G.R. No. 139465 - Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion

Petitioner Regino Sy Catiis filed a letter-complaint on May 28, 2001, against respondents Reynaldo A. Patacsil, Enrico D. Lopez, Luzviminda A. Portuguez, and Margielyn Tafalla before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City for violation of Article 315, No. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1689 (syndicated estafa) and other related offenses.
The complaint was docketed as Investigation Sheet No. 01-10686. Respondents (except Tafalla) denied the charges via joint counter-affidavits.
On October 10, 2001, Assistant City Prosecutor Alessandro D. Jurado found probable cause for syndicated estafa against respondents and Tafalla with no bail recommended; City Prosecutor Claro A. Arellano approved this decision.

The Information was filed on October 10, 2001, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 96, Quezon City, charging respondents with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the RPC in relation to P.D. No. 1689. The Information accused the respondents of defrauding petitioner and others by falsely representing involvement in legitimate foreign exchange trading through several named corporations and unregistered foreign entities, leading to damages amounting to at least US$123,461.14.
On November 7, 2001, Judge Lucas P. Bersamin found probable cause and approved the recommendation that the offense be non-bailable. Warrants of arrest were duly issued.
Respondents (except Tafalla who remained at large) were arrested and detained at the Makati City Jail. Arraignment was set for November 20, 2001, where respondents pleaded not guilty.

On November 12, 2001, respondents filed an urgent motion to fix bail.
On December 18, 2001, Judge Bersamin reversed the earlier non-bailable order, ruling the offense charged was bailable because:

Only four persons were charged, thus no “syndicate” (defined as five or more persons) was formed as required under P.D. No. 1689.
The Information failed to clearly allege a syndicate as prescribed by law, making the higher penalty of life imprisonment to death inapplicable.
The appropriate penalty should be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, given the amount involved exceeded P100,000.00.
Absence of aggravated circumstances in the Information precluded imposing the maximum penalty (reclusion perpetua).

Judge Bersamin fixed bail at P150,000.00 each for the respondents’ provisional liberty.

On December 21, 2001, respondents posted their surety bonds with Executive Judge Monina A. Zenarosa, who approved the bonds and ordered their immediate release.
Petitioner filed an original and supplemental petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing:

The Order dated December 18, 2001 allowing bail.
The Order dated December 21, 2001 approving surety bonds and release of respondents, questioning jurisdiction of Judge Zenarosa.

The CA, by its decision dated June 14, 2002, denied the petition, ruling no grave abuse of discretion was committed by Judges Bersamin and Zenarosa in issuing the assailed orders.

Petitioner filed the instant petition for review on certiorari seeking nullification of the CA’s decision.

Whether the CA erred in sustaining Judge Bersamin’s Order that the crime of syndicated estafa under Section 1, P.D. No. 1689 requires at least five persons charged in order to apply the higher penalty and deny bail.

Whether the CA erred in sanctioning the grant of bail when the offense charged allegedly involves penalties ranging from reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, considering the provisions of Section 7, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Whether the CA erred in upholding Judge Zenarosa’s approval of the surety bond and order of release, despite the bail being posted before a different branch than the one where the case is pending, in violation of Section 17, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.