View full case

SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. BARTOLOME PUZON

FACTS:

Respondent Bartolome V. Puzon, Jr. was a dealer of beer products of petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) for Parañaque City. Puzon purchased SMC products on credit and issued postdated checks to ensure payment. On December 31, 2000, Puzon purchased products on credit for P11,820,327 and issued two postdated checks to cover the transaction. On January 23, 2001, Puzon visited the SMC Sales Office to reconcile his account and allegedly took one of the postdated checks, which he claimed belonged to him. SMC demanded the return of the checks but Puzon ignored the demand. SMC filed a complaint against him for theft. The investigating prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the case for lack of evidence, and this resolution was affirmed by the Department of Justice (DOJ). SMC filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the dismissal of the case. SMC filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Puzon stole BPI Check No. 27903 dated March 30, 2001 in the amount of Php11,510,827.00.

  2. Whether the postdated checks issued by Puzon, particularly BPI Check No. 27903, were issued in payment of his beer purchases or were used merely as security to ensure payment of Puzon's obligation.

  3. Whether the practice of SMC in returning the postdated checks issued in payment of beer products purchased on credit could be likened to a contract of pledge.

  4. Whether SMC had established probable cause to justify the indictment of Puzon for the crime of theft.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and affirmed the resolutions of the Department of Justice in finding that there was no grave abuse of discretion committed. The CA agreed with the investigating prosecutor and held that Puzon cannot be charged with theft for taking personal property that belongs to himself. The CA also found that the postdated checks were issued by Puzon as security for payment and not intended to be encashed, and that SMC was duty bound to return the checks. The CA further concluded that SMC did not acquire ownership of the checks. Thus, the petition was dismissed.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A person cannot be charged with theft for taking personal property that belongs to himself.

  • Postdated checks may be issued as security for payment and not intended to be encashed.

  • Ownership of postdated checks may remain with the person who issued them if the checks were issued as security.

  • If there is no grave abuse of discretion committed, the Court will not interfere with the findings of the investigating prosecutor and the Department of Justice.