San Miguel Corporation v. Puzon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Bartolome V. Puzon, Jr. (Puzon), owner of Bartenmyk Enterprises, was a dealer of San Miguel Corporation (SMC) beer products. SMC required Puzon to issue postdated checks (PDCs) equivalent to the value of products purchased on credit before release, which were returned upon settlement of the transactions. On December 31, 2000, Puzon purchased products worth ₱11,820,327.00 and issued BPI Check Nos. 27904 and 27903 to cover this transaction. On January 23, 2001, Puzon allegedly took BPI Check No. 27903 from the SMC Sales Office. SMC sent a demand letter for the return of the checks, which Puzon ignored, leading SMC to file a complaint for theft. Procedural History: The investigating prosecutor recommended dismissal for lack of evidence, finding a creditor-debtor relationship and issues concerning account reconciliation and non-payment of beer empties, not theft. The Department of Justice (DOJ) affirmed this dismissal. The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed SMC's petition for certiorari, finding no grave abuse of discretion, and affirmed the DOJ resolutions. The CA held that the PDCs were issued merely as security and not for encashment, thus SMC did not acquire ownership and Puzon could not be charged with theft for taking property that belonged to him. The Petition: SMC filed a petition for review assailing the CA's dismissal of its petition and denial of reconsideration, raising issues of whether Puzon stole the check, whether the checks were for payment or security, whether the practice was akin to a pledge, and whether probable cause for theft was established.
Issue(s)
Whether Bartolome Puzon, Jr. committed theft by taking BPI Check No. 27903. Whether the postdated checks issued by Puzon were for payment or merely as security. Whether SMC's practice of returning PDCs is akin to a contract of pledge. Whether SMC established probable cause to justify the indictment of Puzon for theft.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The December 21, 2004 Decision and March 28, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether Puzon committed theft: The Court held that the determination of whether Puzon stole the subject check requires the facts to be duly established in the proper forum and procedure, which cannot be resolved based on mere allegations and affidavits in a petition for review on certiorari. Furthermore, a crucial element of theft is that the property taken must belong to another. In this case, the evidence failed to establish that the check belonged to SMC, as it was issued merely as security and not as payment. Therefore, the second element of theft was not met. On the issue of whether the checks were for payment or security: The Court found that the evidence did not establish that the check was given in payment. No provisional or official receipt was issued for the amount of the check, only a receipt for the "POSTDATED CHECK SLIP." The demand letter used terms like "covered" and "cover" instead of "payment." The witness's statements were contradictory, and the counter-affidavit of Puzon indicated that the checks were meant to cover receivables, with payment to be made by other means, such as the return of beer empties. This indicated that the check was accepted not as payment but as security. On the issue of whether SMC's practice is akin to a pledge: The Court found this issue unnecessary to resolve given that the main matter concerned grave abuse of discretion and the existence of probable cause for theft, which could be resolved through a more clear-cut route. Venturing into constitutional matters was deemed unnecessary. On the issue of whether SMC established probable cause for theft: The Court reiterated that the determination of probable cause lies within the discretion of prosecuting officers and the Secretary of Justice, and courts generally refrain from interfering unless there is grave abuse of discretion. In this case, the CA did not err in dismissing the petition for certiorari absent grave abuse of discretion by the DOJ. The evidence presented by SMC failed to establish that the check belonged to another, a necessary element for theft, because the check was accepted merely as security and not as payment. Thus, the prosecutor and the DOJ were correct in finding no probable cause for theft.
Main Doctrine
The issuance of postdated checks as security for a credit transaction does not transfer ownership of the checks to the payee, and the payee's taking possession of such checks, which still belong to the issuer, does not constitute theft as the element of 'belonging to another' is not met.