meralco vs atilano ft

8/20/2019 Meralco vs Atilano Ft

1/18

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme CourtManila

SECOND DIVISION

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY,

represented b MANOLO C!

"ERNANDO,

Petitioner,

- versus -

VICENTE ATILANO, NA#AAR

L$IS, %OCELYN DELA DIN&CO,

S'ARON SEE VICENTE, and %O'N

DOES,

Respondents.

&!R! No! ())*+

Present:

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

BRION,PERE,

!ERENO, and

RE"E!, JJ.

Pro#ul$ated:

%une &', &()&

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

-RION, J !.

*e resolve the petition for revie+ on certiorari) filed b petitioner /anila

Electric Co#pan 0 MERALCO1 challen$in$ the decision& and the resolution2 of

the Court of Appeals 0CA1 in CA-3.R. !P No. 45&54.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn1


2/18

T/e "a0ts

Petitioner /ERA6CO is a do#estic corporation doin$ business as an electric

utilit, and represented herein b its !enior /ana$er and 7ead of 8reasur

Operations 3roup, /anolo C. 9ernando. Respondents are, at the ti#e #aterial to

this case, officers of Corporate Invest#ents Philippines, Inc. 0CIPI 1 a dul licensed

invest#ent house en$a$ed in securities broera$e, dealership and under+ritin$

services: ;icente Atilano 0President1< Na=aar 6uis 0;ice-President and 3eneral

Counsel1< %oceln dela >in$co 09irst ;ice-President, 9unds /ana$e#ent 3roup1<

!haron !ee ;icente 0Assistant /ana$er, 9unds /ana$e#ent 3roup1< and several

%ohn >oes +ho are unidentified e#ploees and officers of CIPI.

On April )?, &((), /ERA6CO filed a co#plaint for estafa, under Article 2)@,

para$raphs )0a1, )0b1 and &0a1 of the Revised Penal Code, a$ainst the respondents.

/ERA6CO alle$ed that in )2, /ERA6CO started investin$ in co##ercial

papers 0CPs1 throu$h CIPI. As of /a &(((, /ERA6COs invest#ent +ith CIPI

alread a#ounted to P'@,(((,(((.((. At various points in ti#e, /ERA6CO

delivered funds to the respondents for invest#ent in CPs and $overn#ent securities

0GS 1. !o#eti#e in /a &(((, respondent Atilano, +ho +as at that ti#e the

President of CIPI, conveed to /anuel 6ope=, /ERA6COs President, that CIPI

+as facin$ liuidit proble#s. 6ope= a$reed to etend help to CIPI b placin$

invest#ents throu$h CIPI, on the condition that CIPI +ould secure these

invest#ents +ith 3! and CPs issued b the 6ope= 3roup of Co#panies 0 Lopez

Group1. Pursuant to this a$ree#ent, 9ernando, +ho +as at that ti#e the 7ead of

/ERA6COs 8reasur Operations 3roup, and respondent ;icente, +ho +as the

Assistant /ana$er of CIPIs 9unds /ana$e#ent 3roup, alle$edl entered into the

follo+in$ transactions:


3/18

DateAmount

In1estedTerm Se0urities

/a 2(, &((( P&(,(((,(((.(( 2( das

3! and CPs of

6ope= 3roup

/a 2), &((( P5@,(((,(((.(( 2( dasCPs of Roc+ell

and Benpres

Corporation

/ERA6CO further alle$ed that it infor#ed CIPI of its reuire#ent to have

the above-listed securities delivered to it +ithin t+ent-four 0&51 hours after the

transaction, +hich CIPI failed to deliver despite repeated de#ands. Contrar to its

specific instructions, /ERA6CO alle$ed that CIPI diverted /ERA6COs funds b

placin$ the invest#ents in CIPIs o+n pro#issor notes 0 PNs1 and in CPs of

co#panies that are not #e#bers of the 6ope= 3roup such as the invest#ent of

/ERA6COs funds a#ountin$ to P)(,(((,(((.(( in Pilipino 8elephone

Corporation CPs.

