819 Phil. 545
PERALTA, J.:
x x x xOn motion of the prosecution, and without objection on the part of the defense, the Informations were subsequently amended where the third and fourth lines of the Informations, as quoted above, were made to read as follows: "... being partners, officers, employees and/or agents of MMG, International Holdings Company, Ltd."[6]
That on or about the 2nd day of May (09th day of July) 2002 prior or subsequent thereto, in Makati, Philippines, said accused, being officers, employees and/or agents of Mateo Management Group Holding Company, a corporation operating on funds solicited from the public, conspiring, or confederating with, and mutually helping one another, and operating as a syndicate, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud complainants HERMINIO ALCID, SR. and HERMINIO ALCID, JR. (MELANIE ALCID) by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud to the effect that they have the business, property and power to solicit and accept investments and deposits from the general public and the capacity to pay the complainants guaranteed monthly returns (interest) on investment from two point five percent (2.5%) and lucrative commissions, and by means of other deceits of similar import, induced and succeeded in inducing complainants to invest, deposit, give and deliver as in fact the latter gave and delivered to said accused the total amount of P200,000.00 (P50,000.00) as investment or deposit, accused knowing fully well that said pretenses and representations are a fraudulent scheme to enable them to obtain said amount, and thereafter, having in their possession said amount, with intent to gain and to defraud, misappropriated and converted the same to their own personal use and benefit to the damage and prejudice of said complainants in the said amount.
Contrary to law.
x x x[5]
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 03-2936, the Court finds the accused, Ervin Y. Mateo, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Syndicated Estafa penalized under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1689 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. Likewise, Ervin Y. Mateo is held solidarily liable with MMG International Holdings Company, Ltd. to pay private complainant[s] Herminio Alcid, Jr. and Herminio Alcid, Sr. P206,000.00 as actual damages.The RTC found that all the elements of the crime of syndicated estafa are present, to wit: (1) MMG was formed by accused-appellant, together with five (5) other persons; (2) accused-appellant, together with his co accused, committed fraud in inducing private complainants to part with their money; and (3) the fraud resulted in the misappropriation of the money contributed by the private complainants.
In Criminal Case No. 03-2987, the Court finds the accused, Ervin Y. Mateo, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Syndicated Estafa penalized under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1689 and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. Likewise, Ervin Y. Mateo is held solidarily liable with MMG International Holdings Company, Ltd. to pay private complainant Melanie Alcid P59,702.61 as actual damages.
SO ORDERED.[11]
A. WHETHER OR NOT ACCUSED-APPELLANT MAY BE CONVICTED WITH ESTAFA UNDER ARTICLE 315, PARAGRAPH 2(A) IN RELATION TO P.D. 1689.The appeal lacks merit.
B. WHETHER OR NOT THE ELEMENT OF DEFRAUDATION WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT BY THE PROSECUTION.
C. WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SUFFICIENT QUANTUM OF PROOF TO WARRANT THE CONVICTION OF APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT AS FOUND BY THE TRIAL COURT IN THE CHALLENGED DECISION.
D. WHETHER OR NOT THE ACCUSED-[APPELLANT] MAY BE CONVICTED IN THE ABOVEMENTIONED CASES DESPITE THE STAY ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL COURT, RTC, BRANCH 256, MUNTINLUPA CITY, FOR THE CORPORATE REHABILITATION OF MMG GROUP INCLUDING MMG HOLDINGS.
E. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS AND REVERSIBLE ERRORS IN DENYING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.[18]
Section 1. Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Article 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 money contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperative, "samahang nayon(s)", or farmers association, or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.Suffice it to say that it has been settled in a number of cases[21] that estafa, as defined under Article 315 (2)(a) of the RPC, is one of the kinds of swindling contemplated under PD 1689.
When not committed by a syndicate as above defined, the penalty imposable shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of the fraud exceeds 100,000 pesos.
