Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 218 views

    No. 4 Catiis V CA

    Uploaded by

    Jamilah Dagandan
    The petitioner filed an estafa complaint against four private respondents. The trial court judge ruled the offense was bailable and did not meet the threshold to be considered a syndicated estafa. The Supreme Court upheld this decision and found no errors in the trial court's rulings. Specifically, the Court found: (1) only four individuals were charged so it did not qualify as a syndicated estafa; (2) the crime was bailable under the Constitution since it was not punishable by reclusion perpetua; and (3) there was no violation in approving bail from another branch when the original judge was not available. The petition for certiorari was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    No. 4 Catiis V CA

    Uploaded by

    Jamilah Dagandan
    218 views2 pages
    The petitioner filed an estafa complaint against four private respondents. The trial court judge ruled the offense was bailable and did not meet the threshold to be considered a syndicated estafa. The Supreme Court upheld this decision and found no errors in the trial court's rulings. Specifically, the Court found: (1) only four individuals were charged so it did not qualify as a syndicated estafa; (2) the crime was bailable under the Constitution since it was not punishable by reclusion perpetua; and (3) there was no violation in approving bail from another branch when the original judge was not available. The petition for certiorari was denied.

    Original Title

    No. 4 Catiis v CA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner filed an estafa complaint against four private respondents. The trial court judge ruled the offense was bailable and did not meet the threshold to be considered a syndicated estafa. The Supreme Court upheld this decision and found no errors in the trial court's rulings. Specifically, the Court found: (1) only four individuals were charged so it did not qualify as a syndicated estafa; (2) the crime was bailable under the Constitution since it was not punishable by reclusion perpetua; and (3) there was no violation in approving bail from another branch when the original judge was not available. The petition for certiorari was denied.

    Copyright:

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

    No. 4 Catiis V CA

    Uploaded by

    Jamilah Dagandan
    The petitioner filed an estafa complaint against four private respondents. The trial court judge ruled the offense was bailable and did not meet the threshold to be considered a syndicated estafa. The Supreme Court upheld this decision and found no errors in the trial court's rulings. Specifically, the Court found: (1) only four individuals were charged so it did not qualify as a syndicated estafa; (2) the crime was bailable under the Constitution since it was not punishable by reclusion perpetua; and (3) there was no violation in approving bail from another branch when the original judge was not available. The petition for certiorari was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Facts:

     Petitioner Regino Sy Catiis filed a complaint against private respondents Reynaldo A. Patacsil,
    Enrico D. Lopez, Luzviminda A. Portuguez, Margielyn Tafalla before the office of the Prosecutor of
    Quezon City for violation of Art 315 par 2 (a) of The Revised Penal Code in relation to PD No.1689
    (The crime of Estafa).
     Petitioner alleged that by falsely or fraudulently pretending or representing, in a transaction or
    series of transactions, which they made with the Complainant and the public in general to the effect
    that they were in a legitimate business of foreign exchange trading successively or simultaneously
    operating under the following name and style of Asia Profits Philippines, Incorporation, Winggold
    Management Philippines Incorporated, Belkin Management Consultancy, Inc. and/or Belkin Profits
    Limited or other unregistered foreign entities induced and succeeded in inducing complainant and
    several other persons to give and deliver and in fact, the latter and said persons gave and delivered
    to said accused the amount of at least US$ 123,461.14
     Private respondents entered pleas of not guilty. Judge Lucas P. Bersamin issued an Order that the
    offense charged is bailable.

    Provision(s) of the law involved:


     PD No. 1689, Sec 7 Rule 114

    Question of the law:


     Whether or not Justice Lucas Bersamin of Branch 96 of the RTC of Quezon City erred in ruling five
    (5) persons must be charged under Sec 1 PD 1689.
     Whether or not the questioned decision sanctioning the grant of bail violated Sec 7 Rule 114 of the
    Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
     Whether or not the questioned decision sustaining the order of release by Honorable Executive
    Judge Monina A. Zenarosa violated Sec 17 Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

    Answered by Judge(s):
     No. He correctly determined that the info did not charge a syndicated estafa since number of
    persons who are actually charged are only four persons.
    Sec 1 PD 1689 specifically provides:
    “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.”

     Yes. Sec 13 Art III of the Constitution provides:


    “All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence
    of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
    recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the
    privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.”

    Sec 7 of Rule 114 Capital offense of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
    imprisonment, not bailable. — No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable
    by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong,
    regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. (7a)

    The crime is not punishable by reclusion perpetua instead it is reclusion temporal.

     No. Section 17, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that bail in the
    amount fixed may 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. It’s not specifically stated in the supplemental petition that the exact time Justice Zenarosa
    approved the bail, Justice Bersamin was available.

     Thus, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED.

    Rule of Construction:
     Verba Legis – It bears stressing that the law must be considered as a whole, just as it is necessary
    to consider a sentence in its entirety in order to grasp its true meaning.

    You might also like