3Republir of tbe ~bilippi11e5

~upreme QCourt
;fflrta nila

THIRD DIVISION

JOSE APOLINARIO, JR. y G.R. No. 242977

LLAUDER
Petitioner, Present:

LEONEN, J , Chairperson,
CARANDANG*,
-versus- ZALAMEDA,
ROSARIO, and
DIMAAMPAO **, JJ.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Promulgated:

'
Respondent.
"°''
October 13, 2021
s.l;\\ c...~ ().,\"t
x --------------------- ------------------------------- --------------------------x

DECISION

LEONEN, J. :

Banking institutions are corporations imbued with public interest.

They are required to exercise the highest degree of diligence. By their
nature, banks operate within certain restrictions and limitations, 1 one of
which is the issuance of loans to its directors, officers, stockholders, and
related interests (DOSRI). The requirements under the General Banking
Law are straightforward. If all the elements provided by the law are present,
erring directors and officers can be held criminally liable for violating the
DOSRI law.
I
* On official leave.
** Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2839 dated September 16, 202 1.
Philippine Savings Bank v. Sakaw. G.R. No. 229450. June 17. 2020. <
hnps://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshe!0showdocs/ l /66171 > (Per J. Leonen. Third Division].
c iting Bank of1he Philippine Islands v. Casa Montessori lnternarionale, 474 Phil. 298. 3 18 (2004) [Per
J. Panganiban. First Division).
Decision 2 GR. No. 242977

This Court resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari 2 under Rule 45

of the Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals Decision3 and
Resolution4, which, in tum, affirmed the Regional Trial Court's Joint
Resolution5 convicting Jose Apolinario, Jr. y Llauder (Apolinario) for
violation of Section 366 of Republic Act No. 8791, or the General Banking
Law of 2000, in relation to Section 367 of Republic Act No. 7653 or the New
Central Bank Act. The assailed Joint Resolution denied Apolinario's Motion
for Reconsideration.8

Rollo. pp. 10-77.

Id. at pp. 78- 99. The July LO, 2018 Decision in CA-G.R. CR No. 35584 was penned by Associate
Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla
(now a retired member of this Court) and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan of the Special Sixteenth
Division of the Court of Appeals. Manila.
Id. at I00-10 I. The October 25, 2018 Resolution in CA-GR. CR No. 35584 was penned by Associate
Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and concurred in by Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla
(now a retired member of this Court) and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan of the Former Special
Sixteenth Division of the Court of Appeals. Manila.
Id. at 229-240. The October 24.2012 Joint Resolution in Criminal Cases Nos. 03-3631-32 was penned
by Presiding Judge Cesar 0. Untalan of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Branch 149.
General Banking Law (2000). sec. 36 provides:
SECTION. 36. Restriction on Bank Exposure to Directors. Officers, Stockholders, and Their Related
lmerests.- No director or officer of any bank shall. directly or indirectly. for himself or as
representative or agent of others. borrow from such bank nor shall he become a guarantor. indorser or
surety for loans from such bank to others, or in any manner be an obligor or incur any contractual
liability to the bank except with the written approval of the majority of all the directors of the bank.
excluding the director concerned: Provided. That such written approval shall not be required for loans.
other credit accommodations and advances granted to officers under a fringe benefit plan approved by
the Bangko Sentral. The required approval shall be entered upon the records of the bank and a copy of
such entry shall be transmitted forthwith to the appropriate supervising and examining department of
the Bangko Sentral. Dealings of a bank with any of its directors, officers or stockholders and their
related interests shall be upon terms not less favorable to the bank than those offered to others.
After due notice to the board of directors of the bank, the office of any bank director or officer who
violates the provisions of this Section may be declared vacant and the director or officer shall be
subject to the penal provisions of the New Central Bank Act. The Monetary Board may regulate the
amount of loans. credit accommodations and guarantees that may be extended, directly or indirectly. by
a bank to its directors, officers. stockholders and their related interests. as well as investments of such
bank in enterprises owned or controlled by said directors, officers, stockholders and their related
interests. However, the outstanding loans, credit accommodations and guarantees which a bank may
extend to each of its stockholders, directors, or officers and their related interests. shall be limited to an
amount equivalent to their respective unencumbered deposits and book value of their paid-in capital
contribution in the bank: Provided, however, That loans, credit accommodations and guarantees
secured by assets considered as non-risk by the Monetary Board shall be excluded from such limit:
Provided, further, That loans. credit accommodations and advances to officers in the form of fringe
benefits granted in accordance with rules as may be prescribed by the Monetary Board shall not be
subject to the individual limit. The Monetary Board shall define the term "related interests." The limit
on loans, credit accommodations and guarantees prescribed herein shall not apply to loans. credit
accommodations and guarantees extended by a cooperative bank to its cooperative shareholders.
New Central Bank Act ( 1993). sec. 36 provides:
SECTION . 36. Proceedings Upon Violation ofthis Act and Other Banking Laws, Rules. Regulations.
Orders, or !ns1ructions. - Whenever a bank or quasi-bank. or whenever any person or entity willfully
violates this Act or other pertinent banking laws being enforced or implemented by the Bangko Sentral
or any order. instruction. rule or regulation issued by the Monetary Board, the person or persons
responsible for such violation shall unless otherwise provided in this Act be punished by a fine of not
less than Fifty thousand pesos ( P50,000) nor more than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200.000) or by
imprisonmem of not less than two (1) y,::ars nor more than ten ( I 0) years. or both. at the discretion of
the cou11.
Whenever a bank or quasi-bank persists in can-ying on its business in an unlawful or unsafe manner.
the Board may, without prejudice to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraph of this section
and the administrative sanctions provided in Section 37 of this Act. take action under Section 30 of this
Act.
Rollo, pp. 244- 306.
Decision 3 GR. No. 242977

In two separate lnfonnations, Apolinario, Winefredo T. Capilitan

(Capilitan), Motohiko Hagisaka (Hagisaka), and Elmer T. Magpantay
(Magpantay), directors and officers of the Unitrust Development Bank
(Unitrust), were charged with violation of Section 36 of Republic Act No.
8791, in relation to Section 36 of Republic Act No. 7653 .9 The accusatory
portions of the Informations reads:

