G.R. No. 220458. July 26, 2017.

*
 
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
ROSARIO BALADJAY, accused-appellant.

Criminal Law; Estafa; Estafa by Means of Deceit; Elements of.

—Jurisprudence elucidates that the elements of Estafa by means
of deceit under this provision are as follows: (a) that there must be
a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to the offender’s
power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business
or imaginary transactions; (b) that such false pretense or
fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that the
offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or
fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or
property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage.
Same; Same; Syndicated Estafa; Elements of.—The elements
of Syndicated Estafa, therefore, are as follows: (a) Estafa or other
forms of swindling, as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the RPC,
is committed; (b) the Estafa or swindling is committed by a
syndicate of five (5) or more persons; and (c) the 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.
Same; Same; Same; Fraud; Deceit; The gravamen of the
offenses charged in all the aforementioned cases is the employment
of fraud or deceit to the damage or prejudice of another.—The
gravamen of the offenses charged in all the aforementioned cases
is the employment of fraud or deceit to the damage or prejudice of
another. As defined in People v. Balasa, 295 SCRA 49 (1998):
  Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything
calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and
concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or
confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by
which an undue and unconsci-

_______________

*  THIRD DIVISION.
  
 
265

VOL. 833, JULY 26, 2017 265

People vs. Baladjay

entious 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. On the other hand,
deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by
words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by
concealment of that which should have been disclosed which
deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act
upon it to his legal injury.
Same; Same; Same; The crime of Estafa under Article 315(2)
(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) was committed by accused-
appellant together with her counselors, numbering more than five
(5), qualifying the crime to Syndicated Estafa in accordance with
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1689.—The crime of Estafa under
Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC was committed by accused-appellant
together with her counselors, numbering more than five (5),
qualifying the crime to Syndicated Estafa in accordance with PD
1689. Thus, the imposition of the penalty of life imprisonment
should be upheld, as well as the order to pay the actual damages
suffered by each of the private complainants. In addition thereto,
the Court imposes interest on the monetary penalty at the rate of
six percent (6%) per annum from the time of the demand, which
shall be deemed as made on the same day the Information was
filed against accused-appellant, until the amounts are fully paid.

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
   Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.

VELASCO, JR., J.:

“. . . the only people who get rich from “get rich quick”
books are those who write them.”
-Richard M. Nixon

 
 
 266

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baladjay

Nature of the Case

 
Before this Court is an appeal from the November 13,
2014 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 06308 finding the accused-appellant, Rosario
Baladjay (Baladjay), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Syndicated Estafa defined and penalized under
Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in
relation to Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1689.2
 
The Facts
 
In an Information dated August 6, 2003, accused-
appellant Baladjay and her co-accused were indicted with
the crime of Syndicated Estafa. The accusatory portion of
the Information reads:

The undersigned Prosecutor accuses ROSARIO BALADJAY,

SATURNINO BALADJAY, LITO NATIVIDAD, RANDY RUBIO,
TESS VILLEGAS, OLIVE MARASIGAN, LORNA PANGAN,
CARMEN CHAN, STELLA ILAGAN and JOHN MUNOZ of the
crime of SYNDICATED ESTAFA under Article 315, par. 2(a) of
the Revised Penal Code in relation to [PD] 1689, committed as
follows:
That on or about and sometime during the months covering the
period from May 2001 to October 2002, in the City of Makati,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above named accused, being officers, employees, and/or agents
of Multinational Telecom Investors Corporation (Multitel), an
association operating on funds solicited from the public,
conspiring

_______________

1   Rollo, pp. 2-44. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Amy Lazaro-

Javier and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan
Castillo and Leoncia Real-Dimagiba, Special 14th Division.
2  Entitled “INCREASING THE PENALTY FOR CERTAIN FORMS OF SWINDLING OR

ESTAFA” (April 6, 1980).

