THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 191718, May 10, 2021
RAMON H. DEBUQUE, Petitioner, v. MATT C. NILSON, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDO, J.:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the June 30, 2009 Decision2 and March 23, 2010 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 100625, which reversed the August 23, 2007 Resolution4 of the Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and reinstated the May 10, 2006 Joint Resolution of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City in I.S. Nos. 05- 5856,05-10313, and 05-7951.5
The said Joint Resolution found probable cause for the crime of Syndicated Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code6 (RPC), as amended, in relation to Presidential Decree No. 16897 (PD 1689) against petitioner Ramon H. Debuque (Ramon) and other individuals not included as parties in this Petition, namely: Atty. Ignacio D. Debuque, Jr. (Atty. Debuque), Margarita H. Debuque (Margarita), Antonio H. Debuque (Antonio), Manuel Litonjua Yap (Manuel), and Luz Litonjua Yap (Luz) (collectively, the accused). The August 23, 2007 Resolution of the DOJ Secretary reversed the Joint Resolution of the City Prosecutor and ordered the filing of an Information for Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC only against Atty. Debuque.
The Factual Antecedents:
This case arose from a Complaint-Affidavit for Syndicated Estafa filed by respondent Matt C. Nilson (Nilson) before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City against Ramon and the other accused. The criminal case was docketed as I.S. No. 05-5856.8
Nilson alleged that in the early 1990s, while he was the Managing Director of Tongsat,9 he met Atty. Debuque, who was then the Chairman of Domestic Satellite Philippines, Inc. (DOMSAT).10 They developed a professional relationship and eventually became friends.11 Subsequently, Atty. Debuque was able to borrow sizable funds from Nilson numerous times.12
Atty. Debuque, who was also acting on behalf of the other accused, invited Nilson to join them in a business venture, which the former alleged would yield large profits.13 He promised Nilson shares of stock in Investa Land Corporation (ILC), a corporation then to be formed, equivalent to the value of the numerous personal loans extended to him by Nilson.14
Atty. Debuque also induced Nilson to purchase various commercial lots in partnership with him, stating that the value of the lands will rise exponentially, and that these will be transferred in the name of ILC.15 Consequently, on two occasions, Nilson paid Atty. Debuque sums of money as his share in the purchase price of commercial lots located in General Santos City - P6 million on September 20, 1997, and P3 million on November 19, 1997.16
Nilson, however, thereafter claimed that the lots were not commercial lands and were represented as such to induce him to pay a higher price. Atty. Debuque then pledged TCT No. 203836 in exchange for the release of the P3 million. The Land Registration Authority, however, reported that the said title was questionable.17 Also, Nilson's wife, Racquel, lent Atty. Debuque sums of money in exchange for ILC shares of stock, secured by TCT No. 291035.18 Nilson further contributed P8 million as initial operational funds of ILC.19 In turn, Atty. Debuque promised to give Nilson ILC shares of stock in the total amount of P76 million.20
Hence the filing of a Complaint-Affidavit for Syndicated Estafa against Atty. Debuque, Ramon, and the other accused. Nilson alleged that they neither gave him the promised ILC shares of stock nor returned the funds that he contributed to the venture.21
In response, Atty. Debuque and the other accused filed counter-charges for Falsification and Perjury against Nilson.22
In their Joint Counter-Affidavit in the Syndicated Estafa charge (instant case), Atty. Debuque and the other accused denied the charges against them and alleged the following: (a) PD 1689 is not applicable because ILC is a closed corporation; (b) they filed a complaint for declaratory relief against Nilson and the issue raised therein presents a prejudicial question in the instant criminal case; (c) the mere act of disbursing the corporate funds by Atty. Debuque does not ipso facto mean that these were mishandled; (d) the charge is in the nature of an intra-corporate dispute; and (e) ILC is not bankrupt as it has numerous properties assigned to it.23
Joint Resolution of the City Prosecutor: |
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that Atty. Ignacio D. Debuque, Jr. and his co-respondents be indicted of the crime of Syndicated Estafa in relation to P.D. 1689. However, the counter-charge of Perjury and Falsification of [P]ublic Documents in I.S. Nos. 05-10313 and 05-7951 are hereby recommended dismissed for lack of factual and legal basis.Aggrieved, Atty. Debuque and the other accused elevated the finding to the DOJ Secretary.