Criminal Case No. 03-363 I

"That on or aboul December 26, 2001, in Makati City, Philippines

and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. the above-named
accused, who were then officers of Unitrust Development Bank (UDB), as
Director/Corporate Secretary, Director/Acting Presidem,
Director/ Execulive Vice -President and Board Member, respectively,
conspiring together, confederating wilh. and mutually helping one another,
did then and there, wil(ful/y. unlawfully and feloniously.
obtained/granted/released a personal loan to their co-accused Winefi'edo
T Capilitan. a Director/Corporale Secretary of UDE in the amount c~f one
million pesos (J> 1 million) Philippine Currency, thru UDB Manager\·
check No. 8278, the net proceeds of which is P997,350.00, without the
written approval ofthe majority ofall the directors of UDB, excluding the
director concerned and the required approval was not entered upon the
records <~f the UDE and a copy ~f such entry was not reported/transmitted
to the appropriale supervising and examining department of the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas

CONTRARY TO LAW ,. io

Criminal Case No. 03-3632

"That on or about December 27, 2001 . in Makati City. Philippines

and within the jurisdiction of this Honorahle Court. the above-named
accused. who were then officers Q/ Unitrust Development Bank (UDB). as
Director/Co,porate Secrelary. Director/Acting President.
Director/ Executive Vice-Presidenl and Board Membe,; respectively
conspiring together. con.federating with, and mutually helping one another,
did then and there, willfully. unlawfully and feloniously. granted/released
a loan amounling to thirteen million pesos (F 13 million) Philippine
Currency. to G Cosmos Philippines, Inc. as evidenced by Promiss01y Note
No. CL-3731 dated December 27. 2001, signed by accused Winefi'edo T
Capilitan as President of G Cosmos Philippines, Inc. and in his personal
capacity. wilhout the written approval Q/ the majority of all the directors
of UDE, excluding the director concerned and the required approval was
not entered upon the records of"the UDB and a copy ofsuch entry was not
reported/transmilled to the appropriate supervising and examininx
department ofthe Bangkv Sentral ng Pi!ipinas

C0/1/TRARY TO LAW " 11

/
Id . at 79.
io Id.
11
Id at. 79-80.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 242977

Upon arraignment, Apolinario and Magpantay pleaded not guilty to

the charges. Meanwhile, Hagisaka and Capilitan remained at large. 12

After pre-trial and pending trial, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and
Magpantay moved to discharge the latter as an accused to become a state
witness. The Regional Trial Court granted the Joint Motion, and trial on the
merits then ensued. 13

The prosecution presented five witnesses: ( 1) Marcelo J. Vasquez

(Vasquez), Vice President for Loans and Credit, Unitrust; (2) Magpantay,
Vice President for Branch Operations, Unitrust; (3) Daniel Quilatan
(Quilatan), Vice President for Human Resources Division, Un itrust; (4)
Godofredo Dela Paz (Dela Paz), Bank Officer Ill, Bangko Sentral ng
Pilipinas; and (5) Ramon D. Abellon, Jr. (Abellon), Administrative Services
Officer IV, Record Custodian, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. 14

Based on their collective testimonies, Apolinario, Magpantay,

Quilatan, and Vasquez were hired by Unitrust. They were each given one
share of stock so they could participate in Unitrust's stockholders' meeting
and be elected as members of Unitrust's Board of Directors. 15

On December 18, 2001, 16 Unitrust held a Special Stockholder's

Meeting, 17 wherein Vasquez, Apolinario, Capilitan, Magpantay, Evelyn
Mansit (Mansit), Loreta Oba (Oba) and Quilatan, were elected as members
of Unitrust's Board. 18

On the same day, an Organizational Meeting of the Board of Directors

was held during which the following events transpired: 19

I. The Unitrust Board of Directors elected Apolinario as

Acting Chairman and President;20
2. Capilitan was elected as Corporate Secretary/ 1
3. The by-laws provision on the nationality requirement for the
Board of Directors was amended in that four Japanese and
three Filipinos can sit as directors, instead of the previous
composition of seven Filipinos;22

12
Id. at 80.
I
1
' Id.
1
~ Id. at 80- 81 .
15 ld.at81.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 324.
I~ Id.
19 Id. at 43.
20 Id. at 81.
21 Id.
22 Id.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 242977

4. Magpantay, Quilatan, and Vasquez resigned as members of

the Uni trust Board of Directors; 23
5. Fujinori Tada (Tada),24 Hagisaka, and Kiyoshi Haneda
(Haneda) were subsequently elected as directors;25
6. Hagisaka was nominated and elected as the Executive Vice
President. 26

Subsequently, Capilitan applied for a personal loan of

p 1,000,000.00. 27

Vasquez, who was then the Vice President of Loans and Credit,
informed Hagisaka that without a board resolution approving the loan,
Capilitan's loan application violated the rule on DOSRI loans. Hagisaka
responded that Vasquez should approve Capilitan 's loan, or else he would
withhold their salaries and fire them. Vasquez hesitantly processed the
Pl ,000,000.00 loan of Capilitan but insisted that he be furnished with a
board resolution approving it. 28 Atty. Evelyn Gutie1Tez (Gutierrez), counsel
of Unitrust, then showed Vasquez the Minutes of the Board Meeting dated
December 19, 2001 (December 19, 2001 Minutes) where the Board of
Directors allegedly approved Capilitan's Pl ,000,000.00 loan. 29 The
December 19, 2001 Minutes was signed by Quilatan, Vasquez, Magpantay,
Apolinario, and Hagisaka. 30

The proceds of the P 1,000,000.00 loan were released on December

26, 2001, through the signatures of Vasquez, Hagisaka, and Capilitan. It was
covered by Promissory Note No. CSM 3730. 31

