Scribd
Upload
79 views1 page

Ramos V CA

Fermina Ramos was convicted of estafa for allowing bank clients to withdraw funds from uncleared check deposits in violation of bank policy when she was branch manager. The court held that Ramos's actions constituted estafa through unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence under the Revised Penal Code because she conspired with clients to defraud the bank by allowing withdrawals from worthless check deposits, intentionally violating instructions to not allow withdrawals from uncleared checks. Ramos's approval of withdrawals from uncleared checks on multiple occasions despite knowing previous checks from the clients had bounced showed she acted in bad faith.

Uploaded by

mma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
79 views1 page

Ramos V CA

Fermina Ramos was convicted of estafa for allowing bank clients to withdraw funds from uncleared check deposits in violation of bank policy when she was branch manager. The court held that Ramos's actions constituted estafa through unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence under the Revised Penal Code because she conspired with clients to defraud the bank by allowing withdrawals from worthless check deposits, intentionally violating instructions to not allow withdrawals from uncleared checks. Ramos's approval of withdrawals from uncleared checks on multiple occasions despite knowing previous checks from the clients had bounced showed she acted in bad faith.

Uploaded by

mma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Ramos v.

CA
J. Medialdea

FACTS:

- Fermina Ramos was appointed as the branch manager of Family Savings Bank. The branch
manager before her was authorized by the bank’s assistant VP to allow the drawing against
uncleared check deposits (DAUD) to certain clients of the bank. Apparently, this practice was in
violation of the bank’s operational manual so during her term, she was ordered to stop DAUD.
- However, it later on appeared that Ramos, in violation of the bank’s policy and without
authority, not only continued to grant DAUD accommodations to old depositors under her
predecessors, but also extended the same privilege to new clients.
- She was then convicted of Estafa for allowing her co-accused to withdraw right there and then
from their uncollected and uncleared deposit which were subsequently dishonored by the
drawee banks, which were covered by 3 different informations filed against her of the 23
criminal charges filed.

ISSUE:

WON such acts are considered estafa.

HELD:

Yes. The crime committed by the accused was estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence under
Article 315 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code, in that Reyes conspired and cooperated with
her co-accused to defraud the bank by allowing them to withdraw funds of the bank against their
worthless check deposits. Her cooperation was intentional, deliberate and malicious, not unwitting or
merely negligent.

Art. 315 (b) provides for the crime of estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, to wit: (b) by
misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or other personal property
received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or
partially guaranteed by a bond, or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property.

In this case, Reyes allowed withdrawal on uncleared checks deposited into the accounts of her co-
accused. These, by themselves, are irregular and suspicious acts. Firstly, they were contrary to specific
bank's policies and procedures. Petitioner also admitted that she was repeatedly ordered by her
superiors to stop giving DAUD accommodations. Notwithstanding the specific instructions, petitioner
repeatedly granted accommodations in at least fourteen (14) instances and despite her knowledge that
prior checks deposited by her co-accused turned out to be unfunded. See these clearly indicate that she
acted maliciously or in bad faith by assuming to dispose the money of the bank as if it were her own,
thereby committing conversion and a clear breach of trust.

You might also like