In pursuit of their fraudulent investment scheme, appellant and his partners formed a partnership which, by its Amended Article of Partnership, had the end in view "to acquire, manage, own, hold, buy, sell, and/or encumber securities or equity participation of other persons, partnership, corporation, or any other entities, as permitted or may be authorized by law as well as to [purchase] or otherwise acquire the whole or any [part] of the property, assests, business and goodwill of any other persons, firm, corporation or association and to conduct in any lawful measures the business so acquired and to express all the powers necessary or [convenient] in and about the conduct, management and carrying on of such business. However, the [partnership] shall not engage in stock brokerage or dealership of securities.Thus, in the present case, it is clear that all the elements of syndicated estafa, are present, considering that: (a) the incorporators/directors of MMG comprising more than five (5) people, including herein accused-appellant, made false. pretenses and representations to the investing public - in this case, the private complainants - regarding a supposed lucrative investment opportunity with MMG in order to solicit money from them; (b) the said false pretenses and representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of fraud; (c) relying on the same, private complainants invested their hard-earned money into MMG; and (d) the incorporators/directors of MMG ended up running away with the private complainants' investments, obviously to the latter's prejudice.
In violation thereof, the people behind the partnership were effectively engaging in the sale of securities by enticing the public to "invest" funds with MMG International Holdings Co., Ltd. offering a promise of a two point five percent (2.5%) monthly compensation out of the capital on their investment. These investment activities were clearly ultra vires acts or acts beyond the partnership's authority.
In fact, Atty. Justine Callangan, Director of the Corporate Finance Division of the Securities and Exchange Commission, issued on February 10, 2003 a Certification that based on the records of the Commission, MMG International Holdings Co. Ltd. is not a registered issuer of securities. She explained in her testimony that the partnership has not been issued a permit or a secondary license or franchise to go to the public and offer to sell any form of securities which means that the partnership cannot offer or sell shares of stocks or equity, securities, investment contracts, debt instruments like short-term or long-term commercial papers to more than nineteen (19) people without any prior licensing from the Commission. In plain language, Atty. Callangan stated that soliciting funds from the public is a form of issuing securities, which MMG International Holdings Co. Ltd. was not authorized to do so.
Apparently, registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission was procured by MMG International Holdings Co. Ltd. only for the purpose of giving a semblance of legitimacy to the partnership; that the partnership's business was sanctioned by the government and that it was allowed by law to accept investments.
In carrying out the nefarious transactions, MMG International Holdings Co. Ltd. even published its own brochure entitled "Alliance" which was shown to potential investors showcasing that it had the following businesses to finance the promised earnings: a condotel (MMG Condotel), a realty company (Mateo Realty and Development Corporation), schools (MMG Academy, Mateo College and Technical Foundation, Inc., MMG Computer Learning Center, Mateo Institute of Computer Studies), consumer products manufacturing businesses (M Power Enterprises, Inc.), an insurance firm (Mateo Pre-Need Plans), retail establishments (MMG International Trading Corporation), movie outfit (MMG Films International) and a shipping line (Mateo Maritime Management), among others. Be that as it may, there was no evidence presented by the partnership to bolster their representations of being engaged in these so-called bustling business endeavors.