According to the prosecution witnesses, the December 19, 2021

Minutes was inegularly issued due to the following grounds : ( 1) there was
no meeting held on December 19, 200 l; (2) Magpantay, Qui Iatan and
Vasquez could not have validly signed the minutes because they have
already resigned as directors as of December 18, 2001; (3) Magpantay,
Quilatan, and Vasquez signed the Minutes for fear of losing their jobs; 32 and
(4) while the approval of Capilitan's Pl ,000,000.00 loan was purportedly
made on December 19, 2001, the loan application fonn was only submitted
on December 21, 2001. 33

c3
24
Id.
Id. at 41.
I
2~ Id. at 81 .
16 Id. at 325.
17 Id. at 81 .
18
Id. at 81 - 82.
29
Id. at 82.
:,o Id.
31
Id.at 231.
12
Id at 82.
3
-' "Id. at 326.
Decision 6 GR. No. 242977

Later, Hagisaka informed Vasquez of another loan application for

P27,000,000.00 and filed by G. Cosmos Philippines, lnc. (G. Cosmos),
represented by its President, Capilitan. The Unitrust's Board allegedly
approved the loan application on December 26, 200 I as evidenced by a
Board Resolution (December 26, 200 l Resolution) signed by Magpantay,
Apolinario, Capilitan, and Oba. 34

On December 27, 2001, Capilitan received Manager's Check No.

8283 for Pl 3,000,000.00, payable to G. Cosmos. 35 Apolinario, Capilitan and
Hagisaka, released the Pl3,000,000.00 loan as evidenced by Promissory
Note CL-3731 dated December 27, 2001. 36 The Pl3,000,000.00 represented
the proceeds of the P27,000,000.00 loan. 37

On the same day and after the two loans were released,38 Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas, through a letter from the Department of Thrift Banks
and Non-Bank Financial Institutions, notified Apolinario, Hagisaka, and
Capilitan that the two loans violated the DOSRI law. 39

Dela Paz reviewed the documents relating to the two loans and
discovered the following: ( 1) the loans did not contain the necessary
supporting documents such as loan application/information sheet, disclosure
statement, and board resolution approving the loans; and (2) both loans were
effectively unsecured since they were only secured by Capilitan 's Unitrust
shares of stock. 40

Abellon inspected the records of the two loans and found that the
loans were not repo1ied to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. However, he
admitted that not all bank records were forwarded to him for permanent
file. 41

After Unitrust experienced a bank run, the Bangko Sentral ng

Pilipinas suspended Unitrust's operations on January 4, 2002. Unitrust was
placed under receivership and Philippine Deposit Insurance Company was
directed by Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to take over.42

Following Unitrust's closure, Magpantay was approached by

Apolinario and Gutierrez,43 asking him to deliver a check to Philippine
Deposit [nsurance Company as payment for G. Cosmos' Pl3,000,000.00

1
•
35
30
Id. at 82.
Id. at 83.
I
Id. at 326 .
.n Id. at 239.
38
Id. at 23 I.
39
Id at. 326- 327.
40
Id. at 83.
41
Id. at 235 .
42
Id. at 83.
43
ld.at233.
Decision 7 G.R. o. 242977

loan.44 Thereafter, Apolinario asked Magpantay to sign the Minutes

approving the Pl3,000,000.00 loan. Magpantay acceded thinking that the
P 13,000,000.00 loan would be regularized. He further admitted that the
documentation for the Pl 3,000,000.00 loan was antedated and was only
prepared after the loan had been paid. 45

Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas then filed a case against the Unitrust

directors and officers before the Department of Justice. The Department of
Justice found probable cause against Capilitan, Hagisaka, Apolinario,
Magpantay, Quilatan, and Vasquez for violation of DOSRI laws. Upon
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas' motion for reconsideration, the Department of
Justice exonerated Vasquez and Quilatan. 46

For the defense, the testimonies of Apolinario and Magpantay were

presented. Apolinario testified that he was hired as Vice President for Legal
Affairs and was not a stockholder of Unitrust. He contended that the
Stockholder's Meeting dated December 18, 2001 was simulated, and that he
could not have been validly elected as Chairman of the Board as he was not
a shareholder of Unitrust. He pointed to Vasquez and Atty. Gutien-ez as the
persons responsible for endorsing and recommending the loans' approval to 0
the Unitrust Board.47 ~

He admitted recei ving the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas letter but only
after the loans' proceeds had been released. He recalled that in his capacity
as Unitrust's Acting President, he wrote a letter to the PDIC President
offering his assistance in the investigation of Unitrust's bank run, which,
according to him, showed good faith on his part.48

Meanwhile, Magpantay testified on the contents of his affidavits.49

ln a Joint Resolution,50 the Regional Trial Court found Apolinario

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. The dispositive
portion reads: 51

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this court is fully convinced

to find the accused, JOSE LLAUDER APOLlNARJO, JR. , GUILTY,
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, AS CHARGED IN THE TWO
lNFORMATION. Thus, this court hereby imposes the fo llowing penalties
against Jose Llauder Apolinario, Jr:

44
Id. at 327.
45
Id. at 84 and 233.
40
Id. at 83.
47
Id. at 84.
4S Id.
49
Id. at 236.
;o Id. at 229-240.
51
ld. ar 240.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 242977

Criminal Case No. Penalty of Fine Only

03-3631 Pl 00,000.00
03-3632 +!200,000.00

In case of insolvency by accused Jose Llauder Apolinario, Jr.. he

shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability imposed by Article 39 of
the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 38 I 5, as amended).

Cost de oficio.

