5. liability for crime, people vs. concepcion

7/21/2019 5. Liability for Crime, People vs. Concepcion

1/6

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-19190 November 29, 1922

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,plaintiff-appellee,vs.ENANCIO CONCEPCION,defendant-appellant.

Recaredo Ma. Calvo for appellant.Attorney-General Villa-Real for appellee.

MALCOLM, J.:

By telegras and a letter of confiration to the anager of the Aparri branch of thePhilippine National Ban!, "enancio Concepcion, President of the Philippine NationalBan!, bet#een April $%, $&$&, and May ', $&$&, authori(ed an e)tension of credit infavor of *Puno y Concepcion, +. en C.* in the aount of P%%,%%%. his specialauthori(ation #as essential in vie# of the eorandu order of President Concepciondated May $', $&$, liiting the discretional po#er of the local anager at Aparri,Cagayan, to grant loans and discount negotiable docuents to P/,%%%, #hich, in certain

cases, could be increased to P$%,%%%. Pursuant to this authori(ation, credit aggregatingP%%,%%%, #as granted the fir of *Puno y Concepcion, +. en C.,* the only securityre0uired consisting of si) deand notes. he notes, together #ith the interest, #ereta!en up and paid by 1uly $', $&$&.

*Puno y Concepcion, +. en C.* #as a copartnership capitali(ed at P$%%,%%%. AnacletoConcepcion contributed P/,%%%2 Clara "da. de Concepcion, P/,%%%2 Miguel +.Concepcion, P3%,%%%2 Cleente Puno, P3%,%%%2 and Rosario +an Agustin, *casada con4ral. "enancio Concepcion,* P/%,%%%. Meber Miguel +. Concepcion #as theadinistrator of the copany.

5n the facts recounted, "enancio Concepcion, as President of the Philippine NationalBan! and as eber of the board of directors of this ban!, #as charged in the Court of6irst 7nstance of Cagayan #ith a violation of section / of Act No. 3'8'. 9e #as foundguilty by the 9onorable Enri0ue ". 6ilaor, 1udge of 6irst 7nstance, and #as sentencedto iprisonent for one year and si) onths, to pay a fine of P,%%%, #ith subsidiaryiprisonent in case of insolvency, and the costs.


2/6

+ection / of Act No. 3'8', effective on 6ebruary 3%, $&$, :ust entioned, to #hichreference ust hereafter repeatedly be ade, reads as follo#s; *he National Ban!shall not, directly or indirectly, grant loans to any of the ebers of the board ofdirectors of the ban! nor to agents of the branch ban!s.* +ection 8& of the sae Actprovides; *Any person #ho shall violate any of the provisions of this Act shall be

punished by a fine not to e)ceed ten thousand pesos, or by iprisonent not to e)ceedfive years, or by both such fine and iprisonent.* hese t#o sections #ere in effect in$&$& #hen the alleged unla#ful acts too! place, but #ere repealed by Act No. 3&,approved on 1anuary %, $&3$.

Counsel for the defense assign ten errors as having been coitted by the trial court.hese errors they have argued adroitly and e)haustively in their printed brief, and againin oral arguent. Attorney-4eneral "illa-Real, in an e)ceptionally accurate andcoprehensive brief, ans#ers the proposition of appellant one by one.

he 0uestion presented are reduced to their siplest eleents in the opinion #hich

follo#s;

7.


3/6

restriction upon discount transactions. 7t becoes aterial, therefore, to discover thedistinction bet#een a *loan* and a *discount,* and to ascertain if the instant transactioncoes under the first or the latter denoination.

@iscounts are favored by ban!ers because of their li0uid nature, gro#ing, as they do,

out of an actual, live, transaction. But in its last analysis, to discount a paper is only aode of loaning oney, #ith, ho#ever, these distinctions; >$? 7n a discount, interest isdeducted in advance, #hile in a loan, interest is ta!en at the e)piration of a credit2 >3? adiscount is al#ays on double-nae paper2 a loan is generally on single-nae paper.

Conceding, #ithout deciding, that, as ruled by the 7nsular Auditor, the la# covers loansand not discounts, yet the conclusion is inevitable that the deand notes signed by thefir *Puno y Concepcion, +. en C.* #ere not discount paper but #ere ere evidencesof indebtedness, because >$? interest #as not deducted fro the face of the notes, but#as paid #hen the notes fell due2 and >3? they #ere single-nae and not double-naepaper.

he facts of the instant case having relation to this phase of the arguent are notessentially different fro the facts in the Binalbagan Estate case. 1ust as there it #asdeclared that the operations constituted a loan and not a discount, so should #e herelay do#n the sae ruling.

777. Articles $$/, $&, $8%$, $8%', $8%, and $8$3 can be speciallynoted.? A loan, therefore, to a partnership of #hich the #ife of a director of a ban! is aeber, is an indirect loan to such director.

hat it #as the intention of the Degislature to prohibit e)actly such an occurrence issho#n by the ac!no#ledged fact that in this instance the defendant #as tepted to


4/6

ingle his personal and faily affairs #ith his official duties, and to perit the loanP%%,%%% to a partnership of no established reputation and #ithout as!ing for collateralsecurity.

7n the case of Dester and $'%, Md., //2 A. Rep., 3$$?,

the +upree Court of Maryland said;


5/6

".


6/6

5. liability for crime, people vs. concepcion

Documents