Chua Giok Ong v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Chua Giok Ong was charged with attempted estafa through falsification of commercial documents and qualified theft. The charges stemmed from the attempted conversion of two checks. One check for P635.00 was issued by William A. Greenwalt, Jr. to Rattan Art, and the other for P695.20 was issued by Tidewater Oil Company to Shell Company of the Philippines. Both checks were lost in the mail. Ng Bun Seng came into possession of these checks and, noticing alterations, asked Chua Giok Ong to deposit them into Chua's current account. The payee of the first check was altered from "Rattan Art" to "Rattanio Artacio" and the amount from P635.00 to P1,635.00. The payee of the second check was altered from "Shell Company of the Philippines Ltd." to "cash." Chua signed the backs of the checks and filled out a deposit slip. The checks were deposited into Chua's account. When Ng Bun Seng attempted to withdraw the deposited amounts using Chua's personal checks, he was arrested. Subsequently, Ng Bun Seng, Chua Giok Ong, Nicolas Sy, and Co Tee were charged with qualified theft and attempted estafa through falsification. Procedural History: The accused were acquitted of qualified theft due to insufficient evidence but convicted of two counts of attempted estafa through falsification of commercial documents by the Manila Court of First Instance. They were sentenced to four months of arresto mayor and a fine of P500.00 each, with subsidiary imprisonment. Chua Giok Ong, Ng Bun Seng, and Nicolas Sy appealed to the Court of Appeals. Ng and Sy's appeals were dismissed for failure to file their briefs. The Court of Appeals affirmed Chua's conviction but increased the fine in each case from P500.00 to P1,000.00. The Petition: Chua Giok Ong filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, alleging that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in finding that he had knowledge of and participated in the alteration and falsification of the checks, and that there was no adequate evidence of his conspiracy to defraud the bank.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court can review the findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals in an appeal by certiorari. Whether the evidence adequately established petitioner's complicity in the conspiracy to defraud the bank through the encashment of falsified checks.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of reviewing findings of fact: The Supreme Court reiterated the general rule that findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are not reviewable in an appeal by certiorari, which is limited to questions of law. The Court emphasized that it will only entertain such appeals if there are special and important reasons, such as the Court of Appeals deciding a question of substance not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or deciding it in a way probably not in accord with law or applicable decisions. Petitioner's claim of "grave abuse of discretion" was found to be unsubstantiated, as the assailed findings were consistent with the recorded evidence. The Court stressed that it is axiomatic that factual findings are not reviewable unless a recognized exception applies, which was not the case here. The petitioner failed to persuade the Court that the questions raised were substantial enough to merit review or that special and important reasons warranted it. On the issue of petitioner's complicity in the conspiracy: The Court found that the Court of Appeals' conclusion of petitioner's participation in the conspiracy was adequately supported by the evidence. The Court noted that petitioner, being a real estate agent and occasional tutor, possessed sufficient intelligence and familiarity with banking to have noticed the plain alterations on the checks. His failure to take note of these apparent alterations, his ready acceptance of Ng Bun Seng's request to deposit the altered checks into his account, his provision of an incorrect address to the bank, and his subsequent attempt to withdraw the funds through his own checks all formed the basis for the appellate court's conclusion. These circumstances, taken together, demonstrated his complicity in the scheme to defraud the bank through the encashment of the falsified checks. The appellate court's findings were deemed not whimsical or capricious, nor devoid of adequate evidentiary basis, and thus not reviewable on certiorari.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court will not review findings of fact made by the Court of Appeals unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or other recognized exceptions, as appeals by certiorari are limited to questions of law.