SO ORDERED.52

In its ruling, the Regional Trial Court found that Apolinario violated
Section 31 53 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 68 or the Corporation Code of the
Philippines when he allowed the loans' release without the requisite board
approval and documentation. 54 It noted that Apolinario signed the Minutes
of the Board Meetings despite his knowledge that no board meetings were
held approving the two loans. 55 Finally, it ruled that the prosecution
established that Apolinario conspired with Capilitan in the commission of
the offense. 56

Apolinario moved for reconsideration and argued that the Regional

Trial Court failed to appreciate the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
as exculpating evidence to prove his innocence. He also questioned the
existence of conspiracy and how the prosecution failed to present evidence
that he was appointed as a Unitrust director. 57

In its January 22, 2013 Order, 58 the Regional Trial Court denied
Apolinario's motion for reconsideration. 59 It held that after reassessing the
evidence on record and Apolinario's allegations, it found no reason to
reverse its ruling. 60

52
53
Id. at 240.
t
Corporation Code of the Philippines ( I980). sec. 31 provides:
SECTION 31. Liability of direclors. lruslees or officers. - Directors or trustees who wilfully and
knowingly vote for or assent to patently unlawful acts of the corporation or who are guilty of gross
neg Iigence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the corporation or acquire any personal or pecuniary
interest in conflict with their duty as such directors or trustees shall be liable _jointly and severally for
all damages resulting therefrom suffered by the corporation. its stockholders or members and other
persons.
When a director. trustee or officer attempts to acquire or acquires. in violation of his duty, any nterest
adverse to the corporation in respect of any matter which has been reposed in him in confidence, as to
which equity imposes a disability upon him to deal in his own behalf, he shall be liable as a trustee for
the corporation and must account for the profits which otherwise would have accrued to the
corporation ..
s.; Rollo, p. 236.
55
td. at 239.
51
' Id. at 238.
57
Id. at 242.
58 Id. at 242-243. The January 22, 2013 Order in Criminal Cases Nos. 03-3631-32 was penned by
Presiding Judge Cesar 0. Untalan of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 149.
59
Id. at 242- 243.
I,() Id. at 242.
Decision 9 GR. No. 242977

Aggrieved, Apolinario appealed to the Court of Appeals. 6 1

Apolinario insisted that the prosecution's witnesses offered

exculpating testimonies that absolved him from the charge. 62 He also
averred that there was no documentary evidence proving that he was a
Unitrust officer who obtained loans for himself or as Capilitan 's
representative.63 He likewise argued that the prosecution failed to prove that
he conspired with the other accused to commit the offense charged. 64

Meanwhile, the prosecution countered that there was proof beyond

reasonable doubt to convict Apolinario for violation of Section 36 of
Republic Act No. 8791. It insisted that all the elements were present and
that Apolinario conspired with Capilitan in comm itting the crime. It
likewise contended that the appeal should be dismissed outright for failure to
comply with the Rules of Court. 65

In its assailed Decision,66 the Cout1 of Appeals sustained Apolinario's

conviction, thus:

Considering the foregoing, the RTC correctly convicted the

appellant for violation of Section 36 of R.A. No. 879 l, in relation to
Section 36 of R.A. No. 7653.

The RTC did not err in imposing the penalty of fine in the amount
of Php 100,000.00 (in Civil Case No. 03-3631), and Php 200,000.00 (in
Civil Case No. 03-3632), consonant with the penalties provided in Section
36, R.A. No. 7653.

We DISMISS the appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 67

The Coui1 of Appeals ruled that al I the elements of the crime charged
were established. ( 1) Apolinario was a director and officer of Unitrust; (2)
Apolinario conspired with Capilitan in obtaining the two loans from
Unitrust; 68 (3) the two loans were approved and released without the valid
written approval by the majority of Unitrust's Board;69 and (4) the required
approval of the Unitrust's Board was not entered into the records of
Unitrust, and a copy of the approval was not transmitted to the Bangko /
Sentral ng Pilipinas' supervising and examining department. 70

61
Id. at 335.
61
Id. at 86.
c,, Id. al 87.
04
Id. ac 89.
05
Id. at 91-92.
00
Id. at 78- 99.
67
Id. at 98.
08
Id. a t 94- 96.
0
'' Id.
0
' Id. at 97 98.
Decision 10 GR. No. 242977

Apolinario sought for reconsideration, but it was denied in the assailed

Court of Appeals' Resolution.

Dissatisfied with the decision, Apolinario filed a Petition for Review

before this Coutt.

Petitioner assails the lower courts' factual findings and insists that
they erred in their appreciation of the evidence presented. He maintains that
the case falls under the exceptions laid down in Burgos v. Pascua/7 1 and asks
this Court to review the facts of the case. 72 Petitioner further argues that the
Court of Appeals erred in not appreciating the prosecution witnesses '
testimonies as exculpating evidence of his guilt. 73 He likewise claims that
the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the offense and contends that:
(l) he is not a director ofUnitrust; 74 (2) he is neither a bank borrower nor did
he incur any contractual liability from the bank for himself or others;75 (3) he
could not have approved the loans as he was neither a stockholder nor a
director but a mere employee of the bank; 76 and (4) assuming that the first
three elements are present, Unitrust could no longer report because of its
subsequent closure. 77

In its March 13, 2019 Resolution, this Court directed the respondent
People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, to file
its Comment. 78

In its Comment, respondent argues that the pet1t1on should be

dismissed outright because it raises questions of fact beyond the ambit of a
Rule 45 petition. 79 It claims that the Regional Trial Coun coJTectly ruled
that all the elements of the offense are present and have been established.80
It also maintains that the facts surrounding the case proved the existence of
conspiracy. 81

The main issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the
prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of petitioner Jose
Apolinario Jr. y Llauder for violation of Section 36 of Republic Act No.
8791, in relation to Section 36 of Republic Act No. 7653.

71 Burgos v. Pascual, 776 Phil 167 (20 16). [Per J. Leanen. Second Division]
I
n Rollo. pp. 17- 18.
7
~ Id. at 18- 26.
74
Id. at 26.
75
Id. at 57.
7" ld. at61 - 62.
77
Id. at 62.
'H Id. at 307- 308.
79 Id. at 336.
80
Id. at 337-338.
~
1
Id. at 338.
Decision II GR. No. 242977

Subsumed in this issue are the following:

First, whether or not this Court may review the factual findings of the
Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals; and

Second, whether or not the elements of the offense have been

sufficiently established and proven by the prosecution.

