The document discusses the elements of syndicated estafa in the Philippines which are: (a) committing estafa or swindling as defined in the penal code, (b) the estafa is committed by a syndicate of five or more people, and (c) funds contributed by stockholders, members of rural banks, cooperatives, or farmers' associations are misappropriated. However, in this case the Supreme Court ruled the accused should only be charged with simple estafa and not syndicated estafa because they were outsiders who defrauded a bank, not managers who misappropriated public funds from an association.
The document discusses the elements of syndicated estafa in the Philippines which are: (a) committing estafa or swindling as defined in the penal code, (b) the estafa is committed by a syndicate of five or more people, and (c) funds contributed by stockholders, members of rural banks, cooperatives, or farmers' associations are misappropriated. However, in this case the Supreme Court ruled the accused should only be charged with simple estafa and not syndicated estafa because they were outsiders who defrauded a bank, not managers who misappropriated public funds from an association.
The document discusses the elements of syndicated estafa in the Philippines which are: (a) committing estafa or swindling as defined in the penal code, (b) the estafa is committed by a syndicate of five or more people, and (c) funds contributed by stockholders, members of rural banks, cooperatives, or farmers' associations are misappropriated. However, in this case the Supreme Court ruled the accused should only be charged with simple estafa and not syndicated estafa because they were outsiders who defrauded a bank, not managers who misappropriated public funds from an association.
The elements of syndicated estafa are: (a) estafa or other forms
of swindling as defined in Article 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code is committed; (b) the estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate of five or more persons; and (c) defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperatives, “samahang nayon(s),� or farmers’ associations or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public. In other words, only those who formed and manage associations that receive contributions from the general public who misappropriated the contributions can commit syndicated estafa. Gilbert Guy, et al, however, are not in any way related either by employment or ownership to Asia United Bank (AUB). They are outsiders who, by their cunning moves were able to defraud an association, which is the AUB. They had not been managers or owners of AUB who used the bank to defraud the public depositors. The present petition involves an estafa case filed by a commercialbank as the offended party against the accused who, as clients, defrauded the bank. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the accused should only be charged for simple estafa. Rafael H. Galvez and Katherine L. Guy v. Asia United Bank/Asia United Bank v. Gilbert, et al./Gilbert Guy, et al v. Asia Untied Bank, G.R. Nos. 187919/G.R. No. 187979/G.R. No. 188030, February 20, 2013.