G.R. No. 220458 - People vs. Baladjay

Case Summary (G.R. No. 220458)

Petitioner

People of the Philippines (Plaintiff‑Appellee).

Respondent

Rosario Baladjay (Accused‑Appellant).

Key Dates

Information filed: August 6, 2003 (Information); related filing referenced as August 27, 2003 for interest reckoning. Regional Trial Court (RTC) judgment: December 3, 2012 (amended April 26, 2013). Court of Appeals (CA) decision: November 13, 2014. Supreme Court decision adopting CA with modification: July 26, 2017; notice received August 8, 2017.

Applicable Law (including constitutional basis)

Criminal law provisions applied: Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code (estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts). Special qualifying statute: Section 1, Presidential Decree No. 1689 (increasing penalty for estafa when committed by a syndicate of five or more persons and involving funds solicited from the public or contributed by members of certain organizations). Constitutional framework applicable to the adjudication: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered in 2017; analysis conducted under the post‑1987 constitutional order).

Nature of the Case

This is an appeal from the CA judgment affirming the RTC conviction of Rosario Baladjay for Syndicated Estafa (Article 315(2)(a) RPC in relation to Section 1 of PD 1689). The appeal contests whether the appellate court erred in affirming the conviction.

Facts — solicitation, promises and investments

From May 2001 to October 2002 in Makati City, Multitel and its counselors solicited investments from the public, promising guaranteed monthly interest yields (commonly 5%–6% and in some solicitations 8%–12%). Investors, including the three private complainants, delivered funds in reliance on these representations. Receipts and post‑dated checks representing principal and interest were issued; checks were found to bear Baladjay’s signature. Investors initially received agreed returns, after which payments stopped in October 2002; subsequent investor inquiries revealed SEC warnings and a Cease and Desist Order stating Multitel lacked a valid secondary license to solicit investments and was not properly registered.

Facts — investigation and recovery efforts

Upon default, complainants attended meetings with Multitel counselors (including Randy Rubio, Olive Marasigan, Tess Villegas) who reassured investors but failed to secure returns. The private complainants attempted to recover investments through confrontation, consultation with counsel and the SEC, and by attending investor meetings. Carmen Chan’s charge was dismissed for lack of probable cause; several co‑accused remained at large.

Procedural history

An Information for Syndicated Estafa was filed against Baladjay and co‑accused. Baladjay pleaded not guilty and stood trial. The prosecution presented investor witnesses and Multitel counselors; the defense presented Baladjay as the sole witness. The RTC found Baladjay guilty and sentenced her to life imprisonment with awards of actual and moral damages. The CA affirmed the conviction but reduced moral damages. The Supreme Court adopted the CA decision with modification to impose statutory interest on damages and moral damages and otherwise affirmed the conviction and penalties.

Issue presented

Whether the CA gravely erred in affirming Baladjay’s conviction for Syndicated Estafa.

Legal elements of estafa and syndicated estafa applied by the Court

Article 315(2)(a) requires: (a) a false pretense or fraudulent representation concerning the offender’s power, property, agency, business or similar; (b) that such false pretense was made prior to or simultaneously with the fraud; (c) that the offended party relied on it and parted with money or property; and (d) resulting damage. PD 1689 Section 1 elevates estafa to Syndicated Estafa when it is committed by a syndicate of five or more persons formed to carry out the scheme and the defraudation involves funds solicited from the public or certain associations. The elements of Syndicated Estafa synthesize these provisions.

Court’s analysis: modus operandi and comparison to precedent

The Court analyzed Multitel’s scheme as consistent with classic Ponzi‑type fraudulent investment operations described in preceding jurisprudence (e.g., People v. Balasa, Menil cases, Tibayan), wherein promises of unusually high returns induce initial investments and early investors are paid from funds received from later investors until the scheme collapses. The Court found the pattern in Multitel—solicitation by counselors, issuance of receipts and post‑dated checks, high guaranteed returns, initial payments followed by defaults, SEC warnings—matched the established indicia of such schemes and supported a finding of fraud by deceit.

Evidence of Baladjay’s participation and control

The Court relied on testimonial and documentary evidence to establish Baladjay’s connection to and active participation in Multitel. Yolanda Baladjay’s testimony (direct, detailed, and corroborated) established that Baladjay recruited investors, personally spoke to investors at her residence and the Enterprise Building office, paid counselors commissions (seven percent to counselors; four percent to investors by one account), organized cooperatives (approximately 16) to receive investments, and issued post‑dated checks bearing her signature. Additional corroboration included investors’ receipts, checks, and SEC findings that Multitel lacked authority to solicit investments.

Credibility findings and defendant’s denial

Both the RTC and the CA found the prosecution witnesses credible and their testimonies straightforward and corroborated by documents and SEC determinations. Baladjay’s categorical denial of knowledge, meetings, or transactions with complainants and her claim that her registered company (MIHI) was separate from Multitel were insufficient to overcome positive identifications, documentary evidence (signed checks), and the totality of proof. The Court rejected the contention that she could insulate herself behind counselors.