 
 
 267

VOL. 833, JULY 26, 2017 267

People vs. Baladjay

or confederating with and mutually helping one another, and

confederating as a syndicate, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously defraud complainants JOSE SAMALA,
HENRY CHUA CO, ROLANDO T. CUSTODIO, KATHERINE T.
HEBRON AND STELLA P. LEE by means of false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of fraud to the effect that they have the business,
property and power to solicit and accept investments and deposits
from the general public and capacity to pay the complainants
guaranteed monthly interest on investment from 5% to 6% and
lucrative commissions, and by means of other deceits of similar
import, induced and succeeded in inducing the complainants to
invest, deposit, give and deliver as in fact the latter gave the
accused the total amount of [Php]7,810,000.00 as investment or
deposit, accused knowing fully well that said pretenses and
representations are 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 benefits to the damage
and prejudice of said complainants in the aforementioned amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3

 
Upon motion of the public prosecutor, the charge against
Carmen Chan was dismissed for lack of probable cause;
while the other accused, aside from Baladjay, remained at
large. On arraignment, Baladjay pleaded not guilty to the
offense charged. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented Rolando T. Custodio
(Rolando), Estella Pozon Lee (Estella), Henry M. Chua Co
(Henry), and Yolanda Baladjay (Yolanda) to testify against
accused-appellant Baladjay.
When Rolando took to the stand, he narrated that
sometime in February 2001, his neighbor told him about
Multitel,

_______________

3  CA Rollo, pp. 12-13.

 
 
 268

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baladjay

a company which allegedly pays its investors an interest

income of at least five percent (5%) per month. Enticed
with the prospective returns, Rolando invested the amount
of Php100,000.00 in Multitel and received monthly interest
payments, as promised.4
Thereafter, Rolando met Gladina Baligad (Gladina), a
counselor of Multitel, who explained to him that the
company was engaged in the telecommunications business.
Convinced of Gladina’s representations regarding
Multitel’s legitimacy and her assurances as to its
profitability, Rolando increased his investment in the
company to Php2,000,000.00. Gladina then made a more
attractive offer, promising an increased monthly earning of
eight to twelve percent (8%-12%) of the investments, luring
Rolando to invest a total of Php3,200,000.00 in Multitel. A
receipt was issued for every placement that Rolando made,
together with checks personally signed by Baladjay,
representing his principal investment.5
However, sometime in October 2002, when he had yet to
receive his interest income for the month, Rolando learned
that Baladjay was under investigation. Knowledge of this
prompted him to call Gladina, who assured him that
Multitel would still be able to deliver on its promised
returns. Nevertheless, despite Gladina’s assurance,
Multitel defaulted. Rolando then conducted his own
investigation on the matter and found out that Multitel
was not issued a secondary license by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) to deal in securities and
solicit investments from the general public. In fact, per an
SEC Advisory, the company and its conduits were not duly
registered and had no juridical personality and authority to
engage in any activity, let alone investment-taking.6
Rolando exerted all effort to recover his investments
after his discovery. He even attended the meetings
conducted by

_______________

4  TSN, August 25, 2005, pp. 12-13.

5  Id., at pp. 15-26.
6  Id., at pp. 31-35.

 
  
