GR 112985; (April, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 112985 April 21, 1999
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. MARTIN L. ROMERO and ERNESTO C. RODRIGUEZ, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Martin Romero and Ernesto Rodriguez were the General Manager and Operations Manager, respectively, of Surigao San Andres Industrial Development Corporation (SAIDECOR). The corporation solicited public investments, guaranteeing an 800% return within 15 to 21 days. On September 14, 1989, complainant Ernesto Ruiz invested P150,000.00 and received in return a postdated check for P1,200,000.00 as his promised profit. Upon presentment, the check was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. Despite demands, the accused failed to make good the check. They were charged with Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1689 (for widescale swindling), and with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The trial court acquitted them of the BP 22 charge but convicted them of estafa, sentencing each to life imprisonment and ordering them to pay Ruiz. During the appeal, accused Rodriguez died.
ISSUE
Whether the accused-appellants are guilty of estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by P.D. No. 1689.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant Martin Romero. The legal logic is anchored on the elements of estafa by postdating a check. The prosecution proved that accused, through SAIDECOR, employed deceit by soliciting investments with a promise of an exorbitant 800% return, which constituted a fraudulent “Ponzi scheme.” The issuance of the worthless check was integral to the scheme, serving as the false pretense that induced Ruiz to part with his money. The check’s dishonor and the accused’s subsequent failure to cover the amount upon notice provided prima facie evidence of deceit. The scheme, which involved soliciting funds from the general public, fell under the ambit of P.D. 1689, warranting the increased penalty of life imprisonment for this form of economic sabotage. The death of accused Rodriguez during appeal extinguished his criminal and civil liabilities ex delicto, leaving only Romero liable. The civil liability for the return of the investment with interest, being based on contract (the investment agreement), survived and was upheld against the surviving accused.