Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CATALINO CATINDIG v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR Nos. 209655-60 2015-01-14	PEOPLE v. PALMY TIBAYAN PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
On various dates, the RTC issued six (6) separate decisions convicting Tibayan of 13 counts and Puerto of 11 counts of Estafa under Item 2 (a), Paragraph 4, Article 315 of the RPC in relation to PD 1689, to wit: (a) in a Joint Decision[20] dated December 4, 2009, the RTC found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of Estafa, sentencing them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of 20 years of reclusion temporal for each count, and ordering them to pay the amounts of P1,500,000.00, to Hector H. Alvarez, and P119,405.23 and P800,000.00 to Milagros Alvarez;[21]; (b) in a Joint Decision[22] dated June 24, 2010, the RTC acquitted Puerto of all the charges, but found Tibayan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Estafa, sentencing her to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of 20 years of reclusion temporal for each count, and ordering her to pay the amounts of P1,300,000.00 and US$12,000.00 to Clarita P. Gacayan and P500,000.00 to Irma T. Ador;[23]; (c) in a Joint Decision[24] dated August 2, 2010, the accused-appellants were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Estafa, and were sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of 20 years of reclusion temporal for each count, and ordered to pay the amounts of P1,000,000.00 to Yolanda Zimmer and P556,376.00 to Nonito Garlan;[25];(d) in a Joint Decision[26] dated August 5, 2010, the RTC found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one (1) count of Estafa, sentencing them to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of 20 years of reclusion temporal, and ordering them to pay Emelyn Gomez the amount of P250,000.00;[27]; (e) in a Decision[28] dated January 21, 2011, accused-appellants were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one (1) count of Estafa each, and were sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of 20 years of reclusion temporal, and ordered to pay Judy C. Rillon the amount of P118,000.00;[29]; and (f) in a Joint Decision[30] dated August 18, 2011, accused-appellants were each convicted of four (4) counts of Estafa, and meted different penalties per count, as follows: (i) for the first count, they were sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correcional medium, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, and to pay Reynaldo A. Dacon the amount of P100,000.00; to;(ii) for the second count, they were sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, and to pay Leonida D. Jarina the amount of P200,000.00; (iii) for the third count, they were sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years of prision mayor medium, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, and to pay Cristina Dela Peña the amount of P250,000.00; and (iv) for the last count, they were sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correcional medium, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal medium, as maximum, and to pay Rodney E. Villareal the amount of P100,000.00.[31].
	GR Nos. 209655-60 2015-01-14	PEOPLE v. PALMY TIBAYAN PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In the aforesaid decisions, the RTC did not lend credence to accused-appellants' denials in light of the positive testimonies of the private complainants that they invested their money in TGICI because of the assurances from accused-appellants and the other directors/incorporators of TGICI that their investments would yield very profitable returns. In this relation, the RTC found that accused-appellants conspired with the other directors/incorporators of TGICI in misrepresenting the company as a legitimate corporation duly registered to operate as a mutual fund, to the detriment of the private complainants.[32] However, the RTC convicted accused-appellants of simple Estafa only, as the prosecution failed to allege in the informations that accused-appellants and the other directors/ incorporators formed a syndicate with the intention of defrauding the public, or it failed to adduce documentary evidence substantiating its claims that the accused-appellants committed Syndicated Estafa.[33]
	GR Nos. 209655-60 2015-01-14	PEOPLE v. PALMY TIBAYAN PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In the aforesaid decisions, the RTC did not lend credence to accused-appellants' denials in light of the positive testimonies of the private complainants that they invested their money in TGICI because of the assurances from accused-appellants and the other directors/incorporators of TGICI that their investments would yield very profitable returns. In this relation, the RTC found that accused-appellants conspired with the other directors/incorporators of TGICI in misrepresenting the company as a legitimate corporation duly registered to operate as a mutual fund, to the detriment of the private complainants.[32] However, the RTC convicted accused-appellants of simple Estafa only, as the prosecution failed to allege in the informations that accused-appellants and the other directors/ incorporators formed a syndicate with the intention of defrauding the public, or it failed to adduce documentary evidence substantiating its claims that the accused-appellants committed Syndicated Estafa.[33]