People v. Dick Ong

TOPIC:

Deposits

People vs. Dick Ong

204 SCRA 942 (1991)

Facts: Accused Dick Ong, one of the depositors of the Home Savings Bank and Trust Company (HSBTC) opened a savings account with HSBTC with an initial deposit of P22.14 in cash and P10,000.00 in check. Ong was allowed to withdraw from his savings account with the Bank the sum of P5,000.00, without his check undergoing the usual and reglementary clearance. The withdrawal slip was signed and approved by Lino Morfe, then the Branch Manager, and accused Lucila Talabis, the Branch Cashier. Subsequently, Ong deposited eleven checks in his savings account with the Bank and against which he made withdrawals against its amount. Again, the withdrawal of the amount by Ong was made before said checks were cleared and the Bank had collected their amounts and with the approval of Talabis. However, when the Bank presented the eleven checks issued, deposited and against which Ong made withdrawals against its amounts, to their respective drawee banks for payment, they were all dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds. Because of this, the Bank filed a criminal action for Estafa against Ong, and the Bank’s officer in charge Villaran and Talabis. Talabis testified that the approval of the withdrawals of Ong against his uncleared checks was in accordance with the instruction of their then bank manager and that it is a kind of accommodation given to Ong and also a common practice of the Bank. RTC ruled Ong as guilty for the crime of estafa but acquitted Villarin and Talabis as their guilt were not proven beyond reasonable doubt. CA affirmed RTCs decisions. Issue:

1. What is the nature of bank deposits? 2. WON Ong is guilty of Estafa. No. Ruling:

1. The Supreme Court held that bank deposits are in the nature of irregular deposits. Bank deposits are really loans because they earn interest. Whether fixed, savings, or current, all bank Adeposits are to be treated as loans and are to be covered by the law on loans.

2. The elements of this kind of estafa are the following: (1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee thereof. In this case, the fact was established that Ong either issued or indorsed the subject checks. However, it must be remembered that the reason for the conviction of an accused of the crime of estafa is his guilty knowledge of the fact that he had no funds in the bank when he negotiated the spurious check. In the present case, however, the prosecution failed to prove that Ong had knowledge with respect to the checks he indorsed. Moreover, it has also been proven that it was the Bank which granted him a drawn against uncollected deposit (DAUD) privilege without need of any pretensions on his part. The privilege this privilege was not only for the subject checks, but for other past transactions. If ever, he, indeed acted fr audulently, he could not have done so without the active cooperation of the Banks employees. Since Talabis and Villaran were declared innocent of the crimes charged against them, the same should be said for the Ong.

Thus, Ong cannot be held criminally liable against the Bank. He can only be held civilly liable as the Bank incurred damages.