The petition is unmeritorious.

Settled is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. When a case is
brought to this Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45,
the jurisdiction of this Court shall be limited to reviewing and correcting
errors of law committed by the lower courts. This Court need not review the
factual issues nor reexamine and reevaluate the evidence presented by the
parties.82 In Philippine Savings Bank v. Sakata, 83 this Court explained:

The general rule is that only questions of law or ··those which ask
to resolve which law applies on a given set of facts" may be raised in a
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Meanwhile, questions of fact - or those which require a review of the
evidence to determine '·the truth or falsehood of alleged facts" or involve
the correctness of the lower courts' appreciation of the evidence - are not
proper in a Petition for Review on Certiorari. The function of the Court,
not being a trier of facts, is limited to rev iewing errors of law committed
by the lower courts. Thus. it accords finality to the factual findings of the
trial court, especially when such findings are affirmed by the appellate
court.

While the general rule admits of exceptions. the party raising

questions of fact must not only allege the exception but should also prove
and substantiate that its case clearly falls under the exception.84 (Citations
om itted)

This rule is not without exception. Petitioner cites Pascua/85 wherein

this Court enumerated the instances where a factual review of the lower
court's findings may be permitted: 86

At present. there are IO recognized exceptions that were first Iisted 111
Medina v. .Mayor Asistio. J,::

82 Manotok Reu/ty, Inc. v CLT Really Deve/npmeni Corp.. 512 Phil. 679. 706 (2005) [Per J. Sandoval-
Gurierrez. Third Division].
83 G.R. No. 229450, June 17, 2020, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66271 >
[Per J. Leonen. Third Division].
8~ Id.
85 776 Phil. 167 ('.W 16) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
86
Ro!lo. p. 18.
Decision 12 GR. No. 242977

( I) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on

speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is
manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave
abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension
of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court
of Appeals. in making its findings. went beyond the issues of the case and
the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee: (7)
The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial
court; ( 8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citatio n of
specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in
the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not
disputed by the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of
Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is
contradicted by the evidence on record. 87 (Citations omitted)

Among these exceptions, pet1t1oner cites the following: ( 1) there is

grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals; (2) its
conclusion is grounded on speculation, surmises, and conjectures; (3) its
judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (4) "the findings of facts
are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are
based"; and (5) the law allegedly violated has been inco1Tectly interpreted
and applied. 88

Petitioner fails to convince this Court that this case falls under any of
the exceptions.

Petitioner hinges his arguments on how the testimonies of the

prosecution witnesses allegedly exculpate him. 89 In his petition, he
reproduced the affidavits and testimonies of the prosecution witnesses but
did not explain how the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals erred in
appreciating them.90 He made sweeping statements but then failed to
substantiate with cogent reasons why the enumerated exceptions apply to the
case. In the absence of proof that the findings of the lower courts are
manifestly erroneous, his bare allegations deserve no merit.9 1

This Court stresses that the assessment of the witnesses' credibility is

a task best performed by the trial court. In People v. Sapigao, Jr., 92 we jJ
explained: /

It is well settled that the evaluation of the credibi lity of witnesses

and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because
of its unique opporlunity to observe the witnesses .firsthand and to note

87 Pascual v. Burgos. el al.. 776 Phil. 167. 182- 183 (2016) P)er J . Leonen. Second Division].
ss Rollo. pp. 18-19.
89 Id. at 18 --25.
90 Id.
91
Parcon-Song v. Parcon, GR. No. 199582. July 7. 2020, <
https:.1/elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66525 > [Per J. Leonen. En Banc].
92 614 Phil 589 (2009) [Per J. Quisumbing. Second Divisionj.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 242977

their demeanor, conduct, and atlitude under grilling examination. These

are important in determining the truthfulness of witnesses and in
unearthing the truth, especially in the face of conflicting testimonies. Por,
indeed. the emphasis. gesture, and inflection of the voice are potent aids in
ascertaining the witness' credibility, and the trial court has the opportunity
and can take advantage of these aids. These cannot be incorporated in the
record so that all that the appellate court can see are the cold words of the
witness contained in transcript of testimonies with the risk that some of
what the witness actually said may have been lost in the process of
transcribing. As correctly stated by an American court, "There is an
inherent impossibility of determining with any degree of accuracy what
credit is justly due to a witness from merely reading the words spoken by
him, even if there were no doubt as to the identity of the words. However
artful a corrupt witness may be, there is generally, under the pressure of a
skillful cross-examination, something in his manner or bearing on the
stand that betrays him, and thereby destroys the force of his testimony.
Many of the real tests of truth by which the artful witness is exposed in the
very nature of things cannot be transcribed upon the record, and hence
they can never be considered by the appellate court. '' 93 (Emphasis
supplied; citations omitted)

In any case, a review of the records of the case reveals that the
Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals were correct in their
appreciation of the evidence and that petitioner's guilt has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt.

II

Banking institutions are businesses deemed imbued with public

interest. ''It is an industry where the general public's trust and confidence in
the system is of paramount importance."94 ln its declaration of policy, the
General Banking Law recognizes the fiduciary nature of banks and imposes
upon them the highest standards of integrity and performance. Section 2 of
Republic Act No. 8791 states:

Section 2. Declaration of Policy.- The State recognizes the vital

role of ban.ks providing an enviromnent conducive to the sustained
development of the national economy and the fiduciary nature of banking
that requires high standards of integrity and performance. In furtherance
thereof, the State shall promote and maintain a stable and efficient banking
and financial system that is globally competitive. dynamic, and responsive
to the demands of a developing economy.