On %une 4, &(((, follo+in$ CIPIs alle$ed failure to deliver the subDect

securities +ithin the period a$reed upon, 9ernando instructed /anolo Carpio and

another staff of /ERA6COs 8reasur Operations 3roup to proceed to CIPIs office

and de#and the proper docu#entation of the subDect transactions. 9ernando

follo+ed his staff and #et +ith respondent 6uis +ho +as at that ti#e the ;ice-

President and 3eneral Counsel of CIPI. Accordin$ to 9ernando, respondent Atilano

called hi# durin$ the #eetin$ to reiterate CIPIs liuidit proble#s, and to assure

hi# that it +as onl te#porar. 7e said that respondent Atilano pro#ised to correct

the irre$ularities co##itted b CIPI b #ain$ chan$es in /ERA6COs

invest#ent portfolio. /ERA6CO said that the proposed chan$es in its invest#ent


4/18

portfolio, as pro#ised b respondent Atilano, are reflected in the /inutes of the

%une 4, &((( /eetin$, as follo+s:

). 9or its invest#ents, /ERA6CO shall accept onl 3overn#ent !ecurities03!1 and Co##ercial Papers 0CPs1 of an 6ope= 3roup co#pan as securit.

&. As an interi# arran$e#ent, /ERA6CO +ill accept CIPIs Pro#issor Notes

detailed as follo+s for invest#ents that are presentl +ithout securit:

Pro#issor Note No. )(()( in the a#ount of Pesos )4,(((,((( interest

Pro#issor Note No. )(()) in the a#ount of Pesos 5@,(((,((( interest

2. 8hat this interi# arran$e#ent shall be re$ulari=ed b replacin$ the

afore#entioned Pro#issor Notes detailed in Ite# F& above +ith an securit

stated in ite# nu#ber 0)1 above.

5. 8hat Confir#ation of !ale No. &)5@ covered b securities: PI68E6

CO//ERCIA6 PAPER +ith a price of Pesos )(,(((,(((.(( shall lie+ise be replaced +ith securities acceptable to /ERA6CO as #entioned in ite#

nu#ber 0)1 above.

@. 8hat CIPI shall effect the chan$es stated in ite# nu#bers 021 and 051 abovenot later than )&:(( NN of %une &(((.5

8he /inutes +ere si$ned b respondent 6uis and the indicated that the

#eetin$ +as attended b 9ernando, 9eli C. de 3u=#an, /anolo >. Carpio and

/alou /. /anlu$on, on /ERA6COs part, and b respondents 6uis and >ela

>in$co on CIPIs part. 7o+ever, not+ithstandin$ the a$reed deadline of %une ,

&(((, CIPI alle$edl failed to fulfill its undertain$.

8hus, /ERA6CO ar$ued that the respondents should be held liable

for estafa under Article 2)@, para$raphs )0a1, )0b1 and &0a1 of the Revised Penal

Code for falsel pretendin$ that the possess po+er, influence and ualifications to

bu CPs of the 6ope= 3roup andGor 3! as a$reed upon. /ERA6CO averred that it

entrusted the subDect invest#ents to CIPI because of CIPIs co##it#ent to co#pl

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn4


5/18

+ith the condition that the invest#ents +ould be secured b 3! andGor CPs issued

b a 6ope= 3roup co#pan. /ERA6CO #aintained that b substitutin$ the

reuired securities +ith PNs of CIPI and CPs of non-6ope= 3roup co#panies, the

respondents are $uilt of convertin$ and #isappropriatin$ the subDect funds to the

preDudice of /ERA6CO.

In a resolution dated 9ebruar &(, &((&, Prosecutor >ennis R. Pastrana dis#issed

/ERA6COs co#plaint for insufficienc of evidence. Accordin$ to Prosecutor

Pastrana, the evidence presented b /ERA6CO failed to establish that the

respondents co##itted an act that +ould constitute estafa under Article 2)@,

para$raphs )0a1, )0b1 and &0a1 of the Revised Penal Code.

Prosecutor Pastrana said that there is no clear proof that the respondents

#isappropriated or converted /ERA6COs funds the core ele#ent in the offense

of estafa. 7e also found that /ERA6CO failed to prove the indispensable ele#ent

of deceit as the evidence sho+ed that respondent Atilano revealed CIPIs liuidit

proble#s to /ERA6CO even before the latter placed its invest#ent throu$h CIPI.

Prosecutor Pastrana noted that considerin$ the a#ount of #one that

/ERA6CO invested, there +as no docu#entar evidence to sho+ an specific

instruction for CIPI to invest the funds onl in 3! or CPs of the 6ope= 3roup.

