinct from his criminal. 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 When a criminal statute designates an act of a corporation or a
crime and prescribes punishment therefor, it creates a criminal oense which, otherwise,
would not exist and such can be committed only by the corporation. But when a penal
statute does not expressly apply to corporations, it does not create an oense for which a
corporation may be punished. On the other hand, if the State, by statute, defines a crime
that may be committed by a corporation but prescribes the penalty therefor to be suered
by the ocers, directors, or employees of such corporation or other persons responsible for
the oense, only such individuals will suer such penalty. Corporate ocers or employees,
through whose act, default or omission the corporation commits a crime, are themselves
individually guilty of the crime. The principle applies whether or not the crime requires the
consciousness of wrongdoing. It applies to those corporate agents who themselves commit
the crime and to those, who, by virtue of their managerial positions orother similar relation to
the corporation,could be deemed responsible for itscommission, if by virtue of theirrelationship
to the corporation, they hadthe power to prevent the act. Benefit isnot an operative fact.