6.) People vs. Mateo 1.

Tge Court does not agree with accused-appellant's contention that he may not
GR 210612 be found guilty of violating PD 1689 in relation to estafa under Article 315
October 9, 2017 (2)(a)of the RPC on the ground that the only kind of estafa contemplated
Topic: Syndicated Estafa under PD 1689 is that .defined under Article 315 (1)(b)of the RPC and not the
Petitioner: People of the Philippines kind of estafa falling under Article 315 (2)(a) of the same Code.
Respondent: Ervin Y. Mateo 2. Section 1 of PD 1689 provides as follows:
By: DPA a. Section 1. Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or
FACTS other forms of swindling as defined in Article 315 and 316 of
1. Herminia, Jr. met a certain Geraldine Alejandro (Geraldine) who introduced the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall be punished by life
herself as the head of the Business Center of MMG International Holdings Co., imprisonment to death if the swindling (estafa) is committed by
Ltd. (MMG). Geraldine was then soliciting investments and has shown a a syndicate consisting of five or more persons formed with the
brochure showcasing the investments and businesses of the said entity. intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction,
Herminia, Jr. was also shown Articles of Partnership to prove that MMG is enterprise or scheme, and the defraudation results in the
registered with the 'Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Articles of misappropriation of money contributed by stockholders, or
Partnership showed accused-appellant as a general partner who has members of rural banks, cooperative, "samahang nayon(s)", or
contributed ₱49,750,000.00 to MMG. Convinced by the representations of farmers association, or of funds solicited by
Geraldine, Herminia, Jr. invested ₱50,000.00 with MMG. corporations/associations from the general public.
2. Subsequently, all the interests and principal were promptly paid, which 3. When not committed by a syndicate as above defined, the penalty imposable
induced him to make a bigger investment. Herminio, Jr. and his father, shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of the fraud
Herminia, Sr., made a joint investment of ₱200,000.00. exceeds 100,000 pesos.
3. The private complainants' investments were covered by a notarized 4. Suffice it to say that it has been settled in a number of cases that estafa, as
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), signed by accused-appellant, which defined under Article 315 (2)(a) of the RPC, is one of the kinds of swindling
stipulated, among others, that MMG was being represented by its President, contemplated under PD 1689.
herein accused-appellant, and that the investors will be earning 2.5o/o 5. He argues that, insofar as he is concerned, the element of defraudation was
monthly interest income from the capital they have invested. not proven beyond reasonable doubt because the prosecution failed to prove
4. Subsequently, the complainants received several post-dated checks covering that he personally transacted or dealt with the private complainants. The
their investments. However, when they tried to deposit the checks, their Court is not persuaded.
banks informed them that these were dishonored because MMG's accounts in 6. The elements of estafa by means of deceit under Article 315 (2 )(a) of the RPC
the bank from which the checks were drawn were already closed. are the following: (a) that there must be a false pretense or fraudulent
5. The complainants then demanded from the accused the return of their representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
money, but their demands were unheeded. The private complainants and agency, business or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or
other investors then went to the SEC to file a complaint, where they fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously
discovered that MMG was not a registered issuer of securities. with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on the
6. The prosecutor then filed an information charging the accused of syndicated false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part
estafa with his money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage.
ISSUE 7. In addition, fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything
Whether or not appellant is guilty of syndicated estafa. (Yes) calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving
a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed,
HELD/RATIO resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious
advantage is taken of another.
8. It is a generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity 15. Evidently, the testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution more than
can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an amply proved that appellant, together with his partners, employed fraud and
advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth and deceit upon trusting individuals in order to convince them to invest in MMG
includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any unfair way by which International Holdings Co. Ltd. It may even be observed that there was a
another is cheated. uniform pattern employed in selling their proposition as shown by how
9. On the other hand, deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact, potential investors are ensnared by appellant and his partners, through MMG
whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by International Holdings Co. Ltd. Business Center Head Geralding Alejandro.
concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is First, they would make a presentation of the "Alliance" brochure featuring the
intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. businesses the company professes to own and combine with the
10. In relation to the above, the elements of syndicated estafa as defined under misrepresentation that they had the technical know-how and false promise of
Section 1 of PD 1689 are: (a) estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in two point five percent (2.5%) monthly compensation out of the capital on
Articles 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code is committed; (b) their investment.
the estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate of five or ·more persons; 16. Thus, in the present case, it is clear that all the elements of syndicated estafa,
and (c) defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys contributed are present, considering that: (a) the incorporators/directors of MMG
by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang comprising more than five (5) people, including herein accused-appellant,
nayon(s)," or farmers' associations, or of funds solicited by made false. pretenses and representations to the investing public - in this
corporations/associations from the general public. case, the private complainants - regarding a supposed lucrative investment
11. With respect to the presence of the elements of fraud and deceit, the Court opportunity with MMG in order to solicit money from them; (b) the said false
agrees with the arguments and conclusions of the OSG, to wit: pretenses and representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the
12. In pursuit of their fraudulent investment scheme, appellant and his partners commission of fraud; (c) relying on the same, private complainants invested
formed a partnership which, by its Amended Article of Partnership, had the their hard-earned money into MMG; and (d) the incorporators/directors of
end in view "to acquire, manage, own, hold, buy, sell, and/or encumber MMG ended up running away with the private complainants' investments,
securities or equity participation of other persons, partnership, corporation, or obviously to the latter's prejudice.
any other entities, as permitted or may be authorized by law as well as to 17. Accused-appellant insists that the prosecution failed· to prove the element of
[purchase] or otherwise acquire the whole or any [part] of the property, defraudation because no sufficient evidence was presented to prove that he
assests, business and goodwill of any other persons, firm, corporation or "personally, physically and actually performed any 'false pretenses' and/or
association and to conduct in any lawful measures the business so acquired 'fraudulent representations' against the private complainants."
and to express all the powers necessary or [convenient] in and about the 18. The Court does not agree. Accused-appellant should be reminded that he is
conduct, management and carrying on of such business. However, the being accused of syndicated estafa in conspiracy with the other co-accused. In
[partnership] shall not engage in stock brokerage or dealership of securities." this regard, the Court finds no error in the finding of the CA that herein
13. In violation thereof, the people behind the partnership were effectively appellant and his co-accused are guilty of conspiracy, to wit:
engaging in the sale of securites by enticing the public to "invest" funds with 19. The evidence adduced by the prosecution established the existence of
MMG International Holdings Co., Ltd. offering a promise of a two point five conspiracy among the accused in committing the crime charged. They started
percent (2.5%) monthly compensation out of the capital on their investment. by forming the partnership. All of them had access to MMG Holding's bank
These investment activities were clearly ultra vires acts or acts beyond the accounts. They composed the Members of the Board of Directors that manage
partnership's authority. and control the business transactions of MMG Holdings. Without the
14. Apparently, registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission was participation of each of the accused, MMG Holdings could not have solicited
procured by MMG International Holdings Co. Ltd. only for the purpose of funds from the general public and succeeded to perpetrate their fraudulent
giving a semblance of legitimacy to the partnership; that the partnership's scheme. Hence, each of them is a co-conspirator by virtue of indispensable
business was sanctioned by the government and that it was allowed by law to cooperation in the fraudulent acts of the partnership.
accept investments.
20. In the instant case, it was not necessary for the prosecution to still prove .that
accused-appellant himself "personally, physically and actually performed any
'false pretenses' and/or 'fraudulent representations' against the private
complainants," given the findings of both the RTC and the CA of the existence
of conspiracy among appellant and his co-accused.When there is conspiracy,
the act of one is the act of all. It is not essential that there be actual proof
that all the conspirators took a direct part in every act.It is sufficient that they
acted in concert pursuant to the same objective.

21. In any case, appellant's direct participation in the conspiracy is evidenced by

22. The active involvement of each in the scheme of soliciting investments was
directed at one single purpose - which is to divest complainants of their
money on the pretext of guaranteed high return of investment. Without a
doubt, the nature and extent of the actions of accused-appellant, as well as
with the other persons in MMG show unity of action towards a common
undertaking. Hence, conspiracy is evidently present.
23. As to accused-appellant's contention that his signatures appearing in the
questioned documents are mere facsimile signatures, this Court has held that
a facsimile signature, which is defined as a signature produced by mechanical
means, is recognized as valid in banking, financial, and business transactions.
24. Besides, as earlier mentioned, the MOA where accused-appellant's signature
appears, was notarized and that it was only on appeal that he denied
authenticity of such signatures and questioned the due execution of the
concerned documents. Also, the same facsimile signature, together with the
other facsimile and stamped signatures of appellant's co-accused, were used
in opening a bank account in the name of MMG where accused-appellant was
one of the authorized signatories. As found by the CA, the bank used and
recognized these facsimile and stamped signatures in transacting with
appellant and his co-accused without any complaints from them. Thus,
accused-appellant cannot deny the binding effect of the subject signatures.
Petition denied, SC affirms the decision of the CA