G.R. No. 166884 - LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. LAMBERTO C. PEREZ, NESTOR C. KUN, MA. ESTELITA P. ANGELES-PANLILIO, AND NAPOLEON O. GARCIA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, and for insufficiency of evidence, it is respectfully recommended that the instant complaints be dismissed, as upon approval, the same are hereby dismissed. [11] LBP filed a motion for reconsideration which the Makati Assistant City Prosecutor denied in his order of January 7, 2000. [12] On appeal, the Secretary of Justice reversed the Resolution of the Assistant City Prosecutor. In his resolution of August 1, 2002, [13] the Secretary of Justice pointed out that there was no question that the goods covered by the trust receipts were received by ACDC. He likewise adopted LBPs argument that while the subjects of the trust receipts were not mentioned in the trust receipts, they were listed in the letters of credit referred to in the trust receipts. He also noted that the trust receipts contained maturity dates and clearly set out their stipulations. He further rejected the respondents defense that ACDC failed to remit the payments to LBP due to the failure of the clients of ACDC to pay them. The dispositive portion of the resolution reads: WHEREFORE, the assailed resolution is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The City Prosecutor of Makati City is hereby directed to file an information for estafa under Art. 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 13, Presidential Decree No. 115 against respondents Lamberto C. Perez, Nestor C. Kun, [Ma. Estelita P. Angeles-Panlilio] and Napoleon O. Garcia and to report the action taken within ten (10) days from receipt hereof. [14] The respondents filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution dated August 1, 2002, which the Secretary of Justice denied. [15] He rejected the respondents submission that Colinares v. Court of Appeals [16] does not apply to the case. He explained that in Colinares , the building materials were delivered to the accused before they applied to the bank for a loan to pay for the merchandise; thus, the ownership of the merchandise had already been transferred to the entrustees before the trust receipts agreements were entered into. In the present case, the parties have already entered into the Agreement before the construction materials were delivered to ACDC. Subsequently, the respondents filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals. After both parties submitted their respective Memoranda, the Court of Appeals promulgated the assailed decision of January 20, 2005. [17] Applying the doctrine in Colinares , it ruled that this case did not involve a trust receipt transaction, but a mere loan. It emphasized that construction materials, the subject of the trust receipt transaction, were delivered to ACDC even before the trust receipts were executed. It noted that LBP did not offer proof that the goods were received by ACDC, and that the trust receipts did not contain a description of the goods, their invoice value, the amount of the draft to be paid, and their maturity dates. It also adopted ACDCs argument that since no payment for t