Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 231 views

    Ruling On Syndicated Estafa vs. Simple Estafa

    Uploaded by

    Jefferson A. dela Cruz
    This document discusses the elements required to charge someone with syndicated estafa under Presidential Decree No. 1689. It finds that the offenders, Gilbert Guy et al., cannot be charged with syndicated estafa because they are outsiders to Asia United Bank and did not use the bank to defraud the public. While their actions defrauded the bank, the bank was the victim, not the means used. Therefore, the charges against Gilbert Guy et al. are modified to simple estafa under the Revised Penal Code instead of syndicated estafa.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ruling On Syndicated Estafa vs. Simple Estafa

    Uploaded by

    Jefferson A. dela Cruz
    231 views2 pages
    This document discusses the elements required to charge someone with syndicated estafa under Presidential Decree No. 1689. It finds that the offenders, Gilbert Guy et al., cannot be charged with syndicated estafa because they are outsiders to Asia United Bank and did not use the bank to defraud the public. While their actions defrauded the bank, the bank was the victim, not the means used. Therefore, the charges against Gilbert Guy et al. are modified to simple estafa under the Revised Penal Code instead of syndicated estafa.

    Original Description:

    Ruling on Syndicated Estafa vs. Simple Estafa

    Original Title

    Ruling on Syndicated Estafa vs. Simple Estafa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses the elements required to charge someone with syndicated estafa under Presidential Decree No. 1689. It finds that the offenders, Gilbert Guy et al., cannot be charged with syndicated estafa because they are outsiders to Asia United Bank and did not use the bank to defraud the public. While their actions defrauded the bank, the bank was the victim, not the means used. Therefore, the charges against Gilbert Guy et al. are modified to simple estafa under the Revised Penal Code instead of syndicated estafa.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    231 views2 pages

    Ruling On Syndicated Estafa vs. Simple Estafa

    Uploaded by

    Jefferson A. dela Cruz
    This document discusses the elements required to charge someone with syndicated estafa under Presidential Decree No. 1689. It finds that the offenders, Gilbert Guy et al., cannot be charged with syndicated estafa because they are outsiders to Asia United Bank and did not use the bank to defraud the public. While their actions defrauded the bank, the bank was the victim, not the means used. Therefore, the charges against Gilbert Guy et al. are modified to simple estafa under the Revised Penal Code instead of syndicated estafa.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    187919 February 20, 2013

    RAFAEL H. GALVEZ, and KATHERINE L. GUY, Petitioners,


    vs.
    HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND ASIA UNITED BANK, Respondents.

    x----------------x

    G.R. No. 187979

    ASIA UNITED BANK, Petitioner,


    vs.
    GILBERT G. GUY, PHILIP LEUNG, KATHERINE L. GUY, RAFAEL H. GALVEZ and EUGENIO H.
    GALVEZ, .JR., Respondents.

    x----------------x

    G.R. No. 188030

    GILBERT G. GUY, PHILIP LEUNG, and EUGENIO H. GALVEZ, JR., Petitioners,


    vs.
    ASIA UNITED BANK, Respondents.

    RULING:

    Thus, the elements of syndicated estafa are: (a) estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Article
    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.

    On review of the cases applying the law, we note that the swindling syndicate used the association
    that they manage to defraud the general public of funds contributed to the association. Indeed, Section
    1 of Presidential Decree No. 1689 speaks of a syndicate formed with the intention of carrying out the
    unlawful scheme for the misappropriation of the money contributed by the members of the
    association. In other words, only those who formed and manage associations that receive
    contributions from the general public who misappropriated the contributions can commit
    syndicated estafa.

    Gilbert Guy, et al., however, are not in any way related either by employment or ownership to AUB.
    They are outsiders who, by their cunning moves were able to defraud an association, which is the
    AUB. Theirs would have been a different story, had they been managers or owners of AUB who used
    the bank to defraud the public depositors.

    We have to note though, as we do now, that the Balasa case, differs from the present petition because
    while in Balasa, the offenders were insiders, i.e., owners and employees who used their position to
    defraud the public, in the present petition, the offenders were not at all related to the bank. In other
    words, while in Balasa the offenders used the corporation as the means to defraud the public, in the
    present case, the corporation or the bank is the very victim of the offenders.
    In sum and substance and by precedential guidelines, we hold that, first, Presidential Decree No. 1689
    also covers commercial banks; second, to be within the ambit of the Decree, the swindling must be
    committed through the association, the bank in this case, which operate on funds solicited from the
    general public; third, when the number of the accused are five or more, the crime is
    syndicated estafa under paragraph 1 of the Decree; fourth, if the number of accused is less than five
    but the defininf element of the crime under the Decree is present, the second paragraph of the Decree
    applies (People v. Romero, People v. Balasa); fifth, the Decree does not apply regardless of the
    number of the accused, when (a) the entity soliciting funds from the general public is the victim and
    not the means through which the estafa is committed, or (b) the offenders are not owners or employees
    who used the association to perpetrate the crime, in which case, Article 315 (2)(a) of the Revised
    Penal Code applies.

    The present petition involves an estafa case filed by a commercial bank as the offended party against
    the accused who, as clients, defrauded the bank.

    WHEREFORE, we MODIFY our 25 April 2012 Decision and RULE that Gilbert G. Guy, Rafael H.
    Galvez, Philip Leung, Katherine L. Guy and Eugenio H. Galvez, Jr., be charged for SIMPLE ESTAFA
    under Article 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy