G.R. Nos. 209655-60. January 14, 2015.

*
 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PALMY
TIBAYAN and RICO Z. PUERTO, accused-appellants.

Criminal Law; Estafa; Estafa by Means of Deceit; Elements of.—The

elements of estafa by means of deceit under this provision are the following:
(a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his
power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent
representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false
pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with
his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage.
Same; Same; Syndicated Estafa; Elements of.—Thus, the elements of
Syndicated Estafa are: (a) estafa or other forms of swindling, as defined in
Articles 315 and 316 of the RPC, is committed;

_______________

*  FIRST DIVISION.

260

260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tibayan

(b) the Estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate of five (5) or

more persons; and (c) defraudation results in the misappropriation of
moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks,
cooperative, “samahang nayon(s),” or farmers’ associations, or of funds
solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.
Same; Same; Ponzi Scheme; Words and Phrases; A Ponzi scheme is a
type of investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to
existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.—To be sure, a
Ponzi scheme is a type of investment fraud that involves the payment of
purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new
investors. Its organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest
funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk.
In many Ponzi schemes, the perpetrators focus on attracting new money to
make promised payments to earlier-stage investors to create the false
appearance that investors are profiting from a legitimate business. It is not
an investment strategy but a gullibility scheme, which works only as long as
there is an ever increasing number of new investors joining the scheme. It is
difficult to sustain the scheme over a long period of time because the
operator needs an ever larger pool of later investors to continue paying the
promised profits to early investors. The idea behind this type of swindle is
that the “con-man” collects his money from his second or third round of
investors and then absconds before anyone else shows up to collect.
Necessarily, Ponzi schemes only last weeks, or months at the most.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
  The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
  Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellants.

 
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
 
Assailed in this ordinary appeal1 filed by accused-appellants
Palmy Tibayan (Tibayan) and Rico Z. Puerto

_______________

1  See Notice of Appeal dated July 10, 2013; Rollo, pp. 24-25.

261

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 261

People vs. Tibayan

(Puerto) (accused-appellants) is the Decision2 dated June 28,

2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CR Nos. 33063,
33562, 33660, 33669, 33939, and 34398 which modified the
Decisions dated December 4, 2009,3 June 24, 2010,4 August 2,
2010,5 August 5, 2010,6 January 21, 2011,7 and August 18, 20118 of
the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 198 (RTC) and
convicted accused-appellants of the crime of Syndicated Estafa,
defined and penalized under Item 2(a), Paragraph 4, Article 315 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Presidential Decree No.
(PD) 1689.9
 
The Facts
 
Tibayan Group Investment Company, Inc. (TGICI) is an open-
end investment company registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) on September 21, 2001.10

_______________

2   Id., at pp. 3-23. Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, with Associate
Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. and Socorro B. Inting, concurring.
3   See Joint Decision in Crim. Case Nos. 04-0391, 06-0042, and 06-0045 penned
by Judge Erlinda Nicolas-Alvaro; CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33063), pp. 39-50.
4   See Joint Decision in Crim. Case Nos. 04-0619, 04-0622, 04-0627, 04-0635,
and 04-0636; CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33562),
pp. 28-42.
5   See Joint Decision in Crim. Case Nos. 05-0710, 05-0779, 05-0784, 05-0803,
and 05-0809; CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33669),
pp. 29-41.
 6   See Joint Decision in Crim. Case Nos. 04-0070, 04-0085, 04-0125, 04-0330,
04-0441, and 04-0714; CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33660), pp. 20-32.
7   See Decision in Crim. Case No. 04-1028; CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33939),
pp. 25-32.
8   See Joint Decision in Crim. Case Nos. 04-0570, 04-0567, 04-0598, and 04-
0613; CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 34398), pp. 41-53.
9     Entitled “Increasing the Penalty for Certain Forms of Swindling or Estafa”
(April 6, 1980).
10  Rollo, pp. 4-5.