269

VOL. 833, JULY 26, 2017 269

People vs. Baladjay

Multitel, the last one of which was held on November 5,

2002. During the final meeting, Baladjay’s co-accused
Randy Rubio, Olive Marasigan, and Tess Villegas, all
officers of Multitel, met with the investors and repeatedly
assured the latter that Multitel was a legitimate company
and that it was merely organizing its books so as to meet
the monthly withdrawals. Multitel, however, was unable to
deliver on the promised returns, prompting Rolando to file
a criminal complaint.7
In her account of the events, Estella claimed that she
was advised by Carmencita Chan (Carmencita), a Multitel
counselor, to invest in the company through the One Heart
Multi-Purpose Cooperative (One Heart).8 As Carmencita
explained to her, One Heart was an agent of Multitel,
which could receive investments in the latter’s behalf.
Carmencita also informed Estella in one of their meetings
at One Heart’s office at the Enterprise Building in Makati
City that Multitel is a local subsidiary of a New York-based
telecommunications company.9
Carmencita later introduced Estella and her husband to
accused Manolito Natividad (Manolito), who confirmed the
information about Multitel. With the promised yield of six
percent (6%) monthly interest, Estella’s total investment
with Multitel amounted to Php3,280,000.00 and
US$7,520.00. Estella initially received the promised
interest yields. However, in October 2002, no interest
income was deposited to Estella’s account. This impelled
Estella to call Carmencita, who told her that she had to
wait before she could get her income for the month.10
Subsequently, Estella constantly called and followed up
with Carmencita and even Multitel’s advertised hotline
only to be repeatedly told that she would be informed of the
status

_______________

7   Id., at pp. 36-38.

8   TSN, November 10, 2005, p. 4.
9   Id., at pp. 6-8.
10  Id., at pp. 6-13.
  
 
270

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baladjay

of her investments. However, no information ever reached

her, and her investments were never returned by
Multitel.11
In his testimony, Henry claimed that he knew the
accused Baladjay, Saturnino Baladjay, Randy Rubio, Lito
Natividad, and Tess Villegas. According to him, he was also
persuaded by Gladina to invest in Multitel because of the
promise of a five percent (5%) monthly interest income. His
total investments amounted to Php1,050,000.00, for which
he received interest payment only once.12 When the
guaranteed return never arrived, Henry called Gladina
who relayed to him that Baladjay was having difficulty
with respect to the Multitel funds. Henry then became
suspicious, prompting him to consult with the SEC where
he was informed that Multitel is a scam, and that a Cease
and Desist Order had already been issued against it for
soliciting funds from the public without a valid license.13
Henry then confronted Gladina, only to be redirected to
Baladjay’s then counsel. He then attempted to settle with
Baladjay, but the latter can no longer be contacted. And in
his last-ditch effort to recover his investment, he attended
the investors meeting organized by Multitel counselors,
including Randy Rubio, Olive Marasigan, and Tess
Villegas, among others.14
Lastly, Yolanda testified that her and Baladjay’s
husbands are brothers.15 Baladjay offered her a job as a
Multitel counselor, promising her commissions equivalent
to seven percent (7%) of the capital infused by the investors
that she would convince. Accepting the offer, Yolanda
ushered in clients to Baladjay’s office at the Enterprise
Building in Ayala, Makati City until 2001. Thereafter,
Yolanda and the other Multitel counselors were assigned to
different groups or cooperatives, which Baladjay herself
had established. According to her, the

_______________

11  Id., at pp. 14-18.

12  TSN, March 7, 2007, pp. 5-9.
13  Id., at pp. 12-15.
 14  Id., at pp. 24-25.
15  TSN, September 20, 2007, p. 12.

 
 

271

VOL. 833, JULY 26, 2017 271

People vs. Baladjay

investments were placed in the cooperatives, which, in

turn, placed them in Multitel.16
By September 2002, Multitel started to have problems
with the SEC. Consequently, the investors demanded from
Yolanda that she return their money placements. However,
she could not address their demands as she could no longer
contact Baladjay, who, by then, was already nowhere to be
found.17
For its part, the defense presented accused-appellant
Baladjay as its sole witness. Baladjay, in her testimony,
denied knowing, meeting, or transacting with the private
complainants. She insisted on her innocence and decried
the allegations that she took the private complainants’
money in the aggregate amount of Php7,810,000.00.18
Baladjay added that while she is the President and
Chairman of the Board of Multitel International Holdings,
Inc. (MIHI), it is a company totally distinct and separate
from Multinational Telecom Investors Corporation or
Multitel. She claimed that her company, which was
registered with the SEC, was only engaged in the selling of
cell phones and did not solicit any investment from the
public. However, Baladjay admitted that she was also
known as the president of Multitel.19
 