This Cou1i echoed this statem~~t of policy in a long line of cases. In

Westmont Bank v. Dela Rosa-Ramos: )
I
•JJ Id. at 599.
9~ land Bank of1he Phils. v. Kho. 789 Phil. 306. 314-315 (20 I6) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
"5 698 Phil. 23 (2012) [Per J. Mendoza. Third Division].
Decision 14 GR. No. 242977

[PJublic interest is intimately carved into the banking industry because the
primordial concern here is the trust and confidence of the public. This
fiduciary nature of every bank 's relationship with its clients/depositors
impels it to exercise the highest degree of care, definitely more than that of
the standard diligence required under the law. 96

Likewise in Philippine Savings Bank v. Sakata: 97

Banking institutions are imbued with public interest, and the trust
and confidence of the public to them are of paramount importance. As
such they are expected to exercise the highest degree of diligence, and
high standards of integrity and performance. 98

Like any other corporation, banks act through their directors, officers,
and employees. It follows, therefore, that the degree of di! igence required of
banks also applies to their directors and officers. In Westmont Bank this
Court explained:

Considering that banks can only act through their officers and
employees, the fiduciary obligation laid down for these institutions
necessarily extends to their employees. Thus, banks must ensure that their
employees observe the same high level of integrity and performance for it
is only through this that banks may meet and comply with their own
fiduciary duty. It has been repeatedly held that '·a bank's liability as an
obliger is not merely vicarious, but primary'' since they are expected to
observe an equally high degree of diligence. not only in the selection, but
also in the supervision of its employees. Thus, even if it is their
employees who are negligent, the ban.k's responsibility to its client
remains paramount making its liability to the same to be a direct one.99
(Citations omitted)

To further safeguard the interest of the public, several restrictions and

limitations on banks and its employees have been enacted, one of which 1s
the restriction on DOSRJ loans.

DOSRI loans refer to borrowings incurred by the bank's directors,

officers, stockholders, and their related interests. The restriction is described
under Section 36 of the General Banking Law, which states:

Section 36. Restriction on Bank Exposure to Directors. Officers.

Stockholders and Their Related Interests.- No director or officer of any
bank shalL directly or indirectly, for himself or as the representative or
agent of others, borrow from such bank nor shall he become a guarantor,
endorser or surety for loans from such bank to others, or in any manner be
I
96
ld.at30- 31.
97 GR. No. 229450, June 17. 2020, < https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/ l /6627 l >
[Per J. Leonen, Third Division] citing Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Casa Montessori
/111ernationale. 474 Phil. 298. 318 (2004) [Per J. Panganiban, First Division].
98 Id.
99 Westmont Bank v. Dela Rosa-Ramos. 698 Phil. 23, 31 (2012). [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
Decision 15 G.R. No. 242977

an obligor or incur any contractual liability to the bank except with the
written approval of the majority of all the directors of the bank, excluding
the director concerned: Provided , That such written approval shall not be
required for loans, other credit accommodations and advances granted to
officers under a fringe benefit plan approved by the Bangko Sentral. The
required approval shall be entered upon the records of the bank and a copy
of such entry shall be transmitted forthwith to the appropriate supervising
and examining department of the Bangko Sentral[.]

In relation, Section 36 of Republic Act No. 7653 or the New Central

Bank Act provides for the penalty for violation of the restriction on DOSRI
loans:

Section 36. Proceedings Upon Violation of This Act and Other

Banking Laws, Rules. Regulations. Orders or Instructions.- Whenever a
bank or quasi-bank, or whenever any person or entity willfully violates
this Act or other pertinent banking laws being enforced or implemented by
the Bangko Sentral or any order, instruction, rule or regulation issued by
the Monetary Board, the person or persons responsible for such violation
shall unless otherwise provided in this Act be punished by a fine of not
less than Fifty thousand pesos (PS0,000) nor more than Two hundred
thousand pesos (P200.000) or by imprisonment of not less than two (2)
years nor more than ten ( 10) years, or both, at the discretion of the court.

Whenever a bank or quasi-bank persists in carrying on its business

in an unlawful or unsafe manner, the Board may. without prejudice to the
penalties provided in the preceding paragraph of this section and the
administrative sanctions provided in Section 37 of this Act, take action
under Section 30 of this Act.

Soriano v. People 100 explains the rationale behind this restriction:

The essence of the crime is becoming an obligor of the bank

without securing the necessary written approval of the majority of the
bank 's directors. The DOSRI law was enacted as the Congress deemed it
essential to impose certain restrictions on the bo1Towings undertaken by
directors and officers in order to protect the public, especially the
depositors. Such restriction is necessary because of the advantage these
bank officers have because of their position. in acquiring loans or
borrowing funds from the bank funds. Indeed. banks were not created for
the benefit of their directors and officers; they cannot use the assets of the
bank for their own benefit, except as may be permitted by law. (Citations
omitted)

II (A)
/
To sustain a conv1ct10n for violation of the DOSRI restriction, the
prosecution must prove the existence of the following elements beyond
reasonable doubt:
100 GR. No. 240458. January 8, 2020. <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/ 1/65980 >
(Per J. J.C. Reyes. Jr.. First Divisionl
Decision 16 G.R. No. 242977

... (1 ) the offender is a director or officer of any banking institution: (2)

the offender, either directly or indirectly, for himself or as a representative
or agent of another, performs any of the following acts: (a) he borrows any
of the deposits or funds of such bank; or (b) he becomes a guarantor,
indorser, or surety for loans from such bank to others; or (c) he becomes in
any manner an obligor for money borrowed from bank or loaned by it: and
(3) the offender has performed any of such acts without the written
approval of the majority of the directors of the bank. excluding the
offender. as the director concerned. 10 1 (C itations omitted)

The first and third elements being intertwined, this Court shall discuss
them simultaneously.

Petitioner argues that the prosecution failed to establish with sufficient

proof that he was a Director and Acting President of Unitrust. He
enumerates the following circumstances which allegedly disprove his
directorship: ( l) the prosecution failed to present a stock certificate in his
name or Unitrust's stock and transfer book to show that he owns a Unitrust
stock; (2) no Notice of Election of Board of Directors was submitted to the
Securities and Exchange Commission nor was a Notice of Election reported
to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas; (3) no General Information Sheet to
prove his election was submitted to the Securities and Exchange
Commission; and (4) no evidence was presented to show that Securities and
Exchange Commission has approved Unitrust's amendments of its by-
laws.102

He likewise claims that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses

prove that he was a mere employee and not a director of Uni trust. 103

Petitioner's arguments are unmeritorious.