Bail is so stated in the Information.30chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Resolutions of the Secretary of the Department of Justice: |
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the assailed resolution of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The City Prosecutor is hereby directed to withdraw the information for Syndicated Estafa and instead me a new information for Estafa under Article 315 (2)(a) against Atty. Ignacio Debuque, Jr. Further, the City Prosecutor is hereby directed to report the action taken within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.Nilson filed a Motion for Reconsideration claiming that the other accused participated and ratified Atty. Debuque's scheme to defraud him.39
SO ORDERED.38 (Underscoring and emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED and our Resolution promulgated on 12 March 2007 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the appealed resolution of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City is hereby REINSTATED and he is further directed to report the action taken thereon within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.The accused filed a Motion for Reconsideration claiming that they did not participate and were indeed ignorant of the transactions between Atty. Debuque and Nilson.45
SO ORDERED.44 (Underscoring and emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED and our Resolution promulgated on 25 June 2007 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the City Prosecutor of Quezon City is hereby directed to withdraw the information for Syndicated Estafa against respondents Atty. Ignacio Debugue, Jr., Ramon H. Debugue, Antonio H. Debugue, Margarita H. Debugue, Manuel Litonjua Yap, Jr., and Luz Litonjua Yap and instead file a new information for Estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) against Atty. Ignacio Debugue, Jr. and he is likewise directed to report action taken within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.Aggrieved, Nilson filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court before the CA assailing the August 23, 2007 Resolution of the DOJ Secretary.
SO ORDERED.54 (Underscoring and emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE and the writ prayed for accordingly GRANTED. The assailed Resolution dated August 23, 2007 in I.S. No. 05-5856 of respondent Secretary of Justice is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Joint Resolution dated May 10, 2006 of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City finding probable cause against the private respondents for the crime of Syndicated Estafa under Art. 315, par. 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in relation to P.D. No. 1689 is hereby REINSTATED.Only Ramon moved for a reconsideration of the CA Decision, but it was subsequently denied by the appellate court in a Resolution dated March 23, 2010.63
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.62 (Underscoring and emphasis supplied)
Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal action, is defined as such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty thereof. It does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure conviction. Only prima facie evidence is required or that which is, on its face, good and sufficient to establish a given fact, or the group or chain of facts constituting the party's claim or defense; and which, if not rebutted or contradicted, will remain sufficient.97 (Citations omitted)Probable cause, for the purpose of filing a criminal information, does not require absolute certainty or guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A well-founded belief that a crime was committed and that the individual charged is probably guilty of committing the crime suffices. The merits of the parties' respective accusations and defenses and admissibility of testimonies and defenses are better ventilated in the trial proper before the courts than during the preliminary investigation level.98
The task of determining probable cause is lodged with the public prosecutor and ultimately, the Secretary of Justice. Under the doctrine of separation of powers, courts have no right to directly decide matters over which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the Executive Branch of the Government. Thus, we have generally adopted a policy of non-interference with the executive determination of probable cause. Where, however, there is a clear case of grave abuse of discretion, courts are allowed to reverse the Secretary of Justice's findings and conclusions on matters of probable cause.The courts may review the executive determination of probable cause only if it is tainted with grave abuse of discretion through a petition for certiorari filed before the CA.100 The underlying principle behind this power to review is to ensure that the public prosecutor "acts within the permissible bounds of his authority or does not gravely abuse the same."101 There is grave abuse of discretion if the public prosecutor blatantly disregards the parameters of probable cause.102
By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion is grave where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of the law.99 (Citations omitted)
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.Thus, the elements of Syndicated Estafa 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) defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys 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.106
x x x
Applying the foregoing, the Court finds no existing syndicate in which Ramon and the other accused had any participation. As found by the DOJ Secretary, Atty. Debuque acted on his own, without the participation or involvement of Ramon or the other accused. Atty. Debuque was never authorized by the ILC shareholders, i.e., Ramon and the other accused, to transact with Nilson. The third standard provided in Remo, therefore, is not satisfied. There is simply no proof that all of the accused, including Ramon, acted through ILC in defrauding Nilson.
- [The group] must be at least five (5) in number.
- [The group] must have formed or managed a rural bank, cooperative, "samahang nayon," farmer's association or any other corporation or association that solicits funds from the general public.
- [The group] formed or managed such association with the intention of carrying out an unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme i.e., they used the very association that they formed or managed as the means to defraud its own stockholders, members and depositors.108 (Citations omitted)
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional member per raffle dated February 23, 2021 vice J. Inting who recused himself due to prior action in the trial court.
1Rollo, pp. 13-38. Filed on May 17, 2010. Petitioner subsequently filed an Addendum on the same day to correct typographical oversight in the Petition (Rollo, pp. 8-11).
2 Id. at 41-61. Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama (now a retired Member of this Court) and concurred in by then Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a retired Member of this Court) and Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro.
3 Id. at 77-78. Id.
4 Id. at 115-120.
5 Id. at 214-220.
6 Act No. 3815, An Act Revising the Penal Code and Other Penal Laws [THE REVISED PENAL CODE] (1930).
7 Presidential Decree No. 1689, Increasing the Penalty for Certain Forms of Swindling or Estafa (1980).
8Rollo, p. 42.
9 No other information was provided about this entity.
10Rollo, p. 42.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 42-43.
19 Id. at 43.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id. at 44.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 214-221.
25 Id. at 216.
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Id. at 218-219.