/ERA6CO #erel relied on the /inutes of the %une 4, &((( /eetin$ to prove

that /ERA6CO indeed #ade such an instruction.

8hus, Prosecutor Pastrana concluded that the transaction bet+een

/ERA6CO and CIPI +as a #one #aret transaction partain$ of a loan

transaction +hose nonpa#ent does not $ive rise to an cri#inal liabilit


6/18

for estafa throu$h #isappropriation or conversion. Prosecutor Pastrana ruled that

in a #one #aret place#ent, the re#ed of an unpaid investor 0/ERA6CO1 is to

institute a civil action for recover a$ainst the #iddle#an or dealer 0CIPI1 and not

a cri#inal action, such as the present recourse.

/ERA6CO #oved to reconsider Prosecutor Pastranas resolution but the

latter denied the #otion in a resolution dated /a 4, &((&. On %une 2, &((&,

/ERA6CO filed a petition for revie+ before the >epart#ent of %ustice 0 DOJ 1.

On >ece#ber )', &((&, then >O% !ecretar /a. /erceditas N. 3utierre=

dis#issed the petition in accordance +ith !ection )&0c1, in relation to !ection ', of

>epart#ent Circular No. '(.@ 8he !ecretar of %ustice ruled that after carefull

ea#inin$ the petition and its attach#ents, she found no error on the part of the

handlin$ prosecutor that +ould +arrant a reversal of the challen$ed resolution. 8he

>O% resolution further ruled that the challen$ed resolution +as in accord +ith the

evidence and the la+ on the #atter.

8he >O% resolution also noted /ERA6COs failure to sub#it a le$ible true

cop of the confir#ation of sale dated /a 2(, &((( +hich +as attached as Anne

& of respondent ;icentes counter-affidavit, in violation of !ection @? of

>epart#ent Circular No. '(.

/ERA6CO filed a #otion for reconsideration of said resolution but the

sa#e +as denied in a resolution dated /arch &?, &((5.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn6


7/18

8hereupon, on /a 2), &((5, /ERA6CO filed a petition for certiorari +ith

the CA under Rule ?@ of the Rules of Court to uestion the >ece#ber )', &((& and

/arch &?, &((5 resolutions of the >O%.

In its decision dated !epte#ber &, &((5, the CA dis#issed /ERA6COs

petition and affir#ed the resolutions of the !ecretar of %ustice. It noted that the

>O% /inute Resolution +as not invalidated b the fact that it contained no further

discussion of the factual and le$al issues because the revie+in$ authorit epressed

full concurrence +ith the findin$s and conclusions #ade b the prosecutor.

8he CA further ruled that the relationship bet+een /ERA6CO and CIPI is

that of a creditor and debtor and, therefore, the re#ed available to /ERA6CO is

to file a civil case for recover and not a cri#inal case for estafa, citin$ Sesbreno .

CA.'

*hen the CA denied /ERA6COs #otion for reconsideration, the latter

filed the instant petition.

T/e Petition

/ERA6CO ar$ues that 0)1 the >O% Resolution violated the reuire#ents laid

do+n under !ection )5, Article ;III of the Constitution, !ection )5, Chapter III,

Boo ;II of the Ad#inistrative Code of )4' and the Durisprudential

pronounce#ents of this Court on the #atter< 0&1 the said resolution violated the

Durisprudential stricture a$ainst applin$ technicalities to frustrate the ends of

Dustice +hen it dis#issed /ERA6COs petition for failin$ to attach an anne of an



8/18

anne< and 021 the CA erred in affir#in$ the resolution of the handlin$ prosecutor

dis#issin$ the co#plaint for estafa a$ainst respondents herein.


9/18

T/e Issues

8he issues for this Courts deter#ination are: first , +hether the >O% Resolution

dated >ece#ber )', &((& co#plied +ith the constitutional reuire#ent laid do+n

in !ection )5, Article ;III of the )4' Constitution4 and the reuire#ent in

!ection )5, Chapter III, Boo ;II of the Ad#inistrative Code of )4'<

and second , +hether or not this Court can disturb the deter#ination of probable

cause #ade b the public prosecutor in the case.

Our Rulin2

*e find the petition un#eritorious.

