RAFAEL H. GALVEZ and KATHERINE L. GUY vs. HON.

COURT
OF APPEALS and ASIA UNITED BANK
[G.R. No. 187919. April 25, 2012.]

ASIA UNITED BANK vs. GILBERT G. GUY, ET. AL.

[G.R. No. 187979. April 25, 2012.]

GILBERT G. GUY, PHILIP LEUNG and EUGENIO H. GALVEZ, JR.

vs. ASIA UNITED BANK
[G.R. No. 188030. April 25, 2012.]
 AID TO CONSTRUCTION
PREAMBLE
A preamble is that part of the
statute written immediately
after its title, which states the
purpose, reason, or justification
for the enactment of the law. It
is usually expressed in the
form of “Whereas clauses”.
While a preamble is not,
strictly speaking, a part of the
statute, it may, when the law is
ambiguous, be resorted to
clarify the ambiguity.
FACTS:
➤ Radio Marine Network (Smartnet), Inc. (RMSI) claiming to do business under
the name Smartnet Philippines and/or Smartnet Philippines, Inc. (SPI), applied
for an Omnibus Credit Line for various credit facilities with Asia United Bank
(AUB).
➤ Satisfied with the credit worthiness of RMSI, AUB granted it a P250 million
Omnibus Credit Line, under the name of Smartnet Philippines, RMSI's
Division.
➤ RMSI submitted a proof of authority to open the Omnibus Credit Line and
peso and dollar accounts in the name of Smartnet Philippines, Inc., which
Gilbert Guy, et al. represented as a division of RMS, as evidenced by the
letterhead used.
➤ Attached to this authority was the Amended Articles of Incorporation of RMSI,
doing business under the name of Smartnet Philippines, and the Secretary's
Certi︎cate of SPI authorizing its directors, Gilbert Guy and Philip Leung to
transact with AUB
➤ Prior to this major transaction, however, and, unknown to AUB,
while RMSI was doing business under the name of Smartnet
Philippines, and that there was a division under the name
Smartnet Philippines, Gilbert Guy, et al. formed a subsidiary
corporation, the SPI with a paid-up capital of only P62,500.00.
➤ Believing that SPI is the same as Smartnet Philippines — the
division of RMSI- AUB granted to it, among others, Irrevocable
Letter of Credit.
➤ RMSI refused to pay their liabilities.
➤ AUB filed a case with the Prosecutor for syndicated Estafa
under Article 315 of the RPC in relation to Section 1 of PD
1689.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT

➤ Gilbert Guy, et al. want this Court to believe that AUB, being
a commercial bank, is beyond the coverage of PD No. 1689.
➤ Petitioners contend that this case was a mere collection of
money and not a criminal case of Estafa.
PROVISION OF LAW INVOLVED
➤ ART 315, RPC. Swindling (estafa). — any person who shall defraud another by
any of the means mentioned herein below . . . :
1. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means;

2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud;

3. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or
property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means;

4. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

➤ SEC 1, PD 1689, Increasing the penalty for estafa.

Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or other forms of swindling as de︎ned in Articles 315 and
316 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall be punished by life imprisonment to death if the
swindling (estafa) is committed by a syndicate consisting of:

1. estafa or other forms of swindling as de︎ned in Articles 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code is
committed;

2. the estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate of ︎five or more persons

3. defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or members of

rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon[s]," or farmers associations or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public.
 QUESTION OF LAW
Are the petitioners liable for the crime of syndicated estafa on
the basis of fraudulent acts or fraudulent means employed to
deceive AUB?
APPLICATION
APPLICATION
 QUESTION OF LAW
Is AUB, being a commercial bank, beyond the coverage of
PD No. 1689?
 ➤ The fact that the defraudation of
SECTION 1, PD 1689 AUB resulted to misappropriation
of the money which it solicited
from the general public in the
form of deposits was substantially
3. Defraudation results in the
misappropriation of moneys contributed by established.
stockholders, or members of rural banks, ➤
cooperatives, "samahang nayon[s]," or
We hold, however, that a bank is
farmers associations or of funds solicited by a corporation whose fund
corporations/associations from the general comes from the general public.
public.
P.D. No. 1689 does not distinguish
the nature of the corporation.
➤ It requires, rather, that the funds
of such corporation should come
from the general public.

WHEREAS, it is imperative that the
resurgence of said crimes be checked, or at
least minimized, by imposing capital
punishment on certain forms of swindling
and other frauds involving rural banks,
cooperatives, "samahang nayon(s)", farmers'
associations or corporations/associations
operating on funds solicited from the general
public;
➤ This is bolstered by the third "whereas
clause" of the quoted law which states that
the same also applies to other
"corporations/associations operating on
funds solicited from the general public.”
➤ This is precisely the very same scheme that
PD No. 1689 contemplates that this
species of estafa "be checked or at least
be minimized by imposing capital
punishment involving funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the
general public" because "this erodes the
con︎dence of the public in the banking and
cooperative system, contravenes public
interest and constitutes economic sabotage
that threatens the stability of the nation."
 SC RULING:

“ Gilbert G. Guy, Rafael H. Galvez,

Philip Leung, Katherine L. Guy and
Eugenio H. Galvez, Jr. is charged for
SYNDICATED ESTAFA under Article
315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code
in relation to Section 1 of Presidential
Decree No. 1689.