Catiis v. Patacsil
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 other individuals 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 that bail be denied. Procedural History: An Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 96, charging the private respondents and Tafalla with syndicated estafa. Initially, the court found probable cause and approved the recommendation to deny bail, issuing warrants of arrest. Private respondents, except for Tafalla who remained at large, were detained. Subsequently, private respondents filed a motion to fix bail. On November 20, 2001, they pleaded not guilty. On December 18, 2001, the RTC reconsidered its earlier order, declaring the offense bailable and allowing private respondents to post bail, reasoning that the information did not sufficiently allege a syndicate as defined by P.D. 1689. On December 21, 2001, the Executive Judge approved the surety bonds posted by the private respondents, leading to their release. Petitioner challenged these orders via a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision which upheld the RTC's orders allowing bail. The petitioner argued that the CA erred in sustaining the RTC's ruling that at least five persons must be charged for syndicated estafa under P.D. 1689, that the grant of bail violated procedural rules, and that the Executive Judge improperly approved the bail. The core of the petitioner's argument is that the RTC judge prejudged the case by determining the imposable penalty and that the charge, despite only four individuals being named, should still be considered syndicated estafa, making it non-bailable. The petitioner also questioned the jurisdiction of the Executive Judge in approving the bail bond when the primary court was allegedly available.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the Regional Trial Court's ruling that at least five persons must be charged under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1689 for the offense to be considered syndicated estafa. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the grant of bail, arguing that the offense charged is bailable despite the imposable penalty range. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the order of release of private respondents by the Executive Judge, questioning the venue of the bail posting.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 14, 2002, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: 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. Presidential Decree No. 1689 clearly defines a syndicate as consisting of five or more persons. Since the Information only charged four persons, and did not specify any other participants, it could not be considered a crime committed by a syndicate. Therefore, the higher penalty of life imprisonment to death under the first paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. 1689 was not applicable. The Court emphasized that the law must be read as a whole and that the definition of a syndicate provided in the decree is controlling. Petitioner's interpretation that 'any person' could mean a single individual for syndicated estafa was contrary to the explicit wording of the law. On Issue 2: The Court sustained the RTC's finding that the offense charged is bailable. Because the crime was not committed by a syndicate, the applicable penalty is that provided in the second paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. 1689, which is reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount of fraud exceeds P100,000.00. Crucially, the Information did not allege any aggravating circumstances. Under Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, aggravating circumstances must be expressly alleged in the Information to be considered by the court. Since no aggravating circumstances were alleged, the maximum penalty of reclusion perpetua could not be imposed. Consequently, the imposable penalty would be reclusion temporal, making the offense bailable as a matter of right under Article III, Section 13 of the Constitution and Section 4 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. The Court clarified that the RTC's order did not prejudge the case but merely determined bailability based on the allegations. On Issue 3: The Court found no error in the Executive Judge's approval of the bail bond. Section 17, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure allows bail to be filed with another branch of the same court within the province or city in the absence or unavailability of the judge where the case is pending. While the RTC Branch 96 was open, it was not proven that Judge Bersamin was available at the precise moment the bail was posted with Executive Judge Zenarosa. The petitioner failed to rebut the presumption that official duty was regularly performed by Judge Zenarosa. The allegations in the supplemental petition regarding the availability of Judge Bersamin were not under oath and did not specify his availability at the exact time of bail posting.
Main Doctrine
The Court held that for an offense to be considered syndicated estafa under Section 1 of P.D. 1689, punishable by life imprisonment to death, it must be committed by a syndicate consisting of five or more persons. If only four persons are charged, and no other persons are alleged to have participated, the crime is not committed by a syndicate, and the penalty prescribed in the second paragraph of Section 1 (reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua if the amount exceeds P100,000.00) applies. Furthermore, under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, aggravating circumstances must be expressly alleged in the Information to be considered, and if not alleged, the lesser penalty within the range is imposable. Consequently, if the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal, the accused are entitled to bail as a matter of right.