DELA CRUZ, Airiz M.

2016-166623

PDIC vs. GIDWANI

G.R. No. 234616, June 20, 2018

Facts:

Several rural banks owned and controlled by the Legacy Group of Companies were
ordered closed and thereafter placed under the receivership of PDIC.

Respondent Manu, together with his wife and eighty-six (86) other individuals,
represented themselves to be owners of 471 deposit accounts with the Legacy Banks
and filed claims with PDIC. The claims were processed and granted, resulting in the
issuance 683 checks payable to the Payee's Account Only.

Despite explicit instructions, the individuals credited the face value of all the checks to a
single account with RCBC account owned by Manu.

PDIC conducted investigation and discovered that the spouses Gidwani and the 86
individuals maintained a total of 471 deposit accounts with the different Legacy Banks,
and some were in the names of helpers and rank-and-file employees of the Gidwani
spouses. PDIC contented that the Gidwani spouses and the 86 individuals, with the
indispensable cooperation of RCBC, deceived PDIC into issuing checks.

PDIC lodged a criminal complaint for estafa through falsification and for money
laundering against the Gidwani spouses and the 86 other individuals.

The Gidwani spouses claimed that there was no falsification committed by them since
what was stated about the 86 individuals being the owners of their respective accounts
was true. Manu merely had a fund management agreement with the depositors who
got into investing with the Legacy Banks because of him. The crossed-checks issued by
PDIC ended up in his RCBC account because the other respondents did not have other
accounts of their own.

The DOJ Task Force dismissed the complaint.

Issue:

Whether or not there is probable cause in filing a criminal case for estafa through
falsification under Art. 315(2)(a) in relation to Art. 172(1) 31 and 171(4)32 of the RPC,
and for money laundering.

Ruling:

It must be recalled that the criminal case is still in the stage of preliminary investigation.
Under Rule 112, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, a preliminary investigation is "an
DELA CRUZ, Airiz M.
2016-166623

inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a

well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably
guilty thereof, and should be held for trial." The investigation is advisedly called
preliminary, because it is yet to be followed by the trial proper in a court of law. The
occasion is not for the full and exhaustive display of the parties since the function of the
investigating prosecutor is not to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused.

In this case, the PDIC reportedly discovered that there was only one beneficial owner of
the 471 bank accounts with the Legacy Banks. PDIC reportedly discovered that 142 of
these 471 accounts were in the names of helpers and rank-and-file employees of the
Gidwani spouses who do not have the financial capacity to deposit the amounts
recorded under their names. Moreover, the helpers and rank-and-file employees who
reside and Bacolod City maintained bank accounts in Legacy Banks located in different
parts of the country. This act is highly irregular if not potentially criminal.

Under PDIC Charter all deposits in a bank maintained in the same right and capacity for
a depositor's benefit, either in his name or in the name of others, shall be added
together for the purpose of determining the insured deposit amount due to a bona fide
depositor, which amount should not exceed the maximum deposit insurance coverage
(MDIC) of P250,000.00.

Whether or not there indeed existed an agreement between respondent Manu and the
individual depositors is a matter best left ventilated during trial proper, where evidence
can be presented and appreciated fully. Suffice it to state for now that the Court herein
finds probable cause to charge respondent for estafa and money laundering.
DELA CRUZ, Airiz M.
2016-166623

PEOPLE vs. DELOS REYES

G.R. No. 198795, June 7, 2017

Facts:

Accused allegedly offered jobs abroad to Suratos, Guillarte, Alayon, Bagay, Jr., and
Gloria, who in turn gave the accused money for the processing of their documents. The
promise of deployment, however, never materialized. Victims demand for the return of
their money from the accused went unheeded.

For her part, the accused admitted that she was the Overseas Marketing Director of All
Care Travel & Consultancy. She claimed that she did not know Suratos, Guillarte,
Alayon, Bagay, Jr., and Gloria. Although she knew Duldulao, she did not promise him
any job. She likewise claimed that she neither signed nor issued any receipt using the
name "Manzie delos Reyes" in favor of the complainants. She further claimed that she
was not engaged in any recruitment and placement activities. During the pre-trial, she
admitted that she had no license to recruit workers for overseas employment.

