GR 115054; (September, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 115054-66; September 12, 2000
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Vicente Menil, Jr., accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Vicente Menil, Jr., together with his wife, operated a business under the name ABM Appliance and Upholstery, later incorporated as ABM Development Center, Inc. Beginning July 15, 1989, they, through sales agents, solicited investments from the public with a promise of a ten-fold return after fifteen calendar days (e.g., P100 becomes P1,000). The scheme initially paid returns, attracting more investors and larger sums. In August 1989, they reduced the promised return to a 1:7 ratio after fifteen working days. Investments subsequently swelled to millions, but payments were delayed and eventually ceased entirely by September 19, 1989. The Menils then disappeared, issuing only radio and TV assurances without actual payment, before being arrested in Davao City.
ISSUE
Whether accused-appellant Vicente Menil, Jr. is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of large scale swindling and thirteen counts of estafa.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution successfully established all elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code and large scale swindling under Presidential Decree No. 1689. The evidence, including testimonies of numerous investors and sales executives, proved that accused-appellant, through false pretenses and fraudulent acts, induced the public to invest based on the impossible promise of exorbitant, quick returns. His subsequent incorporation of the business did not legitimize the fraudulent scheme but was a mere device to cloak it with an appearance of legality. The Court found no merit in his defense that he was merely an employee; the evidence showed he was a principal, actively directing operations, setting policies, and receiving the investments. The failure to deliver the promised returns and his flight constituted clear evidence of fraud and deceit. The penalties imposed by the trial court were affirmed as being in accordance with law.