G.R. No. 191087, June 29, 2016
DELIA L. BELITA, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. ANTONIO S. SY, ET AL., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, led by Delia Belita, were incorporators and directors of IBL Realty Development Corporation. Multiple respondents filed complaints for syndicated estafa. Antonio Sy alleged he paid for parcels of land based on Delia’s representation that she was authorized by the owner, Felicitas Javier, only to discover the true owners were different persons and titles were never delivered. Sy, with Roberto Caronan and Wilfredo Ciriaco, also paid for market stall rights which Delia claimed to have authority to sell, but the stalls were already occupied by others. Norma Wong bought land from Delia, who claimed authorization from Teresita Echavaria, but the property was later found to have been sold on foreclosure. Sonia Benero, Maria Pineda, and Cristina Caramol, market vendors, purchased properties in Subic through Ardeliza Lim, an agent of Delia, but a notice of levy was later annotated on the tax declarations, revealing the properties were also claimed by Sy.
Petitioners denied criminal liability. Delia claimed the transactions with Sy were legitimate and his actions were barred by prescription and motivated by a desire to avoid broker’s commissions. She asserted other sales involved different principals. Other petitioners, like Salvador Ilarde Jr., claimed their roles were limited to accounting and receipt of payments, while Perla Fernandez denied any association with IBL.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Secretary of Justice’s resolution directing the filing of Informations for Syndicated Estafa against petitioners.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The ruling hinged on the presence of probable cause for Syndicated Estafa under Presidential Decree No. 1689, which requires the crime be committed by a syndicate of five or more persons. The Court clarified that for preliminary investigation purposes, probable cause merely requires a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty. The detailed allegations and evidence presented by the complainants, including cash vouchers and documents showing payments to multiple petitioners acting in concert under IBL, sufficed to establish this reasonable belief.
The Court rejected the defense of prescription, noting that the determination of the prescriptive period for estafa depends on the actual date of discovery of the fraud, a factual matter best resolved during trial. On the syndicate element, the Court cited People v. Temporada, which held that the law does not require all five members to be principals; accomplices and accessories can be counted. The allegations implicated Delia as the principal, with other petitioners (like family members and employees) acting as accomplices by receiving payments, accounting for funds, or facilitating the schemes, collectively forming a syndicate. Furthermore, IBL was deemed a corporation operating on funds solicited from the public, falling within the scope of PD 1689. Thus, no grave abuse of discretion attended the finding of probable cause to prosecute for syndicated estafa.