This Court stresses that the determination of whether the prosecution

established petitioner's directorship is a factual issue beyond this Court's
power of judicial review. The resolution of this question requires this Court
to review the pieces of evidence presented by both parties. In Pascual, we
emphasized that only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition.
The factual findings of the lower cou11 and Court of Appeals shall be
deemed binding and conclusive upon this Court when supported by
substantial evidence. 104

Here, the Regional Trial Court found pet1 t1oner to be a bona fide
/
Unitrust director after it considered the evidence presented by the parties,

101 Id.
w1 Rollo. pp. 35- 38.
i,n ld. at4 1- 56.
i o-1 Pascual,·. Burgos. 776 Phil. 167, 182 (2016) [Per J. Leonen. Second Division]
Decision 17 GR. No. 242977

particularly those of petitioner's, thus:

... Moreover, accused Apolinario also put up the issue that this court must
resolve the question of whether he is a bona fide director of Unitrust.
Accused Apolinario miserably failed to deny and rebut the positive
declaration of Mr. Quilatan that during the stockholders· meeting held on
December 18, 2001; Mr. Quilatan nominated accused Apolinario. as the
Acting Chairperson of Unitrust. And then. later, on the same Board
Meeting, accused Apolinario was elected as the Acting President.
Furthermore. Exhibits 11 and 15 clearly declared accused Apolinario. as
Director and Acting President of Unitrust, respectively. Therefore, this
[C]ourt hereby appreciates and holds against accused Apolinario his
owned Exhibits 11 and 15. Finally, accused Apolinario declared and
represented himself. as Acting President before Mr. Norberto C. Nazareno.
Jr., President and CEO of PDTC, as declared and announced to the whole
world, per his ow11ed Exhibit 13. Therefore, such issue has been resolved
by the very owned exhibits offered in evidence by accused Apolinario. In
addition to his admission that he was duly elected Director of the bank
during the stockholders ' meeting held on December 18, 2001: and, then. he
was duly elected as the Chairperson of Unitrust. ..Thus, Section 4, Rule
129 of the Revised Rules of Court is quite crystal clear on this point it
declares: .. An Admission, verbal or written, made by party in the course of
the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof.'' 105

Further, it must be underscored that while pet1t1oner insists that the

board meetings were simulated, he never denied signing the Minutes of the
Board Meetings approving the two loans.

Among the pieces of evidence presented by Apolinario was a copy of

the minutes of the board meeting approving the P27,000,000.00 loan which
was marked as Exhibit 11. After the Regional Trial Court compared Exhibit
11 with the same minutes of the board meeting presented by the prosecution
marked as Exhibit S, it noticed that Exhibit 11 lacked Oba's signature, which
proves that the P27,000,000.00 was released without the board's prior
approval. 106 It held:

Finally, by way of testimonial evidence, the prosecution was able

to prove and establish the following pertinent and relevant material facts:

l. Mr. Daniel Quilatan declared the Pl.0 million loan was released
without prior Board approval. ..

2. Mr. Elmer Magpantay also declared that the Pl.0 million loan
was released without Board approval including the Pl3.0 million loan ...

Moreover. Exhibit S clearly manifested and demonstrated that the

subject Minutes of the alleged Board meeting held on December 26, 2001

105
Rollo. p. 240.
1116
Id. at 238.
Decision 18 GR. No. 242977

is not complete in order to make it valid as an act of the Board of Directors

of Unitrust, because there are only three (3) signatures of the seven listed
members of the Board, who signed it. The signature of the director-
borrower Capilitan is excluded, as the subject law mandates and requires.
However, the signature of Mr. Elmer Magpantay could not be considered
because he had already resigned, as member of the Board prior to
December 26, 2001 to give way for the Japanese investors. Moreover, Mr.
Magpantay has declared, in open court, that he affixed his signature on
Exhibit S after the Pl 3.0 million load had been paid to PDIC, hence the
documentation of the Pl3.0 million loan was ante-dated... Furthermore,
comparing Exhibit S with Exhibit 11, it appears that Exhibit 11 does not
contain the signature of one, Lorena N. Oba, hence the exhibit (Exhibit l l)
of accused Apolinario distinctly and clearly established the fact of lack of
prior approval of the Pl3.0 million loan before its release. Finally, Exhibit
P. the check evidencing the release of the Pl3.0 million loan was made on
December 27, 200 I. The check appeared to be duly signed by accused
Apolinario ... It must be noted that at this particular time of the life of
Unitrust, the bank was experiencing a bank run, hence accused Apolinario,
as Acting President, was indeed quite acting in unison and in cooperation
with the implementation of the illegal and prohibitory act of borrowing by
accused-director Capilitan. Accused Apolinario acted more than a
conspirator, considering further his knowledge of the law. Accused
Apolinario has participated directly in approving the two loans and the
released of the same to accused Capilitan in clear violation of R.A. No.
8791, Section 36 thereof. 107 (Citations omitted.)

Final1y, this Comi notes that the December 19, 2001 Minutes
approving the P 1,000,000.00 loan contained the signatures of petitioner,
Magpantay, Quilatan, and Vasquez. On the other hand, the signatures
appearing on the December 26, 2001 Minutes approving the P27,000,000.00
loan were those of petitioner, Capilitan, Magpantay, and Oba. However, it
must be recalled that Magpantay, Quilatan, and Vasquez resigned as
directors on December 18, 200 I. 108 As of the date of their resignation, they
ceased to be part of the Unitrust's Board of Directors. Accordingly, the
signatures of these individuals cannot be considered for purposes of the
loans' approval. With the exclusion of their signatures, Unitrust's Board of
Directors could not have validly approved the loans with only one or two out
of the seven directors signing the resolutions.