262

262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tibayan

Sometime in 2002, the SEC conducted an investigation on TGICI

and its subsidiaries. In the course thereof, it discovered that TGICI
was selling securities to the public without a registration statement
in violation of Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as “The
Securities Regulation Code,” and that TGICI submitted a fraudulent
Treasurer’s Affidavit before the SEC. Resultantly, on October 21,
2003, the SEC revoked TGICI’s corporate registration for being
fraudulently procured.11
The foregoing led to the filing of multiple criminal cases12 for
Syndicated Estafa against the incorporators and directors of
TGICI,13 namely, Jesus Tibayan, Ezekiel D. Martinez, Liborio E.
Elacio, Jimmy C. Catigan, Nelda B. Baran, and herein accused-
appellants.14 Consequently, warrants of arrest were issued against all
of them; however, only accused-appellants were arrested, while the
others remained at large.15
According to the prosecution, private complainants Hector H.
Alvarez, Milagros Alvarez, Clarita P. Gacayan, Irma T. Ador,
Emelyn Gomez, Yolanda Zimmer, Nonito Garlan, Judy C. Rillon,
Leonida D. Jarina, Reynaldo A. Dacon, Cristina Dela Peña, and
Rodney E. Villareal16 (private complainants) were enticed to invest
in TGICI due to the offer of high inter-

_______________

11  Id., at p. 5.
12  The criminal cases were ultimately decided in six (6) separate RTC Decisions,
as follows: (a) the 1st RTC Decision covered Crim. Case Nos. 04-0391, 06-0042, and
06-0045; (b) the 2nd RTC Decision covered Crim. Case Nos. 04-0619, 04-0622, 04-
0627, 04-0635, and 04-0636; (c) the 3rd RTC Decision covered Crim. Case Nos. 05-
0710, 05-0779, 05-0784, 05-0803, and 05-0809; (d) the 4th RTC Decision covered
Crim. Case Nos. 04-0070, 04-0085, 04-0125, 04-0330, 04-0441, 04-0714; (e) the 5th
RTC Decision covered Crim. Case No. 04-1028; and (f) the 6th RTC Decision
covered Crim. Case Nos. 04-0570, 04-0567, 04-0598, and 04-0613.
13  Rollo, p. 6.
14  Id., at p. 5.
15  Id., at p. 7.
16  Id., at p. 6.

263
 VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 263
People vs. Tibayan

est rates, as well as the assurance that they will recover their
investments. After giving their money to TGICI, private
complainants received a Certificate of Share and postdated checks,
representing the amount of the principal investment and the monthly
interest earnings, respectively.17 Upon encashment, the checks were
dishonored, as the account was already closed, prompting private
complainants to bring the bounced checks to the TGICI office to
demand payment. At the office, the TGICI employees took the said
checks, gave private complainants acknowledgement receipts, and
reassured that their investments, as well as the interests, would be
paid. However, the TGICI office closed down without private
complainants having been paid and, thus, they were constrained to
file criminal complaints against the incorporators and directors of
TGICI.18
In their defense, accused-appellants denied having conspired with
the other TGICI incorporators to defraud private complainants.
Particularly, Puerto claimed that his signature in the Articles of
Incorporation of TGICI was forged and that since January 2002, he
was no longer a director of TGICI. For her part, Tibayan also
claimed that her signature in the TGICI’s Articles of Incorporation
was a forgery, as she was neither an incorporator nor a director of
TGICI.19
 
The RTC’s Rulings
 
On various dates, the RTC issued six (6) separate decisions
convicting Tibayan of 13 counts and Puerto of 11 counts of estafa
under Item 2(a), Paragraph 4, Article 315 of the RPC in relation to
PD 1689, to wit: (a) in a Joint Decision20 dated December 4, 2009,
the RTC found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of three (3) counts of estafa, sentenc-

_______________

17  Id., at p. 7.
18  Id.
19  Id., at pp. 9-10.
20  CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33063), pp. 39-50.

