Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Gabionza vs. Court of Appeals, 565 SCRA 38 (2008)
Gabionza vs. Court of Appeals, 565 SCRA 38 (2008)
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
39
40
41
to the rule that the absolute repeal of a penal law deprives the court
of authority to
42
punish a person charged with violating the old law prior to its
repeal is “where the repealing act reenacts the former statute and
punishes the act previously penalized under the old law.” It is worth
noting that both the Revised Securities Act and the Securities
Regulation Code of 2000 provide for exactly the same penalty: “a
fine of not less than five thousand (P5,000.00) pesos nor more than
five hundred thousand (P500,000.00) pesos or imprisonment of not
less than seven (7) years nor more than twenty one (21) years, or
both, in the discretion of the court.”
Same; Same; Conspiracy; Criminal Procedure; Parties; There is
no equivalent rule in criminal procedure to the rule in civil cases
that all indispensable parties must be impleaded—there is no
support for the position that failure to implead the traders who
directly dealt with the investors is indeed fatal to the complaint for
estafa.—The DOJ Resolution did not consider it exculpatory that
Roxas and Nolasco had not themselves dealt directly with
petitioners, observing that “to commit a crime, inducement is as
sufficient and effective as direct participation.” This conclusion
finds textual support in Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code. The
Court of Appeals was unable to point to any definitive evidence that
Roxas or Nolasco did not instruct or induce the agents of ASBHI to
make the false or misleading representations to the investors,
including petitioners. Instead, it sought to acquit Roxas and
Nolasco of any liability on the ground that the traders or employees
of ASBHI who directly made the dubious representations to
petitioners were never identified or impleaded as respondents. It
appears that the Court of Appeals was, without saying so, applying
the rule in civil cases that all indispensable parties must be
impleaded in a civil action. There is no equivalent rule in criminal
procedure, and certainly the Court of Appeals’ decision failed to cite
any statute, procedural rule or jurisprudence to support its position
that the failure to implead the traders who directly dealt with
petitioners is indeed fatal to the complaint.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Unlike in civil cases, where
indispensable parties are required to be impleaded in order to allow
for complete relief once the case is adjudicated, the determination of
criminal liability is individual to each of the defendants—even if the
criminal court fails to acquire jurisdiction over one or some
participants to a crime, it still is able to try those accused over whom
43
44
45
TINGA, J.:
_______________
46
_______________
3 Id.
4 Id., at pp. 467-468, 516-517.
5 Id., at p. 83.
6 Id. See also MBTC v. ASB Holdings, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 166197, 27
Feburary 2007, 517 SCRA 1.
47
_______________
7 Id.
8 Id., at p. 22.
9 Through a Joint-Resolution dated 19 October 2000. See Rollo, pp.
96-106.
10 Rollo, pp. 108-110.
11 Id., at pp. 81-88.
48
_______________
12 Id., at pp. 89-92. In said Resolution, the DOJ also directed that two
additional informations for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) be filed
corresponding to the complaints filed by Ando Sy and Antonio Villareal,
whose names “were inadvertently omitted in the dispositive portion of
[the DOJ] resolution of October 15, 2001”. Id., at p. 91.
13 Id., at pp. 52-62. Penned by Associate Justice R. De Guia-Salvador,
concurred in by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon and Jose C. Mendoza
of the Court of Appeals Special Fifteenth Division.
14 Id., at pp. 76-77.
15 Andres v. Cuevas, G.R. No. 150869, 9 June 2005, 460 SCRA 38, 52.
49
_______________
50
_______________
52
_______________
21 L. Reyes, II, The Revised Criminal Code (2001 ed.) at 767; citing
People v. Gines, et al., C.A., 61 O.G. 1365.
22 Rollo, pp. 332-333.
53
_______________
54
_______________
55
_______________
56
_______________
ties. Such register and all documents or information with respect to the
securities registered therein shall be open to the public inspection at
reasonable hours on business days.
57
_______________
58
_______________
59
_______________
33 Id., at p. 61.
34 Dissenting Opinion, infra.
35 Ong Chang Wing v. U.S., 40 Phil. 1046, 1050 (1910).
36 416 Phil. 722; 364 SCRA 334 (2001).
60
_______________
61
_______________
62
“The false representations made by the ASB agents who dealt with
the complainant-petitioners and who inveigled them into investing
their funds in ASB are properly imputable to respondents Roxas
and Nolasco, because they, as ASB’s president and senior vice
63
_______________
43 Id., at p. 86.
44 Id., at pp. 479, 525.
45 See id., at pp. 496, 540.
64
DISSENTING OPINION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
With all due respect, I dissent. The majority opinion, I
respectfully submit, would be setting a highly dangerous
precedent if it were to rule that there is a prima facie case
for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code
69
_______________
1 G.R. No. 113216, September 5, 1997, 278 SCRA 657. The Court held:
The primary objective of a preliminary investigation is to
free respondent from the inconvenience, expense,
ignominy and stress of defending himself/herself in the
course of a formal trial, until the reasonable probability of his
or her guilt in a more or less summary proceeding by a competent
office designated by law for that purpose. Secondarily, such
summary proceeding also protects the state from the burden
of the unnecessary expense an effort in prosecuting alleged
offenses and in holding trials arising from false, frivolous or
groundless charges.
71
_______________
2 No. L-53373, June 30, 1987, 151 SCRA 462. The Court likewise held
that:
Prosecuting officers under the power vested in them by law, not
only have the authority but also the duty of prosecuting persons
who, according to the evidence received from the complainant, are
shown to be guilty of a crime committed within the jurisdiction of
their office. They have equally the duty not to prosecute
when the evidence adduced is not sufficient to establish a
prima facie case.