The Ruling of the RTC
 
On December 3, 2012, the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Makati City, Branch 58, rendered judgment in Criminal
Case No. 03-3261 finding Baladjay guilty of Syndicated
Estafa, disposing as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, JUDGMENT is hereby

rendered as follows:

_______________

16  Id., at pp. 18-25.

 17  Id., at pp. 28-31.
18  TSN, April 5, 2010, pp. 5-6.
19  Id., at pp. 7-17.

 
 
272

272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baladjay

1. Convicting the accused Rosario Baladjay of the crime of

syndicated estafa and is hereby ordered to suffer life
imprisonment.
By way of civil liability
2. To pay Dr. Rolando T. Custodio the sum of
Php3,200,000.00 as actual damages and Php500,000.00 as moral
damages;
3. To pay Estella Ponce Lee the sum of Php3,280,000.00 and
US$ 7,520.00 the rate to be computed from the time of its
investment and Php500,000.00 as moral damages;
4. To pay Henry M. Chua Co the sum of Php1,050,000.00 and
Php500,000.00 as moral damages;
Considering that the Court has yet to acquire jurisdiction over
the other accused, let alias warrants of arrest be issued against
them.
SO ORDERED.

 
An Amended Decision20 was later issued on April 26,
2013 to correct the middle name of one of the private
complainants, Estella Pozon Lee.
Baladjay interposed an appeal from the above quoted
RTC ruling, arguing that the trial court gravely erred in
convicting her when her guilt has not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt.21
 
The Ruling of the CA
 
In its November 13, 2014 Decision, the CA affirmed the
guilty verdict meted by the RTC, but with modification
with respect to the amount of moral damages awarded. The
CA held that all the elements of Estafa under Article 315(2)
(a) of the RPC are present in the instant case, and that the
crime was committed by Baladjay together with her
counselors
_______________

20  CA Rollo, pp. 32-44. Penned by Presiding Judge Eugene C. Paras.

21  Id., at pp. 55-69.

 
 
273

VOL. 833, JULY 26, 2017 273

People vs. Baladjay

numbering more than five (5), thus, qualifying the felony to

Syndicated Estafa in accordance with PD 1689. The
dispositive portion of the CA Decision states:

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED and the Decision

dated December 3, 2012, AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION,
reducing the award of moral damages to Php100,000.00 for each
of the private complainant.
SO ORDERED.22

 
Aggrieved, accused-appellant Baladjay elevated the case
before Us, raising the same arguments she had at the CA.
 
The Issue
 
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the
appellate court gravely erred in affirming the accused-
appellant’s conviction for Syndicated Estafa.
 
The Court’s Ruling
 
We find no merit in the instant appeal.
 
All the elements of Syn-
dicated Estafa are pre-
sent in the instant case
 
Accused-appellant and her eight (8) co-accused were
charged with Syndicated Estafa, in relation to Article
315(2)(a) of the RPC, viz.:

Art. 315. Swindling (estafa).—Any person who shall defraud

another by any means mentioned herein below shall be punished
by:
x x x x
_______________

22  Rollo, p. 44.

 
 
274

274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baladjay

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or

fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud:
(a) By using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to
possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business, or imaginary transactions, or by means of
other similar deceits.
x x x x

 
Jurisprudence elucidates that the elements of Estafa by
means of deceit under this provision are as follows: (a) that
there must be a false pretense or fraudulent representation
as to the offender’s power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions; (b) that such false pretense or fraudulent
representation was made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (c) that
the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent
act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his
money or property; and (d) that, as a result thereof, the
offended party suffered damage.23
 
In relation to the foregoing, Section 1 of PD 1689
qualifies the offense of Estafa if it is committed by a
syndicate, viz.:

Section 1. Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or

other forms of swindling as defined in Articles 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 moneys contributed by stockholders, or
members of rural banks, cooperatives, “samahang nayon(s),” or
farmers’ associations, or funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public.

