Catiis v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Regino Sy Catiis filed a complaint against private respondents Reynaldo A. Patacsil, Enrico D. Lopez, Luzviminda A. Portuguez, and Margielyn Tafalla for syndicated estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1689. The complaint alleged that the respondents, through various corporations and unregistered foreign entities, defrauded Catiis and others of at least US$123,461.14 by falsely representing themselves as legitimate foreign exchange traders. The City Prosecutor's Office found probable cause for syndicated estafa and recommended no bail. Procedural History: An Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 96, charging the private respondents and Tafalla with syndicated estafa. Initially, the RTC, through Judge Lucas P. Bersamin, found probable cause and approved the recommendation for no bail, issuing warrants of arrest. Private respondents, except for Tafalla who remained at large, were detained at the Makati City Jail. Subsequently, on November 20, 2001, private respondents pleaded not guilty and filed a motion to fix bail. On December 18, 2001, Judge Bersamin reconsidered his earlier order, ruling that the offense charged was bailable, as only four individuals were charged, thus not constituting a syndicate as defined by P.D. 1689. On December 21, 2001, the Executive Judge of the same court, Monina A. Zenarosa, approved the surety bonds posted by the private respondents, leading to their release. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing Judge Bersamin's order, and later a supplemental petition assailing Judge Zenarosa's order. The CA denied the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by either judge. The Petition: Petitioner Regino Sy Catiis filed this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to nullify the CA's decision. The petition raises three main issues: (A) whether the CA erred in sustaining the RTC's ruling that at least five persons must be charged under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1689 for syndicated estafa; (B) whether the grant of bail by the RTC violated Section 7, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; and (C) whether the release order by the Executive Judge violated Section 17, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Petitioner argues that the term "any person" in P.D. 1689 can apply to a single individual and that the RTC judge prejudged the case by computing the imposable penalty. He also contends that the bail was improperly filed with the Executive Judge when the RTC branch handling the case was available.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the Regional Trial Court's ruling that there must be at least five persons charged under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1689 for the offense to be considered syndicated estafa. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the grant of bail, violating Section 7, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and departing from accepted legal norms. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the order of release based on bail posted with the Executive Judge, violating Section 17, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 14, 2002, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (syndicated estafa definition): The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the offense charged was not syndicated estafa. Section 1 of P.D. No. 1689 clearly defines a syndicate as consisting of "five or more persons." The Information, while alleging conspiracy "in a syndicated manner consisting of five (5) or more persons," ultimately charged only four individuals. The Court emphasized that the law must be read as a whole and that the definition of a syndicate provided in P.D. No. 1689 is controlling. Since only four persons were indicted, the crime charged did not meet the legal definition of syndicated estafa, which carries the penalty of life imprisonment to death. The Court rejected the petitioner's interpretation that "any person" in the first paragraph of Section 1 could mean even one person can be indicted for syndicated estafa, as this would contradict the explicit definition of a syndicate. The Court also clarified that the prosecution's reliance on People v. Romero was misleading, as that case did not resolve the issue of whether one person could be indicted for syndicated estafa and ultimately did not impose the higher penalty because a syndicate was not clearly established. On the second issue (bailability and imposable penalty): The Court affirmed the RTC's finding that the offense charged is bailable. Since the crime was not committed by a syndicate, the penalty imposable under the second paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1689 is reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of fraud exceeds P100,000.00. The Court reiterated that for an offense to be punishable by reclusion perpetua (making it non-bailable when evidence of guilt is strong), aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the Information. The Information in this case did not allege any aggravating circumstances. Therefore, the maximum penalty that could be imposed would be the medium period of reclusion temporal (16 years and 1 day to 20 years), which is not reclusion perpetua. Under Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, persons in custody are entitled to bail as a matter of right before conviction for offenses not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. As the imposable penalty here is reclusion temporal, the private respondents are entitled to bail as a matter of right. On the third issue (filing bail with Executive Judge): The Court found no merit in the petitioner's contention that the filing of bail with Executive Judge Monina A. Zenarosa was improper. Section 17, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure allows bail to be filed with the court where the case is pending, or, in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with another branch of the same court within the province or city. While Branch 96 was open, it was not definitively established that Judge Bersamin was available at the exact moment the bail was posted. The petitioner failed to rebut the presumption that official duty was regularly performed by Judge Zenarosa. The CA's justification that Judge Zenarosa accepted the bail bond due to the temporary absence of Judge Bersamin was not disproven by the petitioner's unsubstantiated claims.
Main Doctrine
For an offense to be considered syndicated estafa under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1689, punishable by life imprisonment to death, the Information must allege and the prosecution must prove that the crime was committed by a syndicate, defined as consisting of five or more persons. If only four persons are charged, the offense is not syndicated estafa, and the penalty is reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount defrauded exceeds P100,000.00. Such an offense is bailable as a matter of right if no aggravating circumstances are alleged in the Information, as the imposable penalty would not be reclusion perpetua.