GR 199294; (July, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 199294 ; July 31, 2013
RALPH LITO W. LOPEZ, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Ralph Lito W. Lopez, as President and CEO of Primelink Properties and Development Corporation, entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Pamana Island Resort Hotel and Marina Club, Inc. to develop an exclusive residential resort. Under this agreement, Primelink undertook to sell membership shares for the project. Private complainant Alfredo Sy, through Primelink’s sales officer Joy Ragonjan, purchased a membership share for ₱835,999.94, which he fully paid by April 1998. The project, however, never materialized, and Sy’s demands for a refund were unheeded.
Sy discovered that Primelink had no license from the Securities and Exchange Commission to sell securities. He filed a criminal complaint for estafa. The prosecution established that Ragonjan assured Sy of Primelink’s license to sell the shares. The defense, through petitioner and Primelink’s comptroller, argued that selling unregistered shares was an “industry practice” sanctioned by the joint venture agreement and that the project’s failure was due to Pamana’s breach, including mortgaging the property. The trial court convicted petitioner, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner’s conviction for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding all elements of estafa by means of deceit present. Petitioner, as Primelink’s President and CEO, was criminally liable for the fraudulent acts of his sales agent, Ragonjan, performed within the scope of her authority. The false representation was material: Ragonjan assured Sy that Primelink was licensed to sell the shares, a fact deliberately concealed from him. Sy relied on this misrepresentation, parting with his money to his damage.
The defense of “industry practice” is invalid, as it cannot legalize an act expressly prohibited by law, specifically the requirement for an SEC license to sell securities. Petitioner’s knowledge and authorization of the pre-selling scheme, as confirmed by his own witness, established his direct participation and responsibility. His claim that the project’s failure was due to Pamana’s breach is irrelevant to the criminal charge of deceit committed at the time of the sale. The failure to return the money despite demand further confirms the fraudulent intent. The petition, raising factual issues, was dismissible as only questions of law are reviewable under Rule 45, the lower courts’ factual findings being final and binding.