The Trust Receipts Law recognizes the
impossibility of imposing the penalty of imprisonment on a corporation. Hence,
if the entrustee is a corporation, the law makes the officers or employees or other
persons responsible for the offense liable to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment. The reason is obvious: corporations,
partnerships, associations and other juridical entities cannot be put to jail.
Hence, the criminal liability falls on the human agent responsible for the
violation of the Trust Receipts Law. (Ong
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119858, April 29, 2003, [Carpio]) (bold
ours)
In
the instant case, the Bank was the entruster while ARMAGRI was the entrustee.
Being the entrustee, ARMAGRI was the one responsible to account for the goods
or its proceeds in case of sale. However, the criminal liability for violation
of the Trust Receipts Law falls on the human agent responsible for the
violation. Petitioner, who admits being the agent of ARMAGRI, is the person
responsible for the offense for two reasons. First, petitioner is the signatory
to the trust receipts, the loan applications and the letters of credit. Second,
despite being the signatory to the trust receipts and the other documents,
petitioner did not explain or show why he is not responsible for the failure to
turn over the proceeds of the sale or account for the goods covered by the
trust receipts. (supra)
The
pivotal issue for resolution is whether petitioner comes within the purview of
Section 13 of the Trust Receipts Law which provides:
x
x x . If the violation is committed by a corporation, partnership, association
or other juridical entities, the penalty provided for in this Decree shall be
imposed upon the directors, officers, employees or other officials or persons
therein responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil
liabilities arising from the offense. (Emphasis supplied)