264

264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tibayan

ing them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of 20

years of reclusion temporal for each count and ordering them to pay
the amounts of P1,500,000.00 to Hector H. Alvarez, and
P119,405.23 and P800,000.00 to Milagros Alvarez;21 (b) in a Joint
Decision22 dated June 24, 2010, the RTC acquitted Puerto of all the
charges, but found Tibayan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two
(2) counts of estafa, sentencing her to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for a period of 20 years of reclusion temporal for each
count, and ordering her to pay the amounts of P1,300,000.00 and
US$12,000.00 to Clarita P. Gacayan and P500,000.00 to Irma T.
Ador;23 (c) in a Joint Decision24 dated August 2, 2010, the accused-
appellants were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2)
counts of estafa, and were sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for a period of 20 years of reclusion temporal for each
count, and ordered to pay the amounts of P1,000,000.00 to Yolanda
Zimmer and P556,376.00 to Nonito Garlan;25 (d) in a Joint
Decision26 dated August 5, 2010, the RTC found the accused-
appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one (1) count of estafa,
sentencing them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period
of 20 years of reclusion temporal and ordering them to pay Emelyn
Gomez the amount of P250,000.00;27 (e) in a Decision28 dated
January 21, 2011, accused-appellants were found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of one (1) count of estafa each, and were sentenced
to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of 20 years of
reclusion temporal and ordered to pay Judy C. Rillon the amount of
P118,000.00;29 and (f) in a Joint Decision30 dated

_______________

21  Id., at p. 50. “P119,000.23” in some parts of the records.

22  CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33562), pp. 28-42.
23  Id., at p. 42.
24  CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33669), pp. 29-41.
25  Id., at p. 40.
26  CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33660), pp. 20-32.
27  Id., at p. 31.
28  CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33939), pp. 25-32.
29  Id., at p. 31.

265

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 265

People vs. Tibayan

August 18, 2011, accused-appellants were each convicted of four

(4) counts of estafa, and meted different penalties per count, as
follows: (i) for the first count, they were sentenced to suffer the
penalty of imprisonment for a period of four (4) years and two (2)
months of prisión correcional medium, as minimum, to fifteen (15)
years of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, and to pay
Reynaldo A. Dacon the amount of P100,000.00; (ii) for the second
count, they were sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for
a period of ten (10) years of prisión mayor medium, as minimum, to
twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, and
to pay Leonida D. Jarina the amount of P200,000.00; (iii) for the
third count, they were sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years of prisión mayor
medium, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal
medium, as maximum, and to pay Cristina Dela Peña the amount of
P250,000.00; and (iv) for the last count, they were sentenced to
suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of four (4) years and
two (2) months of prisión correcional medium, as minimum, to
fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, and
to pay Rodney E. Villareal the amount of P100,000.00.31
In the aforesaid decisions, the RTC did not lend credence to
accused-appellants’ denials in light of the positive testimonies of the
private complainants that they invested their money in TGICI
because of the assurances from accused-appellants and the other
directors/incorporators of TGICI that their investments would yield
very profitable returns. In this relation, the RTC found that accused-
appellants conspired with the other directors/incorporators of TGICI
in misrepresenting the company as a legitimate corporation duly
registered to operate as a mutual fund to the detriment of the private
com-

_______________

30  CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 34398), pp. 41-53.

31  Id., at p. 52.

266

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tibayan

plainants.32 However, the RTC convicted accused-appellants of

simple Estafa only, as the prosecution failed to allege in the
informations that accused-appellants and the other
directors/incorporators formed a syndicate with the intention of
defrauding the public, or it failed to adduce documentary evidence
substantiating its claims that the accused-appellants committed
Syndicated Estafa.33
Aggrieved, accused-appellants separately appealed the foregoing
RTC Decisions to the CA, docketed as C.A.-G.R. CR Nos. 33063,
33562, 33660, 33669, 33939, and 34398. Thereafter, the CA issued a
Resolution34 dated February 19, 2013 ordering the consolidation of
accused-appellants’ appeals.
 
The CA’s Ruling
 
In a Decision35 dated June 28, 2013, the CA modified accused-
appellants’ conviction to that of Syndicated Estafa, and accordingly,
increased their respective penalties to life imprisonment for each
count.36 The CA also increased the amount of actual damages
awarded to private complainant Clarita P. Gacayan from
P1,300,000.00 to P1,530,625.90, apart from the award of
US$12,000.00.37

_______________

32  See CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33063), pp. 48-49; CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR

No. 33562), pp. 39-41; CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33669), pp. 38-40; CA Rollo
(C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33660), pp. 28-31; CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33939), pp. 30-
31; and CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 34398), pp. 49-51.
33  See CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33063), p. 50; CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No.
33562), p. 41; CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33669), pp. 38-39; CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R.
CR No. 33660), pp. 28 and 31; CA Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 33939), p. 31; and CA
Rollo (C.A.-G.R. CR No. 34398), p. 51.
34  Id., at pp. 140-142.
35  Rollo, pp. 3-23.
36  Id., at pp. 21-22.
37  Id., at p. 22.

