Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Galvez V CA

    Uploaded by

    Francess Piloneo
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were liable for syndicated estafa for their deceitful actions that caused Asia United Bank to part with its money. Radio Marine Network applied for credit from AUB under its division Smartnet Philippines, but unknown to AUB it had formed a separate subsidiary called SPI. RMN represented SPI as being the same entity as Smartnet to obtain credit, but later denied liability claiming the transactions were solely by the separate SPI entity. The Court found the petitioners' actions of deceiving AUB in order to obtain money constituted fraud under the Revised Penal Code, as fraud encompasses any acts or concealment resulting in an undue advantage through false suggestions or suppression of truth.

    Copyright:

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

    Galvez V CA

    Uploaded by

    Francess Piloneo
    16 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were liable for syndicated estafa for their deceitful actions that caused Asia United Bank to part with its money. Radio Marine Network applied for credit from AUB under its division Smartnet Philippines, but unknown to AUB it had formed a separate subsidiary called SPI. RMN represented SPI as being the same entity as Smartnet to obtain credit, but later denied liability claiming the transactions were solely by the separate SPI entity. The Court found the petitioners' actions of deceiving AUB in order to obtain money constituted fraud under the Revised Penal Code, as fraud encompasses any acts or concealment resulting in an undue advantage through false suggestions or suppression of truth.

    Original Title

    1. Galvez v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were liable for syndicated estafa for their deceitful actions that caused Asia United Bank to part with its money. Radio Marine Network applied for credit from AUB under its division Smartnet Philippines, but unknown to AUB it had formed a separate subsidiary called SPI. RMN represented SPI as being the same entity as Smartnet to obtain credit, but later denied liability claiming the transactions were solely by the separate SPI entity. The Court found the petitioners' actions of deceiving AUB in order to obtain money constituted fraud under the Revised Penal Code, as fraud encompasses any acts or concealment resulting in an undue advantage through false suggestions or suppression of truth.

    Copyright:

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

    Galvez V CA

    Uploaded by

    Francess Piloneo
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were liable for syndicated estafa for their deceitful actions that caused Asia United Bank to part with its money. Radio Marine Network applied for credit from AUB under its division Smartnet Philippines, but unknown to AUB it had formed a separate subsidiary called SPI. RMN represented SPI as being the same entity as Smartnet to obtain credit, but later denied liability claiming the transactions were solely by the separate SPI entity. The Court found the petitioners' actions of deceiving AUB in order to obtain money constituted fraud under the Revised Penal Code, as fraud encompasses any acts or concealment resulting in an undue advantage through false suggestions or suppression of truth.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 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.

    PEREZ, J.:

    FACTS:
    Radio Marine Network Inc. (RMSI applied for an Omnibus
    Credit Line for various credit facilities with Asia United Bank
    (AUB). AUB granted it under the name of Smartnet Philippines,
    RMSI’s Division. Unknown to AUB, respondents formed a
    subsidiary corporation, the SPI.RMSI submitted a proof of authority
    to open the Omnibus Credit Line and peso
    anddollar accounts in the name of Smartnet Philippines, Inc., which
    respondents,
    represented as a division of RMSI. Believing that SPI is the same as
    SmartnetPhilippines, AUB granted to it.
    When RMSI’s obligations remained unpaid, AUB sent letters deman
    ding payments. RMSI denied liability contending that the
    transaction was incurred solely by SPI, a corporation separate and
    distinct personality from RMSI. Aggrieved, AUB filed a case of
    syndicated estafa under Article 315 (2)(a) of the
    RevisedPenal Code in relation to Section 1 of Presidential Decree N
    o. 1689 against theinterlocking directors of RMSI and
    SPI.City Prosecutor’s resolution charged the respondents for estafa
    and dismissed thecharge for syndicated estafa. DOJ reversed and
    ordered the dismissal of estafa. In the CA, City prosecutors’
    resolution was reinstated. DOJ resolution was reversed and set
    aside.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the petitioners liable for the crime of
    syndicated estafa on the basis of fraudulent acts or fraudulent
    means employed to deceive.
    RULING:
    Yes. Accused were convicted of estafa, having made AUB
    believe that Smartnet and SPI are the same entity and resulting with
    the former parting with its property. “Let it be misunderstood, we
    reiterate that this Courts finding of probable cause is grounded on
    fraud committed through deceit which surrounded Gilbert Guy, et
    al. transaction with AUB, thus, violating Article 315 (2) (a) of the
    Revised Penal Code; it is neither their act of borrowing money and
    not paying them, nor their denial thereof, but their very act of
    deceiving AUB in order for the latter to part with its money. As
    early as the Penal Code of Spain, which was enforced in the
    Philippines as early as 1887 until it was replaced by the Revised
    Penal Code in 1932, the act of fraud through false pretenses or
    similar deceit was already being punished. Article 335 of the Penal
    Code of Spain punished a person who defrauded another by falsely
    pretending to possess any power, influence, qualification, property,
    credit, agency or business, or by means of similar deceit.” “We
    emphasize that fraud in its general sense, is deemed to
    comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts,
    omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal duty or
    equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in
    damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious
    advantage is taken of another. It is a generic term embracing all
    multifarious means which human ingenuity can device and which
    are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over
    another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth and
    includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any unfair
    way by which another is cheated.

    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