_______________

23   People v. Tibayan, G.R. Nos. 209655-60, January 14, 2015, 746

SCRA 259, 268.

 
 
275

VOL. 833, JULY 26, 2017 275

People vs. Baladjay

Synthesizing the two provisions of law, the elements of

Syndicated Estafa, therefore, are as follows: (a) Estafa or
other forms of swindling, as defined in Articles 315 and 316
of the RPC, is committed; (b) the Estafa or swindling is
committed by a syndicate of five (5) or more persons; and
(c) the 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
24
corporations/associations from the general public.
The special law is typically invoked by those who fall
prey to the too-good-to-be-true promises of a Ponzi scheme,
wherein the purported investment program offers
impossibly high returns and pays these returns to early
investors out of the capital contributed by later investors.
The history of such a stratagem has been discussed in the
landmark ruling of People v. Balasa (Balasa):

x  x  x  x Named after Charles Ponzi who promoted the scheme in

the 1920s, the original scheme involved the issuance of bonds
which offered 50% interest in 45 days or a 100% profit if held for
90 days. Basically, Ponzi used the money he received from later
investors to pay extravagant rates of return to early investors,
thereby inducing more investors to place their money with him in
the false hope of realizing this same extravagant rate of return
themselves. x x x x
However, the Ponzi scheme works only as long as there is an
ever-increasing number of new investors joining the scheme. To
pay off the 50% bonds Ponzi had to come up with a one-and-a-half
times increase with each round. To pay 100% profit he had to
double the number of investors at each stage, and this is the
reason why a Ponzi scheme is a scheme and not an investment
strat-

_______________

24  Galvez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 187919, February 20, 2013, 691
SCRA 455, 467.

 
 
276

276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baladjay

egy. The progression it depends upon is unsustainable. The

pattern of increase in the number of participants in the system
explains how it is able to succeed in the short run and, at the
same time, why it must fail in the long run. This game is difficult
to sustain over a long period of time because to continue paying
the promised profits to early investors, the operator needs an ever
larger pool of later investors. The idea behind this type of swindle
is that the “con man” collects his money from his second or third
round of investors and then absconds before anyone else shows up
to collect. Necessarily, these schemes only last weeks, or months
at most.25

 
In Balasa, Panata Foundation of the Philippines, Inc.
sent out brochures soliciting deposits from the public,
assuring would-be depositors that their money would either
be doubled after 21 days or tripled after 30 days. Under its
alleged investment program, a depositor hands his
investment to a clerk who, in turn would give it to the
teller. In exchange, the depositors would receive filled-up
printed forms called “slots,” which bear resemblance to
bank checks and were already signed beforehand by the
president of the foundation. The amounts received by the
foundation were deposited in various banks under the
names of its president and/or secretary.26
The foundation started with a few depositors, most of
whom only invested small amounts to see whether the
foundation would make good on its promise. As word got
around that the foundation was able to fulfill its
obligations, more depositors were attracted by the
promised returns. Blinded by the prospect of gaining
substantial profits for nothing more than a minuscule
investment, these investors were lured to reinvest their
earnings, if not to invest more.27

_______________

25  G.R. Nos. 106357 and 108601-02, September 3, 1998, 295 SCRA 49,
77-78.
26  Id., at pp. 60-62.
27  Id., at p. 62.

 
 
