Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MELVIN COLINARES v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 195117 2013-08-14	HUR TIN YANG v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
The Court's ruling in Colinares v. Court of Appeals[21] is very apt, thus:The practice of banks of making borrowers sign trust receipts to facilitate collection of loans and place them under the threats of criminal prosecution should they be unable to pay it may be unjust and inequitable. if not reprehensible. Such agreements are contracts of adhesion which borrowers have no option but to sign lest their loan be disapproved. The resort to this scheme leaves poor and hapless borrowers at the mercy of banks and is prone to misinterpretation x x x.
	GR No. 166884 2012-06-13	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. LAMBERTO C. PEREZ BRION, J.
There are two obligations in a trust receipt transaction. The first is covered by the provision that refers to money under the obligation to deliver it (entregarla) to the owner of the merchandise sold. The second is covered by the provision referring to merchandise received under the obligation to return it (devolvera) to the owner. Thus, under the Trust Receipts Law,[22] intent to defraud is presumed when (1) the entrustee fails to turn over the proceeds of the sale of goods covered by the trust receipt to the entruster; or (2) when the entrustee fails to return the goods under trust, if they are not disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipts.[23]
	GR No. 151911 2011-07-25	EDGAR PAYUMO v. SANDIGANBAYAN MENDOZA, J.
To begin with, the records of the JAGO relative to the February 26, 1980 incident do not meet the criteria for newly discovered evidence that would merit a new trial. A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence may be granted only if the following requisites are met: (a) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) that said evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (d) that the evidence is of such weight that, if admitted, would probably change the judgment.[41] It is essential that the offering party exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate the evidence before or during trial but nonetheless failed to secure it.[42] In this case, however, such records could have been easily obtained by the accused and could have been presented during the trial with the exercise of reasonable diligence. Hence, the JAGO records cannot be considered as newly discovered evidence. There was nothing that prevented the accused from using these records during the trial to substantiate their position that the shooting incident was a result of a military operation.
	GR No. 173905 2010-04-23	ANTHONY L. NG v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
The practice of banks of making borrowers sign trust receipts to facilitate collection of loans and place them under the threats of criminal prosecution should they be unable to pay it may be unjust and inequitable, if not reprehensible. Such agreements are contracts of adhesion which borrowers have no option but to sign lest their loan be disapproved. The resort to this scheme leaves poor and hapless borrowers at the mercy of banks, and is prone to misinterpretation x x x.[23]
	GR NO. 155647 2007-11-23	METROPOLITAN BANK v. JIMMY GO NACHURA, J.
As to the other obligations under the trust receipts adapted from Section 9 of the Trust Receipts Law, there is no sufficient evidence proffered by Metrobank that Jimmy and Benjamin Go had actually violated them. What the law punishes is the dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods to the prejudice of another, whether the latter is the owner.[41] The malum prohibitum nature of the offense notwithstanding, the intent to misuse or misappropriate the goods or their proceeds on the part of Jimmy and Benjamin Go should have been proved. Unfortunately, no such proof appears on record.[42]
	GR NO. 164904 2007-10-19	JOSE ANTONIO U. GONZALEZ v. HONGKONG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
That petitioner Gonzalez neither had the intent to defraud respondent HSBC nor personally misused/misappropriated the goods subject of the trust receipts is of no moment. The offense punished under Presidential Decree No. 115 is in the nature of malum prohibitum. A mere failure to deliver the proceeds of the sale or the goods if not sold, constitutes a criminal offense that causes prejudice not only to another, but more to the public interest.[42] This is a matter of public policy as declared by the legislative authority. Moreover, this Court already held previously that failure of the entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, covered by the trust receipt, to the entruster or to return said goods if they were not disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall be punishable as estafa under Art. 315(1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code without need of proving intent to defraud.[43]
	GR No. 158802 2004-11-17	IN RE: WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR REYNALDO DE VILLA REYNALDO DE VILLA v. DIRECTOR YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
A motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence may be granted only if the following requisites are met: (a) that the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) that said evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching; and (d) that the evidence is of such weight that that, if admitted, it would probably change the judgment.[52] It is essential that the offering party exercised reasonable diligence in seeking to locate the evidence before or during trial but nonetheless failed to secure it.[53]
	GR No. 119858 2003-04-29	EDWARD C. ONG v. CA CARPIO, J.
SEC. 13. Penalty Clause. The failure of the entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, documents or instruments covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods, documents or instruments if they were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime of estafa, punishable under the provisions of Article Three Hundred and Fifteen, Paragraph One (b), of Act Numbered Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifteen, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code. If the violation or offense is committed by a corporation, partnership, association or other juridical entities, the penalty provided for in this Decree shall be imposed upon the directors, officers, employees or other officials or persons therein responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense. (Emphasis supplied) The Trust Receipts Law is violated whenever the entrustee fails to: (1) turn over the proceeds of the sale of the goods, or (2) return the goods covered by the trust receipts if the goods are not sold.[18] The mere failure to account or return gives rise to the crime which is malum prohibitum.[19] There is no requirement to prove intent to defraud.[20]
	GR No. 114286 2001-04-19	CONSOLIDATED BANK v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The recent case of Colinares v. Court of Appeals[12] appears to be foursquare with the facts obtaining in the case at bar. There, we found that inasmuch as the debtor received the goods subject of the trust receipt before the trust receipt itself was entered into, the transaction in question was a simple loan and not a trust receipt agreement. Prior to the date of execution of the trust receipt, ownership over the goods was already transferred to the debtor. This situation is inconsistent with what normally obtains in a pure trust receipt transaction, wherein the goods belong in ownership to the bank and are only released to the importer in trust after the loan is granted.