Evidently, the testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution more than amply proved that appellant, together with his partners, employed fraud and deceit upon trusting individuals in order to convince them to invest in MMG International Holdings Co. Ltd. It may even be observed that there was a uniform pattern employed in selling their proposition as shown by how potential investors are ensnared by appellant and his partners, through MMG International Holdings Co. Ltd. Business Center Head Geralding Alejandro. First, they would make a presentation of the "Alliance" brochure featuring the businesses the company professes to own and combine with the misrepresentation that they had the technical know-how and false promise of two point five percent (2.5%) monthly compensation out of the capital on their investment.[27]
x x x xIn 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.[30] It is not essential that there be actual proof that all the conspirators took a direct part in every act.[31] It is sufficient that they acted in concert pursuant to the same objective.[32] In any case, appellant's direct participation in the conspiracy is evidenced by the findings of the CA that: (1) the Articles of Partnership of MMG named appellant as the sole general partner with a capital contribution of P49,750,000.00; (2) his signatures appear in the MOA entered into by the complainants and facilitated by his co-accused Geraldine Alejandro; (3) his signatures also appear in the Secretary's Certificate and Signature Cards which were submitted to Allied Bank when the partnership opened an account; (4) the MOA are notarized and it was only on appeal that he denied his signatures appearing therein or questioned the authenticity and due execution of the said documents. Indeed, it cannot be denied that accused-appellant, together with the rest of his co-accused, participated in a network of deception. 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.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution established the existence of conspiracy among the accused in committing the crime charged. They started by formi11g the partnership. All of them had access to MMG Holding's bank accounts. They composed the Members of the Board of Directors that manage and control the business transactions of MMG Holdings. Without the participation of each of the accused, MMG Holdings could not have solicited funds from the general public and succeeded to perpetrate their fraudulent scheme. Hence, each of them is a co-conspirator by virtue of indispensable cooperation in the fraudulent acts of the partnership.
x x x[29]
x x x xAs to the last issue raised, accused-appellant insists that his acquittal of the same offense charged in several other cases only proves that he never committed the said crime of syndicated estafa. Accused-appellant's logic is skewed. The fact that he was acquitted in several other cases for the same offense charged does not necessarily follow that he should also be found innocent in the present case. His acquittal in the cases he mentioned was due to the prosecution's failure to present sufficient evidence to convict him of the offense charged. These cases involved different parties, factual millieu and sets of evidence. In the present case, both the RTC and the CA found that the evidence presented by the prosecution is enough to prove that accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of syndicated estafa. After a review of the evidence presented, this Court finds no cogent reason to depart from the findings of the RTC and the CA.
x x x There is no reason why criminal proceedings should be suspended during corporate rehabilitation, more so, since the prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, reform and rehabilitate him or, in general, to maintain social order. As correctly observed in Rosario, it would be absurd for one who has engaged in criminal conduct could escape punishment by the mere filing of a petition for rehabilitation by the corporation of which he is an officer.
The prosecution of the officers of the corporation has no bearing on the pending rehabilitation of the corporation, especially since they are charged in their individual capacities. Such being the case, the purpose of the law for the issuance of the stay order is not compromised, since the appointed rehabilitation receiver can still fully discharge his functions as mandated by law. It bears to stress that the rehabilitation receiver is not charged to defend the officers of the corporation. If there is anything that the rehabilitation receiver might be remotely interested in is whether the court also rules that petitioners are civilly liable. Such a scenario, however, is not a reason to suspend the criminal proceedings, because as aptly discussed in Rosario, should the court prosecuting the officers of the corporation find that an award or indemnification is warranted, such award would fall under the category of claims, the execution of which would be subject to the stay order issued by the rehabilitation court. x x x
x x x.[36]
x x x xNotably, the first paragraph of PD 1689 penalizes offenders with life imprisonment to death regardless of the amount or value of the property or damage involved, provided that a syndicate committed the crime.[37]
WHEREAS, there is an upsurge in the commission of swindling and other forms of frauds in rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon(s)", and farmers' associations or corporations/associations operating on funds solicited from the general public;
WHEREAS, such defraudation or misappropriation of funds contributed by stockholders or members of such rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon(s)", or farmers' associations, or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public, erodes the confidence of the public in the banking and cooperative system, contravenes the public interest, and constitutes economic sabotage that threatens the stability of e nation;
WHEREAS, it is imperative that the resurgence of said crimes be checked, or at least minimized, by imposing capital punishment on certain forms of swindling and other frauds involving rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon(s)", farmers' associations or corporations/associations operating on funds solicited from the general public;
x x x."