277

VOL. 833, JULY 26, 2017 277

People vs. Baladjay

The operations initially proceeded smoothly. However,

on November 29, 1989, the foundation closed down.
Depositors then began to demand for the reimbursement of
their deposits, but the foundation was unable to deliver.
Consequently, sixty-four informations, all charging the
offense of Syndicated Estafa were filed against the officers
and trustees of the foundation.28 The cashier and the
disbursing officer of the foundation were eventually found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged.
They were sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment, and were ordered to restitute to
complainants the amounts defrauded.
Parallelisms can be drawn between Balasa and People v.
Menil.29 In the said case, the spouses Menil were the
proprietors of a business operating under the name ABM
Appliance and Upholstery. Through ushers and sales
executives, they began soliciting investments from the
general public in Surigao City and its neighboring towns,
assuring would-be investors that their money would be
multiplied tenfold after fifteen (15) calendar days.30
Instead of the “slots” that were given to the investors in
Balasa, the spouses Menil issued “coupons” as proofs of
investment. And just as in Balasa, the initial amounts
involved were small, and so the spouses Menil were able to
pay the returns on the investments as they fell due.
However, the amounts invested and the number of
depositors gradually increased until it reached a point
wherein the daily investments amounting to millions of
pesos were pouring in and payments of the returns were
delayed.31 On September 19, 1989, the spouses stopped
releasing payments altogether,

_______________

28  Id., at pp. 62-63.

29  G.R. Nos. 115054-66, September 12, 2000, 340 SCRA 125.
30  Id., at p. 127.
31  Id., at pp. 127-128.

 
 
278

278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baladjay

prompting the investors to charge them with large-scale

swindling.32
More recently, in People v. Tibayan,33 the Court has
convicted two incorporators of the Tibayan Group
Investment Company, Inc. (TGICI) of multiple counts of
Syndicated Estafa and sentencing them to suffer life
imprisonment for each count. As in the other fraudulent
investment schemes, the private complainants in that case
were enticed to invest in TGICI due to the offer of high
interest rates, as well as the assurance that they will
recover their investments. After parting with their monies,
the private complainants received a Certificate of Share
and postdated checks, representing the amount of the
principal investment and the corresponding monthly
interest earnings. The checks, however, were dishonoured
upon encashment, and the TGICI office closed down
without private complainants having been paid. The
investors were then constrained to file criminal complaints
against the incorporators and directors of TGICI.
The gravamen of the offenses charged in all the
aforementioned cases is the employment of fraud or deceit
to the damage or prejudice of another. As defined in
Balasa:

Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything

calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and
concealment involving a breach of legal or eq-

_______________
 32   The spouses Menil could not be charged and convicted with
syndicated estafa since there was no showing that at least five (5) persons
perpetrated the fraudulent investment scheme. Said the Court: “While the
prosecution proved that a nonstock corporation with eleven (11)
incorporators, including accused-appellant and his wife, was involved in
the illegal scheme, there was no showing that these incorporators
collaborated, confederated, and mutually helped one another in directing
the corporations activities. In fact, the evidence for the prosecution shows
that it was only accused-appellant and his wife who had knowledge of and
who perpetrated the illegal scheme”; id., at p. 148.
33  Supra note 23.

 
 
279

VOL. 833, JULY 26, 2017 279

People vs. Baladjay

uitable 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. On the other hand, deceit is the
false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or
conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of
that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is
intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his
legal injury.34

 
In the case at bar, it can be observed that Multitel
engaged in a modus operandi that does not deviate far from
those practiced in the above cited cases. The similarity of
the pattern is uncanny. Here, using Multitel as their
conduit, Baladjay and her more than five (5) counselors
employed deceit and falsely pretended to have the
authority to solicit investments from the general public
when, in truth, they did not have such authority. The
deception continued when Baladjay’s counselors actively
solicited investments from the public, promising very high
interest returns starting at five percent (5%) per month.
Convinced of Baladjay’s and her counselors’ promise of
lucrative income, the private complainants were then
enticed to invest in Multitel. However, unknown to them,
the promised high-yielding venture was unsustainable, as
Multitel was not really engaged in any legitimate business.
Eventually, Baladjay and her cohorts ran away with the
private complainants’ money causing them damage and
prejudice.
Clearly, all the elements of Syndicated Estafa obtain in
this case, considering that: (a) more than five (5) persons
are involved in Multitel’s grand fraudulent scheme,
including Baladjay and her co-accused — who employed
deceit, false

_______________

34  People v. Balasa, supra note 25 at pp. 71-72.

 
 

280

280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baladjay

pretenses and representations to the private complainants

regarding a supposed lucrative investment opportunity
with Multitel 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 false promises and misrepresentations thus
employed, private complainants invested their hard-earned
money in Multitel; and (d) Baladjay and her co-accused
defrauded the private complainants, obviously to the
latter’s prejudice.
 
