G.R. No. 205698 , July 31, 2018
Case Parties: Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF), et al. vs. Delfin S. Lee, et al.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions stem from criminal complaints for syndicated estafa filed by HDMF (Pag-IBIG) against respondents Delfin Lee, Dexter Lee, Christina Sagun, Cristina Salagan, and Atty. Alex Alvarez. The complaints alleged that Delfin Lee, as President of Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings Corporation (GA), fraudulently obtained billions in housing loan funds from HDMF by submitting documents for fictitious buyers and employing a “special buyers” scheme. The Department of Justice (DOJ) found probable cause, and an Information was filed. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pampanga judicially affirmed this finding and issued warrants of arrest. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently set aside these findings in separate rulings, ordering the dismissal of the cases and the quashal of the warrants against the individual respondents, leading to the elevation of the petitions to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether probable cause exists to indict the respondents for the crime of syndicated estafa under Presidential Decree No. 1689, or for any other crime.

RULING

Justice Tijam, in a Separate Opinion, concurred with the ponencia‘s result but on a distinct legal basis. He agreed that the CA rulings should be reversed and the warrants of arrest upheld, but found that the respondents should be charged with simple estafa, not syndicated estafa. The legal logic hinges on the interpretation of P.D. No. 1689, which defines syndicated estafa as requiring a syndicate of five or more persons formed with the intent to carry out the unlawful scheme. Crucially, the decree was intended to apply to schemes where the public is defrauded by a syndicate whose members are not principals or employees of the entity being defrauded. Here, Atty. Alvarez was an employee of HDMF, the victim institution. His inclusion to reach the five-person threshold is improper for charging syndicated estafa under the decree, as its purpose is to address fraud perpetrated by external syndicates, not those involving an insider from the defrauded entity. Since four of the five accused are not HDMF owners or employees, the case falls outside P.D. No. 1689’s scope. However, the facts sufficiently allege the elements of simple estafa under the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, the DOJ should amend the Information to charge simple estafa, and the arrest warrants remain valid. Justice Tijam also voted to grant related civil petitions, including remanding a civil case for specific performance to the RTC of Makati for further proceedings, finding that the issuance of a summary judgment constituted grave abuse of discretion.