G.R. No. 202264 , October 16, 2019
Alex Sulit y Trinidad, Petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Alex Sulit, along with Edgar Santias and George Gan, was charged with nine counts of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. The charges stemmed from investment transactions with Valbury Assets Ltd., where Sulit served as Marketing Director and Santias as Senior Account Manager. The informations alleged that from August to September 2001, in Makati City, the accused conspired to defraud complainants by falsely representing that they were connected with Valbury and had authority to place money in foreign currency trading with assurances of substantial returns, thereby inducing complainants to invest sums of money. Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty; Santias remained at large.
During trial, complainants Caridad Bueno, Ma. Lita Bonsol, and Gregoria Ilot testified that they were enticed by a former co-worker, Lordelyn Dizon, to invest with Valbury. They were introduced to Santias, Gan, and petitioner, who promised safe investments with high monthly interest and the ability to withdraw anytime. Relying on these representations, the complainants invested specific amounts: Bueno invested USD 7,500 (converted from PHP), Bonsol invested PHP 510,000, and Ilot invested PHP 250,000. No profits were received; instead, complainants were told that losses occurred due to the World Trade Center bombing and were urged to invest more to recover. Complainants failed to recover their investments upon demand. Bueno and Bonsol recovered 50% of their investments after seeking help from the National Bureau of Investigation. A Securities and Exchange Commission certification confirmed Valbury was not registered to trade foreign currencies.
After the prosecution rested, petitioner filed a demurrer to evidence, which was partly granted, dismissing six complaints due to complainants’ non-appearance. The defense opted not to present evidence. The Regional Trial Court found petitioner guilty of estafa in three remaining cases, sentencing him to imprisonment and ordering restitution. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Petitioner appealed, arguing his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and that he was deprived of due process due to his former lawyer’s negligence in waiving the right to present evidence.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner’s guilt for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether petitioner was deprived of due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court PARTLY GRANTED the petition, affirming the conviction but modifying the penalty.
1. On the guilt of petitioner: The Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, ruling that all elements of estafa under Article 315(2)(a) were present: (a) False pretenses were made—petitioner and his cohorts misrepresented that Valbury was engaged in legitimate foreign currency trading and promised high returns, despite the company lacking SEC registration; (b) These false representations were made prior to or simultaneously with the fraud; (c) Complainants relied on these representations and were induced to part with their money; and (d) Complainants suffered damage as they failed to recover their investments. The Court noted petitioner’s active participation in the transactions, including reassuring complainants and persuading them to invest more, which established conspiracy. Factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, were respected due to their opportunity to assess witness credibility.
2. On due process: The Court found no deprivation of due process. Petitioner was represented by counsel during trial, and his waiver of the right to present evidence was a strategic decision. Allegations of former counsel’s negligence were insufficient to warrant a new trial, as petitioner failed to demonstrate that the outcome would likely change with new evidence.
Modification of Penalty: The Court modified the penalty imposed by the trial court. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law and considering the amounts defrauded (PHP 192,187.13 for Bueno, PHP 255,000 for Bonsol, and PHP 250,000 for Ilot), the proper penalty was imprisonment of two months and one day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one year and one day of prision correccional, as maximum. Legal interest of 6% per annum was imposed on the restitution amounts from the finality of the decision until full payment.
Dispositive Portion: Petitioner Alex Sulit y Trinidad is found GUILTY of estafa and sentenced accordingly. He is ORDERED to pay the specified amounts to the complainants with interest.