A. The December 17, 2002 DOJ

resolution complied with the

requirement of the Constitution nd

the Administrti!e Code of 1"#7

8he >ece#ber )', &((& >O% resolution +as issued in accordance +ith !ection

)&0c1, in relation to !ection ', of >epart#ent Circular No. '(, dated %ul 2, &(((,

+hich authori=es the !ecretar of %ustice to dis#iss a petition outri$ht if he finds it

to be patentl +ithout #erit or #anifestl intended for dela, or +hen the issues

raised therein are too insubstantial to reuire consideration.

In dis#issin$ /ERA6COs petition for revie+ of the resolution of the Office

of the Cit Prosecutor of Pasi$ Cit, the !ecretar of %ustice ruled that after

carefull ea#inin$ the petition and its attach#ents, no error on the part of the

handlin$ prosecutor +as found to have been co##itted +hich +ould +arrant a



10/18

reversal of the challen$ed resolution. 8hus, the >ece#ber )', &((& >O% resolution

concluded that the challen$ed resolution +as in accord +ith the evidence and the

la+ on the #atter.

/ERA6CO considers the >ece#ber )', &((& >O% resolution invalid

because of the absence of an state#ent of facts and la+ upon +hich it is based, as

reuired under !ection )5, Article ;III of the Constitution and !ection )5, Chapter

III, Boo ;II of the Ad#inistrative Code of )4'. /ERA6CO clai#s that the

reuire#ent to state the facts and the la+ in a decision is a #andator reuire#ent

and the >O% is not ee#pt fro# co#plin$ +ith the sa#e.

In ar$uin$ as it did, /ERA6CO failed to note that !ection )5, Article ;III

of the Constitution refers to courts, thereb ecludin$ the >O% !ecretar and

prosecutors +ho are not #e#bers of the %udiciar. In O!c"i#ue$%on!oc . &an

&ion# %io,)( +e ruled that Section ', Artic(e )III of t"e Constitution !oes not * * *

e*ten! to reso(utions issue! b+ t"e DOJ Secretar+. In eplainin$ the inapplicabilit

of !ection 5, Article ;III of the Constitution to >O% resolutions, the Court said that

the >O% is not a uasi-Dudicial bod and the action of the !ecretar of %ustice

in revie+in$ a prosecutors order or resolution via appeal or petition for revie+

cannot be considered a uasi-Dudicial proceedin$.

8his is reiterated in our rulin$ in Spouses %a(an#auan . Court of Appea(s,

Specia( Nineteent" Diision, Cebu Cit+,)) +here +e pointed out that a preli#inar

investi$ation is not a uasi-Dudicial proceedin$, and the >O% is not a uasi-Dudicial

a$enc eercisin$ a uasi-Dudicial function +hen it revie+s the findin$s of a public

prosecutor re$ardin$ the presence of probable cause. A uasi-Dudicial a$enc

perfor#s adDudicator functions +hen its a+ards deter#ine the ri$hts of parties,



11/18

and its decisions have the sa#e effect as a Dud$#ent of a court. )& 8his is not the

case +hen a public prosecutor conducts a preli#inar investi$ation to deter#ine

probable cause to file an infor#ation a$ainst a person char$ed +ith a cri#inal

offense, or +hen the !ecretar of %ustice revie+s the for#erHs orders or

resolutions on deter#ination of probable cause.)2

In O!c"i#ue$%on!oc, +e ruled that +hen the public prosecutor conducts

preli#inar investi$ation, he thereb eercisesinesti#atie or inuisitoria( po-ers.

Investi$ative or inuisitorial po+ers include the po+ers of an ad#inistrative bod

to inspect the records and pre#ises, and investi$ate the activities of persons or

entities co#in$ under his Durisdiction, or to secure, or to reuire the disclosure of

infor#ation b #eans of accounts, records, reports, state#ents, testi#on of

+itnesses, and production of docu#ents.)5 8his po+er is distin$uished fro#

Dudicial adDudication +hich si$nifies the eercise of po+er and authorit to

adDudicate upon the ri$hts and obli$ations of concerned parties.)@ Indeed, it is the

eercise of investi$ator po+ers +hich sets a public prosecutor apart fro# the

court.

