Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 295 views

    Remo Vs Devanadera

    Uploaded by

    Zymon Andrew Maquinto
    This case involves a complaint filed against petitioners for violating syndicated estafa under PD No. 1689 in relation to two contracts totaling P81.1 million that BATELEC II entered into in 2004. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners were not criminally liable because 1) the fraud was not perpetrated by a syndicate as defined under the law, 2) there was no misappropriation of member contributions, and 3) any prejudice caused may only result in civil liability rather than criminal syndicated estafa charges. The petition was granted.

    Copyright:

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

    Remo Vs Devanadera

    Uploaded by

    Zymon Andrew Maquinto
    295 views2 pages
    This case involves a complaint filed against petitioners for violating syndicated estafa under PD No. 1689 in relation to two contracts totaling P81.1 million that BATELEC II entered into in 2004. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners were not criminally liable because 1) the fraud was not perpetrated by a syndicate as defined under the law, 2) there was no misappropriation of member contributions, and 3) any prejudice caused may only result in civil liability rather than criminal syndicated estafa charges. The petition was granted.

    Original Title

    Remo-vs-Devanadera

    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 case involves a complaint filed against petitioners for violating syndicated estafa under PD No. 1689 in relation to two contracts totaling P81.1 million that BATELEC II entered into in 2004. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners were not criminally liable because 1) the fraud was not perpetrated by a syndicate as defined under the law, 2) there was no misappropriation of member contributions, and 3) any prejudice caused may only result in civil liability rather than criminal syndicated estafa charges. The petition was granted.

    Copyright:

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

    Remo Vs Devanadera

    Uploaded by

    Zymon Andrew Maquinto
    This case involves a complaint filed against petitioners for violating syndicated estafa under PD No. 1689 in relation to two contracts totaling P81.1 million that BATELEC II entered into in 2004. The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners were not criminally liable because 1) the fraud was not perpetrated by a syndicate as defined under the law, 2) there was no misappropriation of member contributions, and 3) any prejudice caused may only result in civil liability rather than criminal syndicated estafa charges. The petition was granted.

    Copyright:

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

    Remo vs.

    Devandera
    GR No. 192925
    December 9, 2016

    Perez, J.
    Facts: In 2004, BATELEC II entered into two (2) contracts that required it to spend a total of
    P81,100,000.00. The first contract was entered into by BATELEC II with the I-SOLV
    Technologies, Inc. (ITI). The contract was for the enterprise-wide automation and
    computerization of BATELEC II. Pursuant to the said contract, BATELEC II obligated itself to
    pay an aggregate amount of P75,000,000.00 to ITI in exchange of the total computerization
    solutions to be provided by the latter. The second contract, on the other hand, was with the
    Supertrac Motors Corporation (Supertrac) and it was for the procurement of ten (10) boom
    trucks by BATELEC II. Under such contract, BATELEC II agreed to pay the sum of
    P6,100,000.00 to Supertrac as consideration for the ten (10) boom trucks to be supplied by the
    latter. In 2005, NEA audit report found out that ITI and Supertracs as having been replete with
    various irregularities and violation of guidelines including the award for computerization contract
    of ITI and and such contract was implemented without prior approval from NEA. A complaint
    was filed before the RTC by the respondents (Batelec) against petitioner for violation of the
    crime of Syndicated Estafa under PD No. 1689 in relation to Art. 315 of the RPC. The RTC
    rendered a decision finding petitioners guilty for Syndicated Estafa under PD No. 1689. On
    Appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.
    Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are criminally liable for Syndicated Estafa under PD No.
    1689.
    Ruling: No. Hence, we grant the instant appeal.
    In essence, Syndicated estafa is but the commission of any of Estafa enumerated under Art 315
    of the RPC with 2 additional conditions.
    1. Estafa or swindling was perpetrated by a syndicate.
    2. Estafa or swindling resulted in the misappropriation of money contributed by the
    stockholder or members of rural bank, corporations/associations
    Thus, we detailed the elements of Syndicated Estafa as provided in People vs. Balasa:
    1. Estafa or other forms of swindling mentioned in Article 315 and 316 of the RPC
    2. It is committed by a syndicate.
    3. Estafa or swindling resulted in the misappropriation of money contributed by the
    stockholder or members of rural bank, corporations/associations
    In the case at bar, It is well settled in jurisdiction that Syndicate must be 5 or more persons who
    used the association that they formed or they managed to defraud its own stockholders and
    members. Consequently, Petitioners did not use Batelec II as a means to defraud its members.
    It follows that the fraud committed through such association must pertain to its receipt of
    contribution or solicitation from the members or to the public. Furthermore, The contributions of
    the members of BATELEC II were received by the latter through legitimate transactions. Lastly,
    the second element of Estafa under Art 315 of the RPC is non existent. Misappropriation or
    conversion means the act of disposing of another’s property as if it were one’s own or of
    devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. Given the evidence at hand, any
    prejudiced caused upon Batelec II may only give rise to civil liability.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED.

    You might also like