267

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 267

People vs. Tibayan

It held that TGICI and its subsidiaries were engaged in a Ponzi

scheme which relied on subsequent investors to pay its earlier
investors — and is what PD 1689 precisely aims to punish.
Inevitably, TGICI could no longer hoodwink new investors that led
to its collapse.38 Thus, the CA concluded that as
incorporators/directors of TGICI, accused-appellants and their
cohorts conspired in making TGICI a vehicle for the perpetuation of
fraud against the unsuspecting public. As such, they cannot hide
behind the corporate veil and must be personally and criminally
liable for their acts.39 The CA then concluded that since the TGICI
incorporators/directors comprised more than five (5) persons,
accused-appellants’ criminal liability should be upgraded to that of
Syndicated Estafa, and their respective penalties increased
accordingly.40
Undaunted, accused-appellants filed the instant appeal.
 
The Issue Before the Court
 
The primordial issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not
accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Syndicated Estafa defined and penalized under Item 2(a),
paragraph 4, Article 315 of the RPC in relation to PD 1689.
 
The Court’s Ruling
 
The Court sustains the convictions of accused-appellants.
Item 2(a), Paragraph 4, Article 315 of the RPC provides:

 Art. 315. Swindling (estafa).—Any person who shall defraud another

by any means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
x x x x

_______________

38  Id., at pp. 16-17.

39  Id., at pp. 17-18.
40  Id., at pp. 21-22.

268

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tibayan
 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary
transactions; or by means of other similar deceits.
x x x x

 
The elements of estafa by means of deceit under this provision
are the following: (a) that there must be a false pretense or
fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that
such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the false pretense,
fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his
money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage.41
In relation thereto, Section 1 of PD 1689 defines Syndicated
Estafa as follows:

Section 1. Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or other

forms of swindling as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, shall be punished by life imprisonment to death if the
swindling (estafa) is committed by a syndicate consisting of five or more
persons formed with the intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act,
transaction, enterprise or scheme, and the defraudation results in the
misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders,

_______________

41  People v. Chua, G.R. No. 187052, September 13, 2012, 680 SCRA 575, 592,
citing Sy v. People, G.R. No. 183879, April 14, 2010, 618 SCRA 264, 271.

269

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 269

People vs. Tibayan

or members of rural banks, cooperatives, “samahang nayon(s),” or

farmers’ associations, or funds solicited by corporations/associations from
the general public.

 
Thus, the elements of Syndicated Estafa are: (a) estafa or other
forms of swindling, as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the RPC,
is committed; (b) the estafa or swindling is committed by a
syndicate of five (5) or more persons; and (c) defraudation results in
the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or
members of rural banks, cooperative, “samahang nayon(s),” or
farmers’ associations, or of funds solicited by
42
corporations/associations from the general public.
In this case, a judicious review of the records reveals TGICI’s
modus operandi of inducing the public to invest in it on the
undertaking that their investment would be returned with a very high
monthly interest rate ranging from three to five and a half percent
(3%-5.5%).43 Under such lucrative promise, the investing public are
enticed to infuse funds into TGICI. However, as the
directors/incorporators of TGICI knew from the start that TGICI is
operating without any paid-up capital and has no clear trade by
which it can pay the assured profits to its investors,44 they cannot
comply with their guarantee and had to simply abscond with their
investors’ money. Thus, the CA correctly held that accused-
appellants, along with the other accused who are still at

_______________

42  Galvez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 187919, 187979, and 188030, February
20, 2013, 691 SCRA 455, 467.
43  See Rollo, p. 7.
44  “It has been held that where one states that the future profits or income of an
enterprise shall be a certain sum, but he actually knows that there will be none, or that
they will be substantially less than he represents, the statements constitute an
actionable fraud where the hearer believes him and relies on the statement to his
injury.” (People v. Menil, Jr., 394 Phil. 433, 453; 340 SCRA 125, 143 [2000], citing
People v. Balasa, 356 Phil. 362, 387; 295 SCRA 49, 77 [1998])