8he public prosecutor eercises investi$ative po+ers in the conduct of

preli#inar investi$ation to deter#ine +hether, based on the evidence presented to

hi#, he should tae further action b filin$ a cri#inal co#plaint in court. In doin$

so, he does not adDudicate upon the ri$hts, obli$ations or liabilities of the parties

before hi#. !ince the po+er eercised b the public prosecutor in this instance is

#erel investi$ative or inuisitorial, it is subDect to a different standard in ter#s

of statin$ the facts and the la+ in its deter#inations. 8his is also true in the case of

the >O% !ecretar eercisin$ her revie+ po+ers over decisions of public

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn15


12/18

prosecutors.8hus, it is sufficient that in denin$ a petition for revie+ of a

resolution of a prosecutor, the >O% resolution state the la+ upon +hich it is based.

*e rule, therefore, that the >O% resolution satisfactoril co#plied +ith

constitutional and le$al reuire#ents +hen it stated its le$al basis for denin$

/ERA6COs petition for revie+ +hich is !ection ' of >epart#ent Circular No. '(,

+hich authori=es the !ecretar of %ustice to dis#iss a petition outri$ht if he finds it

to be patentl +ithout #erit or #anifestl intended for dela, or +hen the issues

raised therein are too insubstantial to reuire consideration.

8he >O% resolution noted that /ERA6CO failed to sub#it a le$ible true

cop of the confir#ation of sale dated /a 2(, &((( and considered the o#ission

in violation of !ection @)? of >epart#ent Circular No. '(. /ERA6CO assails the

dis#issal on this $round as an overl technical application of the rules and clai#s

that it frustrated the ends of substantial Dustice. *e note, ho+ever, that the failure

to attach the docu#ent +as not the sole reason of the >O%s denial of /ERA6COs

petition for revie+. As #entioned, the >O% resolution dis#issed the petition

pri#aril because the prosecutors resolution is in accord +ith the evidence and the

la+ on the #atter.

At this point, it beco#es unnecessar to decide the le$alit of !ection ' of

>O% >epart#ent Circular No. '( allo+in$ the outri$ht dis#issal of /ERA6COs

petition for revie+. It is basic that this Court +ill not pass upon a constitutional

uestion althou$h properl presented b the record if the case can be disposed of

on so#e other $round.)'



13/18

Also, >O% >epart#ent Circular No. '( is an enact#ent of an eecutive

depart#ent of the $overn#ent and is desi$ned for the epeditious and efficient

ad#inistration of Dustice< before it +as enacted, it is presu#ed to have been

carefull studied and deter#ined to be constitutional.)4 6est +e be #isunderstood,

+e do not hereb evade our dut< in the absence of an $rave abuse of discretion,

+e #erel accord respect to the basic constitutional principle of separation of

po+ers, +hich has lon$ $uided our sste# of $overn#ent.

$. The determintion of probble cuse

for the filin% of n informtion in

court is n e&ecuti!e function

8he deter#ination of probable cause for the filin$ of an infor#ation in

court is an eecutive function +hich pertains at the first instance to the public

prosecutor and then to the !ecretar of %ustice.) As a rule, in the absence of an

$rave abuse of discretion, courts are not e#po+ered to substitute their o+n

Dud$#ent for that of the eecutive branch


14/18

Article 2)@, para$raph )0b1 of the Revised Penal Code && 0estafa b conversion or

#isappropriation1, the follo+in$ ele#ents #ust concur:

0)1 that #one, $oods, or other personal properties are received b the offender intrust, or on co##ission, or for ad#inistration, or under an other

obli$ation involvin$ the dut to #ae deliver of, or to return, the sa#e<

0&1 that there is a #isappropriation or conversion of such #one or propert bthe offender or denial on his part of such receipt<

021 that such #isappropriation or conversion or denial is to the preDudice of another< and

051 that there is a de#and #ade b the offended part on the offender .&2

8he records sho+ that MERALCO 3ailed to pro1e t/at t/e respondents

indeed misappropriated or 0on1erted its in1estments. As the handlin$

prosecutor found, aside fro# the /inutes of the %une 4, &(((

/eetin$, MERALCO did not present an e1iden0e t/at 4ould pro1e t/at

MERALCO indeed 2a1e spe0i3i0 instru0tions 3or CIPI to in1est onl in &S or

CPs o3 t/e Lope5 &roup.

