LIBERATA AMBITO, BASILIO AMBITO, AND CRISANTO AMBITO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

Ambito versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is a criminal case in which Liberata Ambito, her husband Basilio Ambito, and Basilio's brother Crisanto Ambito ask the Supreme Court to overturn their convictions. The spouses Ambito owned two rural banks and a farm-implement enterprise, and they bought Yanmar machineries and spare parts from Pacific Star, Incorporated, paying partly with checks and partly with certificates of time deposit. When the checks bounced and the certificates turned out to be unfunded, Pacific Star complained, and the Ambitos were prosecuted for violations of the Bouncing Checks Law, for estafa through falsification of commercial documents, and for falsification of commercial documents. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats a petition that attacks the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, and how it applies the rules on falsification of commercial documents and on complex crimes.

Procedural History

The Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 26, tried the consolidated criminal cases and rendered its decision on November 29, 1990. It convicted Basilio Ambito of several violations of the Bouncing Checks Law, convicted Liberata and Basilio Ambito of estafa through falsification of commercial documents, and convicted Crisanto Ambito of two counts of falsification of commercial documents. It acquitted Basilio and Liberata Ambito of the two falsification charges in the last two cases for insufficiency of evidence, and acquitted the two bank cashiers, Marilyn Traje and Reynaldo Baron, on reasonable doubt.

The Ambitos appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision in full. The Court of Appeals denied their motion for reconsideration, so the Ambitos came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari. The Supreme Court first denied the petition because it raised factual issues, but on motion for reconsideration it reinstated the petition and gave it due course.

Facts

In 1979 the spouses Basilio and Liberata Ambito owned the Community Rural Bank of Leon and the Rural Bank of Banate, both in Iloilo, and also owned Casette Enterprises, which procured farm implements for their banks' agricultural loan borrowers. They bought Yanmar machineries and spare parts from Pacific Star, Incorporated, making down payments in cash, in checks, or in certificates of time deposit issued by their own banks. The Manila Banking Corporation checks Basilio issued were dishonored for insufficiency of funds.

Liberata Ambito, as general manager of the Rural Bank of Banate, forced its cashier Marilyn Traje to sign several blank certificates of time deposit, promising to answer for their issuance. Crisanto Ambito, as manager of the Community Rural Bank of Leon, and the spouses Ambito similarly pressed its cashier Reynaldo Baron to sign blank certificates, and Baron eventually resigned. The blank certificates were later filled up with amounts and with Pacific Star as depositor, and were used as down payments for the purchases.

The certificates were unfunded and not covered by any deposit, so Pacific Star could not redeem them and suffered damages. Both banks became insolvent and were placed under receivership and liquidation by the Central Bank, whose examiners found no properly funded certificate of time deposit in the name of Pacific Star. On Pacific Star's complaint, the Ambitos were charged, tried, and convicted as described above.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Basilio Ambito for violations of the Bouncing Checks Law.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the convictions of Liberata and Basilio Ambito for estafa through falsification of commercial documents.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Crisanto Ambito for falsification of commercial documents.
• Whether or not the findings of fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeals may be disturbed in a petition for review on certiorari.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the Bouncing Checks Law, provides:

Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one year or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.

This is the provision under which Basilio Ambito was convicted for the dishonored checks.

Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code defines falsification of commercial documents as a felony, and Article 172 punishes it, and these are the provisions under which Crisanto Ambito was convicted.

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

This is the provision under which the estafa through falsification of commercial documents was treated as a complex crime.

Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code defines estafa, and it is the offense complexed with falsification in the charges against Liberata and Basilio Ambito.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court upheld the conviction of Basilio Ambito for violations of the Bouncing Checks Law. The checks he issued were dishonored for insufficiency of funds, and the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals on this point were supported by the evidence.

On the second issue, the Court upheld the convictions of Liberata and Basilio Ambito for estafa through falsification of commercial documents. The blank certificates of time deposit were filled up and used as down payments, and the evidence showed that they were unfunded and not covered by any deposit, so Pacific Star was defrauded.

On the third issue, the Court upheld the conviction of Crisanto Ambito for falsification of commercial documents. As manager of the Community Rural Bank of Leon, he caused the preparation and issuance of the falsified certificates.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the findings of fact of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and will not be disturbed in a petition for review on certiorari absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion or misapprehension of facts. The Court found no reason to depart from this rule.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate must retain that the findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on the Supreme Court and will not be reviewed in a petition for review on certiorari unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Court also applies the rule that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime is imposed in its maximum period, as provided in Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Finally, the case illustrates that the issuance of unfunded certificates of time deposit, filled up and used as payment, can constitute falsification of commercial documents and estafa through falsification.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in full, so the convictions of Liberata, Basilio, and Crisanto Ambito stand.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Supreme Court in a petition for review on certiorari. Examiners like to use this case to test the rule on the conclusiveness of factual findings and the application of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code on complex crimes.