The RTC convicted the accused of the crime of large scale illegal recruitment and five
counts of estafa.

The Issue

Whether or not accused is guilty for violation of RA10022

Ruling:

Yes. Accused is guilty for violation of RA10022.

The offense of illegal recruitment in large scale has the following elements: (1) the
person charged undertook any recruitment activity as defined under Section 6 of RA
8042; (2) accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the
recruitment of workers; and, (3) accused committed the same against three or more
persons individually or as a group.

These elements are obtaining in this case.

First,  the RTC found accused to have undertaken recruitment activity when she
promised the private complainants overseas employment for a fee. 1avvphi1 

Second,  the Certification issued by the POEA unmistakably reveals that the accused-
appellant neither had a license nor authority to recruit workers for overseas
employment.
DELA CRUZ, Airiz M.
2016-166623

Third,  it was established that there were five complainants, i.e., Suratos, Guillarte,
Alayon, Bagay, Jr., and Duldulao.

Indeed, the existence of the offense of illegal recruitment in large scale was duly
proved by the prosecution.

The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence
or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or
prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.

In this case, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused deceived
private complainants into believing that she had the authority and capability to send
them abroad for employment, despite her not being licensed by the POEA to recruit
workers for overseas employment. Because of the assurances given by accused-
appellant, the private complainants parted with their hard-earned money for the
payment of the agreed placement fee, for which accused-appellant issued petty cash
vouchers and used fictitious names evidencing her receipt of the payments. Clearly,
these acts of accused-appellant constitute estafa.
DELA CRUZ, Airiz M.
2016-166623

DAVA vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 73905, September 30, 1991

Facts:

Petitioner Michael T. Dava, then holder of non-professional driver's license bumped

pedestrians causing death and physical injuries to the victims. Dava’s driver's license
was confiscated and presented as prosecution evidence.

Antonio Roxas saw Dava driving a car. Knowing that Dava's driver's license was
confiscated and that no traffic violation receipt had been issued to Dava, Roxas sought
the help in apprehending Dava for driving without a license.

The police confronted Dava and asked for his license. They were shown non-
professional driver's license no. 2706887 with official receipt issued in the name of
Michael T. Dava. When asked about the source of his license, Dava informed them that
his officemate had secured it for him.

The police then submitted a report stating that Dava had violated Section 31 of RA
4136 for false representation in the application of a driver's license intended to be used
as a legal license because the signatures and the dates of birth indicated in the two
licenses did not tally.

The defense presented Felizardo Manalili as witness. Manalili testified that Dava
requested him to secure a driver's license for him because he had none.

The lower court rendered a decision finding that the license in question was "fake or
spurious"; that it was not duly issued by any proper government licensing agency; and
that the accused directly participated in the commission of the falsification or caused
said falsification.

Issue:

Whether or not accused is guilty for falsification of driver’s license

Ruling:

The elements of the crime of using a falsified document in transaction are following: (a)
the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person; (b) the false
document is embraced in Article 171 or in any of subdivisions Nos. 1 and 2 of Article
172; (c he used such document, and (d) the use of the false document caused damage
to another or at last it was used with intent to cause such damage. Except for last, all
of these elements have been proven beyond reason doubt in this case.
DELA CRUZ, Airiz M.
2016-166623

Petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the spurious character of his second driver's license
No. 2706887. Having already obtained a driver's license, he knew that it was not legally
possible for him to secure another one. Otherwise, there would have been no need for
him to misrepresent to his friend Manalili that he was not then a holder of a driver's
license. But even with this misrepresentation, petitioner cannot even begin to believe
that Manalili would be able to secure a driver's license through legal means in about an
hour's time. It is the petitioner who induced and left Manalili with no choice but to seek
the aid of fixers, the fact that it was Manalili and not petitioner who dealt directly with
said fixers cannot exculpate petitioner from the charge of falsification. He is, beyond
reasonable doubt, a principal by inducement in the commission of said crime.

The driver's license being a public document, proof of the fourth element of damage
caused to another person or at least an intent to cause such damage has become
immaterial. In falsification of public or official documents, the principal thing being
punished is the violation of the public faith and the destruction of the truth proclaimed
therein.