Accordin$ to the CA, the said /inutes do not have an probative value for

bein$ hearsa because the attest to the eistence of an a$ree#ent purportedl

entered into bet+een respondent Atilano and 6ope= +hose testi#on +as never

presented in evidence. *hile respondent Atilano eplicitl denied havin$ received

an specific instructions fro# /ERA6CO on ho+ its invest#ents +ould be

placed, /ERA6CO failed to present an contrar evidence. /ERA6CO could

have presented in evidence the testi#on of 6ope= to prove that he $ave specific

instructions to CIPI to place its invest#ents onl in 3! or CPs of the 6ope= 3roup,

but it failed to do so.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/june2012/166758.htm#_ftn23


15/18

Absent an proof of specific instructions, CIPI cannot be said to have

#isappropriated or diverted /ERA6COs invest#ents. *e tae note that in #one

#aret transactions, t"e !ea(er is #ien !iscretion on -"ere inestents are to be

p(ace!, absent an a$ree#ent +ith or instruction fro# the investor to place the

invest#ents in specific securities.

/one #aret transactions #a be conducted in various +as. One instance

is +hen an investor enters into an invest#ent contract +ith a dealer under ter#s

that obli$e the dealer to place invest#ents onl in desi$nated securities. Another is

+hen there is no stipulation for place#ent on desi$nated securities< thus, the dealer

is $iven discretion to choose the place#ent of the invest#ent #ade. nder the first

situation, a dealer +ho deviates fro# the specified instruction #a be eposed to

civil and cri#inal prosecution< in contrast, the second situation #a onl $ive rise

to a civil action for recover of the a#ount invested.

On the other hand, to be held liable under Article 2)@, para$raph &0a1 of the

Revised Penal Code&5 0estafa b #eans of deceit1, the follo+in$ ele#ents #ust

concur:

0a1 that there #ust be a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his po+er,

influence, ualifications, propert, credit, a$enc, business or i#a$inar

transactions<

0b1 that such false pretense or fraudulent representation +as #ade or eecuted prior to or si#ultaneousl +ith the co##ission of the fraud<

0c1 that the offended part relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or

fraudulent #eans and +as induced to part +ith his #one or propert< and

0d1 that, as a result thereof, the offended part suffered da#a$e.&@



16/18

/ERA6CO ar$ued that the respondents are $uilt of falsel pretendin$ that

the possess po+er, influence and ualifications to bu 3! and CPs of the 6ope=

3roup, to induce /ERA6CO to part +ith its invest#ent. *e rule that the ar$u#ent

has no basis precisel because no evidence eists sho+in$ that CIPI #ade false

representations re$ardin$ its capacit to deal +ith /ERA6COs invest#ents. In

fact, the records +ill sho+ that respondent Atilano disclosed CIPIs liuidit

proble#s to /ERA6CO even before /ERA6CO placed its invest#ent. *e a$ree

+ith the prosecutors findin$ that aside fro# its alle$ations, /ERA6CO failed to

present an evidence sho+in$ that an of the respondents #ade an fraudulent

#isrepresentations or false state#ents prior to or si#ultaneousl +ith the deliver

of /ERA6COs funds to CIPI.

9inall, apart fro# its s+eepin$ alle$ation that the respondents

#isappropriated or converted its #one place#ents, the handlin$ prosecutor found

that /ERA6CO failed to establish, b evidence, the particular role or actual

participation of each respondent in the alle$ed cri#inal act. Neither +as it sho+n

that the assented to its co##ission. It is basic that onl corporate officers sho+n

to have participated in the alle$ed ano#alous acts #a be held cri#inall liable.&?

6'ERE"ORE, the petition is DENIED. 8he decision dated !epte#ber &,

&((5 and the resolution dated %anuar )4, &((@ of the Court of Appeals

are A""IRMED. No pronounce#ent as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

ART$RO D! -RION



17/18

Associate %ustice

6E CONC$R.

ANTONIO T! CARPIO

!enior Associate %ustice

Chairperson

%OSE PORT$&AL PERE#

Associate %ustice

MARIA LO$RDES P! A! SERENO

Associate %ustice


18/18

-IENVENIDO L! REYES

Associate %ustice

C E R T I " I C A T I O N

I certif that the conclusions in the above >ecision had been reached in

consultation before the case +as assi$ned to the +riter of the opinion of the Courts

>ivision.

ANTONIO T! CARPIO

!enior Associate %ustice

0Per !ection )&, R.A. &?,

8he %udiciar Act of )54, as a#ended1

meralco vs atilano ft

Documents