GR 192925; (December, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 192925 , December 09, 2016
JOSE RIZAL L. REMO, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE AGNES VST DEVANADERA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioners were directors of Batangas II Electric Cooperative, Inc. (BATELEC II). In 2004, the board entered into two contracts: a P75-million computerization deal with I-SOLV Technologies, Inc. (ITI) and a P6.1-million procurement of boom trucks from Supertrac Motors Corporation. A 2005 audit by the National Electrification Administration (NEA) found these contracts replete with irregularities, including the absence of competitive bidding, lack of prior NEA approval, ITI’s gross undercapitalization, and indications of a rigged bidding process for the trucks. Based on this audit, an administrative complaint was filed, leading to petitioners’ removal as directors by NEA.
Subsequently, the new BATELEC II board, led by respondent Ruperto Manalo, filed a criminal complaint for syndicated estafa under P.D. No. 1689 against petitioners and the contractors. The City Prosecutor found probable cause and filed two Informations. Petitioners sought a review from the Secretary of Justice, who initially reversed but later reinstated the finding of probable cause upon Manalo’s motion for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals upheld the Secretary of Justice’s resolution.
ISSUE
Whether the Secretary of Justice committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to charge petitioners with syndicated estafa under P.D. No. 1689.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court held that the Secretary of Justice did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court clarified the elements of syndicated estafa under P.D. No. 1689, which requires that the estafa be committed by a syndicate of five or more persons forming a conspiracy. Crucially, the law imposes a higher penalty when the estafa is committed by a syndicate, but it does not create a new felony independent of the crime of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, the basic elements of estafa—such as deceit and damage—must still be sufficiently alleged in the information to establish probable cause.
The Court examined the allegations and found they adequately outlined a possible conspiracy among petitioners and the contractors, resulting in BATELEC II’s financial damage through the anomalous contracts. The audit findings of irregularities, including overpricing and violations of procurement rules, provided a reasonable ground to believe a crime was committed. The determination of probable cause does not require certainty of conviction but only enough evidence to engender a well-founded belief. The Secretary of Justice, in evaluating the evidence, acted within her discretionary authority. The petition was denied for lack of merit.