270

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tibayan

large, used TGICI to engage in a Ponzi scheme, resulting in the

defraudation of the TGICI investors.
To be sure, a Ponzi scheme is a type of investment fraud that
involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from
funds contributed by new investors. Its organizers often solicit new
investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to
generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes,
the perpetrators focus on attracting new money to make promised
payments to earlier-stage investors to create the false appearance
that investors are profiting from a legitimate business.45 It is not an
investment strategy but a gullibility scheme, which works only as
long as there is an ever increasing number of new investors joining
the scheme.46 It is difficult to sustain the scheme over a long period
of time because the operator needs an ever larger pool of later
investors to continue paying the promised profits to early investors.
The idea behind this type of swindle is that the “con-man” collects
his money from his second or third round of investors and then
absconds before anyone else shows up to collect. Necessarily, Ponzi
schemes only last weeks, or months at the most.47
In this light, it is clear that all the elements of Syndicated Estafa,
committed through a Ponzi scheme, are present in this case,
considering that: (a) the incorporators/directors of TGICI
comprising more than five (5) people, including herein accused-
appellants, made false pretenses and representations to the investing
public — in this case, the private complainants — regarding a
supposed lucrative investment opportunity with TGICI in order to
solicit money from them; (b) the said false pretenses and
representations were made prior to
_______________

45   United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Ponzi Schemes

<www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm> (visited December 19, 2014).
46  People v. Romero, 365 Phil. 531, 542; 306 SCRA 90, 99 (1999), citing People
v. Balasa, supra note 44 at pp. 388-389; p. 77.
47  People v. Menil, supra note 44 at p. 455; p. 145, citing People v. Balasa, id.

271

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 271

People vs. Tibayan

or simultaneous with the commission of fraud; (c) relying on the

same, private complainants invested their hard earned money into
TGICI; and (d) the incorporators/directors of TGICI ended up
running away with the private complainants’ investments, obviously
to the latter’s prejudice.
Corollary thereto, the CA correctly upgraded accused-appellants’
conviction from simple estafa to Syndicated Estafa. In a criminal
case, an appeal throws the whole case wide open for review. Issues
whether raised or not by the parties may be resolved by the appellate
court.48 Hence, accused-appellants’ appeal conferred upon the
appellate court full jurisdiction and rendered it competent to
examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase
the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.49
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated
June 28, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR Nos. 33063,
33562, 33660, 33669, 33939, and 34398 is hereby AFFIRMED.
Accordingly, accused-appellants Palmy Tibayan and Rico Z. Puerto
are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of 13 and 11 counts,
respectively, of Syndicated Estafa and are sentenced to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment for each count. Accused-appellants are
further ordered to pay actual damages to each of the private
complainants in the following amounts: (a) P1,500,000.00 to Hector
H. Alvarez; (b) P119,405.23 and P800,000.00 to Milagros Alvarez;
(c) P1,530,625.90 and US$12,000.00 to Clarita P. Gacayan; (d)
P500,000.00 to Irma T. Ador; (e) P1,000,000.00 to Yolanda Zimmer;
(f) P556,376.00 to Nonito Garlan; (g) P250,000.00 to Emelyn
Gomez; (h) P118,000.00 to Judy C. Rillon; (i) P100,000.00 to
Reynaldo A. Dacon; (j) P200,000.00 to Leonida D. Jarina; (k)
P250,000.00 to Cristina Dela Peña; and (l) P100,000.00 to Rodney
E. Villareal.

_______________

48  Eusebio-Calderon v. People, 484 Phil. 87, 98; 441 SCRA 137, 146 (2004).
49  Id.

272

272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Tibayan
 SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin and

Perez, JJ., concur.

Appeal denied, judgment affirmed.

Note.—The elements of syndicated estafa are: (a) estafa or other

forms of swindling as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the Revised
Penal Code is committed; (b) the estafa or swindling is committed
by a syndicate of five or more persons; and (c) defraudation results
in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or
members of rural banks, cooperatives, “samahang nayon(s),” or
farmers’ associations or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public. (Galvez vs. Court
of Appeals, 691 SCRA 455 [2013])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.