30 Id. at 220. Emphasis supplied.
31 Records, vol. I, pp. 1-2. The Information reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryThat during the period comprised from March 1996 to July 1998, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused with intent to defraud, by means of false pretenses, fraudulent acts and means executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, conspiring[,] and confederating together and mutually helping one another, did then and there[,] willfully, unlawfully[,] and feloniously defraud complainant MATT C. NILSON, in the following manner[,] to wit: accused represented to the complainant, that accused together with some investors are in the process of incorporating a corporation, INVESTA LAND CORPORATION (ILC, in short), for the purpose of engaging in Laud Banking Business or real estate venture which is an extremely profitable business; that accused have been soliciting money or investment from the general public to make investment with ILC; that in exchange with the investment, the investor will automatically become a stockholder of ILC and that ILC will issue to the investor a shares of stock [sic] equivalent to his investment, that the shares of stock will earn interest or profit which profit shall also be converted into shares of stock of ILC; that accused solicited and induced complainant to make an investment; that because of the assurances and promises of the accused that complainant's investment will be profitable, complainant was induced to invest with ILC the aggregate amount of 565,765.00 US Dollars (28,288,250.00 in Philippine Currency) relying on the promises and assurances of accused; that accused knew fully well that their representations were false and fraudulent and were made by them with evident bad faith from the very beginning to induce complainant to give money to ILC; that once accused obtained the money from the complainant, they misappropriated the same for their own personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the complainant in the amount above-mentioned.32Rollo, pp. 127-134.
The crime is committed by a syndicate consisting of six (6) persons formed with the intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise[,] or scheme.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
33 Id. at 130-131.
34 Id. at 131.
35 Id. at 132.
36 Id.
37 Id.
38 Id. at 133.
39 Id. at 123.
40 Id. at 121-125.
41 Id. at 123-124.
42 Id. at 124.
43 Id.
44 Id. at 125.
45 Id. at 115.
46 Id. at 115-120.
47 Id. at 118.
48 Id.
49 Id.
50 Id.
51 Id.
52 Id.
53 Id.
54 Id. at 120.
55 Id. at 54.
56 Id. at 41-61.
57 Id. at 58.
58 Id.
59 Id.
60 Id.
61 Id.
62 Id. at 61.
63 Id. at 77-78.
64 Id. at 28-31.
65 Id. at 32-34.
66 Id. at 33.
67 Id.
68 Id. at 35.
69 Id. at 577-594.
70 Id. at 581-582.
71 Id. at 583-584, 588-593.
72 Id. at 584-585, 588-593.
73 Id. at 585-587.
74 Id. at 230-252.
75 Id. at 239-247.
76 Id. at 247-250.
77 Id.
78 Id. at 250.
79 Id. at 598-607.
80 Id. at 629-636; penned by Presiding Judge Rosa M. Samson.
81 Id. at 614-616.
82 Id.at 633-636.
83 Id. The dispositive portion of the RTC Order states:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryWHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Dismiss on a Demurrer to Evidence filed by accused Ramon Debuque, Margarita Debuque, and Luz Yap are hereby granted and the case against them is now ordered DISMISSED.84Rollo, at 640, 647-655.
With respect to the principal accused Atty. Ignacio Debuque who already passed away, his criminal liability is deemed extinguished, hence, the case against him is likewise ordered DISMISSED.
The case against the two other accused, Antonio Debuque and Manuel Litonjua, Jr., who are still at large, is ordered ARCHIVED.
Accordingly, the hearing set on May 28[,] 2013 is cancelled. Let a copy of this Order be furnished the above-named accused and their respective counsel, the Public Prosecutor, and the counsel for the private complainant.
SO ORDERED.
85 Temporary rollo, unpaginated.
86 Id.
87People v. Sandiganbayan, 637 Phil. 147, 152 (2010).
88 235 Phil. 465 (1987).
89 Id. at 476.
90Summerville General Merchandising & Co., Inc. v. Eugenio, 556 Phil. 121, 127 (2007).
91 776 Phil. 623 (2016).
92 Id. at 649-651.
93 Id. at 652-653.
94 Department of Justice, Department Circular No. 70, 2000 NPS Rules on Appeal, July 3, 2000.
95 Id. Sections 1 & 2.
96 806 Phil. 704 (2017).
97 Id. at 716.
98 Id. at 721.
99 Id. at 716-717.
100 See Elma v. Jacobi, 689 Phil. 307, 336 (2012).
101Aguilar v. Department of Justice, 717 Phil. 789, 799 (2013).
102 Id.
103 Supra notes 89-91.
104People v. Aquino, G.R. No. 234818, November 5, 2018.
105 Presidential Decree No. 1689, sec. 1 (1980).
106People v. Aquino, supra note 102.
107 802 Phil. 860 (2016).
108 Id. at 881-882.
109People v. Credo, G.R. No. 230778, July 22, 2019 citing Macapagal-Arroyo v. People, 790 Phil. 367, 419-420 (2016).cralawredlibrary