Baladjay’s connection
with Multitel has been
clearly established
 
Baladjay contends, however, that the prosecution failed
to prove her connection with Multitel, which is supposedly
an entity distinct from the company she actually owns.
We are not convinced.
Multitel was sufficiently proven to be owned by and
linked to Baladjay. The positive and straightforward
testimony of her own sister-in-law, Yolanda, shows not only
Baladjay’s direct connection with Multitel, but also her
active participation in soliciting and convincing prospective
investors to place their investments in Multitel, viz.:

ATTY. FERMO
Q: Why did you agree to become a counselor of Ms. Baladjay and
recruit investors, Ms. Witness?
A: Because I will earn something from the persons that I will be
recruiting, Ma’am.
Q: You mentioned that you will earn, why, how much will you
earn if you will be able to recruit investors of Multitel?
A: She’ll give me seven percent (7%) and then to the person they
will be given four percent (4%).
x x x x

 
 
281

VOL. 833, JULY 26, 2017 281

People vs. Baladjay

Q: Were you able to recruit or persuade others to invest at

Multitel, Madam witness?
A: Yes, Ma’am and the persons whom I recruited, I brought them
to her residence and she personally talked to them.
Q: When you brought these persons to her house, did they
immediately invest?
A: Yes, Ma’am they invested immediately because she is very
articulate.
Q: After these investors made their investment, when will you
receive the three percent (3%) commission?
A: Every month Ma’am, I will receive the commission and the
investors will also receive their monthly interest.
Q: Do you know what are the proofs to show that people invested
in Multitel, Madam witness?
A: She issued us post dated checks for the principal and the
monthly interest was given in cash and we have to sign in the
paper.
x x x x
Q: For how long have you been a counselor of Multitel, Madam
witness?
A: I started with her Ma’am and it was already at Multitel Office
in Ayala.
Q: When was that?
A: In the year 2000 Ma’am.
Q: Year 2000 when she had an office at Ayala?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: What building is that Madam witness?
A: At Enterprise Building Ma’am.
Q: For how long were you able to bring investors at her office at
Enterprise Building?
A: Until 2001, Ma’am.
Q: So, why, what happened after 2001?
A: Because we already have our own group or cooperative.

 
 
281

VOL. 833, JULY 26, 2017 281

People vs. Baladjay

Q: What do you mean, that you became part of the cooperative?

A: Because there were plenty of investors, Ma’am and her office
can no longer accommodate us.
Q: So, who established this cooperative, Madam witness?
A: She established the cooperative Ma’am and we have our own
chairman.
Q: How many cooperatives were established, if you know, Madam
witness?
A: 16 Cooperatives, Ma’am but I can only remember three names
Telecon, Star Enterprise, One Heart.
Q: And what is the name of your cooperative?
A: Star Enterprise, Ma’am.35

 
Further, Baladjay’s claim that she has not transacted
with the private complainants, or has never known the
supposed Multitel counselors to whom the victims of
Multitel’s fraudulent scheme delivered their money, cannot
prevail over the evidence on record. Baladjay cannot feign
innocence by hiding behind her so-called “counselors”
because not only did they positively identify her, she also
signed the checks issued in favor of the investors.
The RTC and the CA both found that the witnesses
presented in the instant case were credible, having given
their respective testimonies in a straightforward manner,
corroborated by documentary evidence. Accordingly, the
totality of the testimonies of the witnesses, documentary
evidence on record, and findings of the SEC all point to
Baladjay as the perpetrator of a grand scheme to defraud
investors of their investments in her company, Multitel.36
Based on the foregoing, the CA correctly affirmed
Baladjay’s guilt.
_______________