II (B)

Petitioner likewise insists that the second element is not present. He

maintains that Quilatan and Magpantay's testimonies as well as Dela Paz's
affidavit prove that he neither borrowed from the bank nor incurred any
contractual liability from the bank for himself or for others. He alleges that
Vasquez was the one who processed and approved the loans under
Hagisaka's threats. 109 He further maintains that the non-filing of a case

107
Id. at 237-238.
108
Id at 97.
109
Jct. at 57-58.
Decision 19 GR. No. 242977

against Vasquez has the "cloth of being a selective persecution and

prosecution."' 10

Petitioner's arguments fail to persuade.

This Court stresses that under the Informations filed against petitioner,
he is charged with committing the crimes in conspiracy with Capilitan.
Thus, in determining whether the second element exists, this Court shall
ascertain if conspiracy was duly established.

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code states that " [a] conspiracy exists
when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it." Once conspiracy is
established, all accused shall be deemed responsible for the acts of all
conspirators. In People v. Peralta, 111 this Court explained:

Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all of the

conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and
character of their respective active participation in the commission of the
crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in
contemplation of law the act of one is the act of one is the all. The
foregoing rule is anchored on the sound principle that "when two or more
persons unite to accomplish a criminal object. whether through the
physical volition of one. or all, proceeding severally or collectively, each
individual whose evil will actively contributes to the wrong-doing is in
law responsible for the whole. the same as though performed by himself
alone." Although it is axiomatic that no one is liable for acts other than his
own, "when two or more persons agree or conspire to commit a crime,
each is responsible for all the acts of the others, done in furtherance of the
agreement or conspiracy."' 112 (Citations omitted.)

ln establishing conspiracy, the presentation of direct evidence is not

necessary. Its existence may be proven by circumstantial evidence. In
People v. Albaran, 113 we held:

Conspiracy need not be proved hy direct evidence. It may be inferredfrom

the concerted acts of the accused, indubitably revealing their unity of
purpose. intent and sentiment in committing the crime. Thus. it is not
required that there was an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the
occurrence, it is sufficient that the accused acted in concert at the time of
the commission of the offense and that they had the same purpose or
common design, and that they were united in its execution. 114 (Emphasis
supplied; citations omitted)

110 ld. at60.

111 134 Phil. 703 ( I 968) [Per Curiarn, En Banc].
11 2 ld.at 718.
11 3 G.R. No. 233194. September 14. 2020. <
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelflshowdocs/ I/66477> [Per C.J. Peralta, first Division].
i 1. Id.
Decision 20 GR. No. 242977

This Court agrees with the Regional Trial Court and the Court of
Appeals that petitioner acted in conspiracy with Capilitan. 115

First, petitioner does not dispute that Capilitan, a Unitrust director,

obtained two loans from Unitrust. 116 While petitioner denies participation in
the loan 's approval and insists that it was Vasquez who approved the loan, 117
it has been established that Vasquez approved the loans under duress. 11 8
Further, petitioner admitted that the Vice President for Loans and Credit
merely recommends a loan's approval and the final decision rests on the
board. 119 Accordingly, since petitioner signed the minutes of the board
meetings during which the loans were allegedly approved, he had the
"principal and indispensable role'' in their approval and release. 120

Second, by reproducing the prosecution's witnesses' testimonies in his

petition, petitioner admitted that after the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
investigation and the bank run, he contacted Magpantay to pay Philipiine
Deposit Insurance Company the ?13,000,000.00 loan of G. Cosmos. 121

Finally, as the Regional Trial Court 122 and the Court of Appeals
correctly pointed out, petitioner is a lawyer who is presumed to know the
law. 123 This notwithstanding, he signed the minutes of the board meetings
and participated in the preparation of the remedial documents after the loans
had been released. 124

II (C)

Under the General Banking Law, for a DOSRI loan to be valid, it is

necessary that the written approval of the majority of the bank's directors be
entered into the bank's records. In addition, a copy of the entry must be
transmitted to the appropriate supervising and examining department of the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

Here, petitioner does not deny that the loans were not reported to the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. However, he claims that they could not have
met this requirement because of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and Philippine
Deposit Insurance Company's subsequent takeover of Unitrust. He argues
that the takeover effectively dissolved Unitrust's operations, making it

115
j
Rollo, p. 96 and 239.
I lo Id. at 91 .
11'
Id. at 59- 60
11&
Id. at 82.
I 19
Id. at 60.
120
Id. at 96.
121
Id. at 61.
122 Id. at 239.
123
Id. at 96.
IN Id. at 238.
Decision 21 G.R. No. 242977

impossible for them to report the loans to Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. 125 He
also maintains that since Dela Paz was then assigned as an examiner at
Unitrust from October 2001 until January 2002, he should have been aware
of the loans' existence. 126

This argument is bereft of merit.

It must be stressed that the responsibility of entering upon its records

the required written approval and of transmitting a copy of the entry to the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas is on the subject bank, which in this case is
Unitrust. While Dela Paz, a Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Assisting
Examiner, was then assigned at Unitrust at the time material to this case, his
job was to monitor the transfer of ownership from the previous owners of
Bank of Makati to the Japanese group. Accordingly, his presence at Unitrust
alone cannot equate to his knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the
two loans. Further, assuming that Dela Paz had acquired information
regarding these loans, Unitrust still had the duty to comply with the
reportorial requirements of the law. 127

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED.

The assailed Court of Appeals' July 10, 2018 Decision and October 25, 2018
Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 35584 are AFFIRMED. Petitioner Jose
Apolinario, Jr. y Llauder is CONVICTED of violating Section 36 of
Republic Act No. 8791, otherwise known as The General Banking Law of
2000, in relation to Section 36 of Republic Act No. 7653, otherwise known
as The New Central Bank Act. He is ORDERED to pay a fine of
Pl 00,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 03-3631 and P200,000.00 in Criminal
Case No. 03-3632, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

SO ORDERED.

Associate Justice

125
Id. at 62.
126
Id. at 32- 33.
127
Jd. at 235.
Decision 22 G.R. No. 242977

WE CONCUR:

. ROSARIO

ATTESTATION

I attest that the concJusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article Vlll of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.