35  TSN, September 20, 2007, pp. 18-24.

36  Rollo, p. 42.

 
 
283

VOL. 833, JULY 26, 2017 283

People vs. Baladjay

Notably, the crime of Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of

the RPC was committed by accused-appellant together with
her counselors, numbering more than five (5), qualifying
the crime to Syndicated Estafa in accordance with PD
1689. Thus, the imposition of the penalty of life
imprisonment should be upheld, as well as the order to pay
the actual damages suffered by each of the private
complainants. In addition thereto, the Court imposes
interest on the monetary penalty at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from the time of the demand, which shall
be deemed as made on the same day the Information was
filed against accused-appellant, until the amounts are fully
paid.37
As regards the award of moral damages, the CA was
correct in reducing the same to a fair, just and reasonable
amount38 of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00)
for each of the private complainants. The Court also
imposes an interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum on the moral damages assessed from finality of this
ruling until full payment.39
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court ADOPTS
the findings and conclusions of law in the Decision dated
November 13, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 06308 and AFFIRMS said Decision WITH
MODIFICATION that (1) accused-appellant is assessed
and shall pay an interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum on the amount of actual damages suffered by each
of the private complainants, reckoned from the filing of
Information on August 27, 2003 until fully paid, and (2) an
interest at the

_______________

37  People v. Gallemit, G.R. No. 197539, June 2, 2014, 724 SCRA 359,
387.
 38  Coca-Cola Bottlers, Phils., Inc. v. Roque, G.R. No. 118985, June 14,
1999, 308 SCRA 215.
39  People v. Sevillano, G.R. No. 200800, February 9, 2015, 750 SCRA
221; People v. Delfin, G.R. No. 201572, July 9, 2014, 729 SCRA 617; People
v. Consorte, G.R. No. 194068, July 9, 2014, 729 SCRA 528; People v. De
Los Santos, G.R. No. 207818, July 23, 2014, 731 SCRA 52.

 
 
284

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Baladjay

rate of six percent (6%) per annum on the amount of moral

damages awarded to each of the private complainants from
the finality of the Court’s Decision until full payment.
As thus modified, the judgment of the Regional Trial
Court of Makati City, Branch 58, promulgated on
December 3, 2012, as amended on April 26, 2013, shall
read as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, JUDGMENT is hereby

rendered as follows:
1. Convicting the accused Rosario Baladjay of the crime of
Syndicated Estafa and ordering her to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment.
By way of civil liability
2. To pay Dr. Rolando T. Custodio the sum of
Php3,200,000.00 as actual damages;
3. To pay Estella Pozon Lee the sum of Php3,280,000.00 and
US$7,520.00 the rate to be computed from the time of its
investment;
4. To pay Henry M. Chua Co the sum of Php1,050,000.00;
The aforestated amounts shall be paid with legal interest at
the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from August 27, 2003 until
fully paid.
By way of moral damages
5. To pay Dr. Rolando T. Custodio, Estella Pozon Lee, and
Henry M. Chua Co the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php100,000.00) each, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%)
per annum from the finality of the Court’s Decision until fully
paid.

 
 
285
 VOL. 833, JULY 26, 2017 285
People vs. Baladjay

Considering that the Court has yet to acquire jurisdiction over

the other accused, let alias warrants of arrest be issued against
them.

 
SO ORDERED.

Bersamin, Perlas-Bernabe,** Tijam and Reyes, Jr., JJ.,

concur.

Judgment affirmed with modification.

Notes.—Simple estafa and syndicated estafa are not two

entirely different crimes. Simple estafa is a crime
necessarily included in syndicated estafa. (Hao vs. People,
735 SCRA 312 [2014])
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1689 applies to
corporations operating on funds solicited from the public.
(Belita vs. Sy, 795 SCRA 146 [2016])
 
——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.