Application of law to facts and determination of guilt

Applying the statutory elements of Article 315(2)(a) and PD 1689, the Court concluded that: (a) false pretenses and fraudulent representations were made by Multitel’s operators and counselors regarding authority t

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 220458)

Nature of the Case

Appeal to the Supreme Court from the November 13, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 06308.
Subject matter: conviction for Syndicated Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1689.
Relief sought by accused-appellant Rosario Baladjay: reversal of conviction and judgment of the trial court and appellate court on the ground that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Decision of the Supreme Court rendered July 26, 2017, adopting the Court of Appeals decision with modifications.

Parties and Accusation

Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines.
Accused-Appellant: Rosario Baladjay.
Other persons named in the Information as accused: Saturnino Baladjay, Lito (Manolito) Natividad, Randy Rubio, Tess Villegas, Olive Marasigan, Lorna Pangan, Carmen Chan, Stella Ilagan and John Munoz.
One accused, Carmen Chan, had the charge against her dismissed for lack of probable cause upon motion of the public prosecutor.
Several co-accused remained at large at time of the RTC judgment and the Supreme Court ordered alias warrants of arrest against them.

Information and Charges

Information dated August 6, 2003, charging Syndicated Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC in relation to PD 1689.
Accusatory allegations: from about May 2001 to October 2002 in Makati, accused, as officers, employees and/or agents of Multinational Telecom Investors Corporation (Multitel), an association operating on funds solicited from the public, conspired and confederated as a syndicate to defraud private complainants by false pretenses that they had authority to solicit investments and would pay guaranteed monthly interest of 5% to 6% and lucrative commissions, inducing complainants to invest a total of Php7,810,000.00, which funds accused misappropriated and converted to their own benefit.

Procedural History

Arraignment: accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.
Trial on the merits proceeded before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City, Branch 58, Criminal Case No. 03-3261.
RTC rendered judgment on December 3, 2012, convicting Baladjay of Syndicated Estafa and ordering life imprisonment and civil liabilities; Amended Decision issued April 26, 2013 to correct middle name of a private complainant.
Baladjay appealed to the Court of Appeals; CA issued Decision dated November 13, 2014 affirming RTC conviction but reducing moral damages to Php100,000.00 per complainant.
Accused-appellant elevated case to the Supreme Court; Supreme Court rendered decision July 26, 2017, adopting CA findings and further modifying judgment to impose interest on damages.

Prosecution Evidence — Overview

Prosecution presented four primary witnesses: Rolando T. Custodio (Rolando), Estella Pozon Lee (Estella), Henry M. Chua Co (Henry), and Yolanda Baladjay (Yolanda).
Evidence established solicitation of investments by Multitel, promises of high monthly interest (5% and higher), issuance of receipts and checks, initial payment of promised interest to early investors, eventual default and inability to pay, and SEC findings that Multitel had no secondary license and no authority to solicit investments from the public.
Documentary evidence included receipts and checks; testimony referenced post-dated checks and cash payment of monthly interest.

Testimony of Rolando T. Custodio (Prosecution Witness)

First learned of Multitel around February 2001 from a neighbor; told Multitel allegedly paid at least 5% monthly interest.
Invested Php100,000.00 initially and received monthly interest as promised.
Met Gladina Baligad, a Multitel counselor, who represented Multitel as engaged in telecommunications business; convinced to increase investment to Php2,000,000.00.
Later enticed with an offer promising 8%-12% monthly, leading to total investment of Php3,200,000.00.
Received receipts for each placement and checks personally signed by Baladjay representing his principal investment.
In October 2002 stopped receiving interest; learned Baladjay under investigation.
Investigation revealed Multitel lacked SEC secondary license and juridical authority to solicit investments; an SEC Advisory noted Multitel and its conduits were not duly registered.
Attended meetings (last on November 5, 2002) where Multitel officers (Randy Rubio, Olive Marasigan, Tess Villegas) assured investors; Multitel defaulted and Rolando filed criminal complaint.

Testimony of Estella Pozon Lee (Prosecution Witness)

Advised by Carmencita Chan, a Multitel counselor, to invest via One Heart Multi-Purpose Cooperative (One Heart), which she was told was an agent of Multitel.
Carmencita represented Multitel as a local subsidiary of a New York-based telecommunications company.
Introduced to accused Manolito Natividad who confirmed information about Multitel.
Invested Php3,280,000.00 and US$7,520.00 with promised 6% monthly interest; initially received interest payments.
In October 2002 no interest was deposited; Carmencita told her to wait.
Continued follow-ups with Carmencita and Multitel hotline produced no information; investments were never returned.

Testimony of Henry M. Chua Co (Prosecution Witness)

Knew accused Baladjay and several counselors; persuaded by Gladina to invest on promise of 5% monthly interest.
Total investments amounted to Php1,050,000.00; only received one interest payment.
When returns ceased, learned from SEC that Multitel was a scam and subject of a Cease and Desist Order for soliciting funds without valid license.
Attempted to confront Gladina and sought settlement with Baladjay, but Baladjay became unreachable.
Attended investor meetings organized by Multitel counselors in attempts to recover investments.

Testimony of Yolanda Baladjay (Prosecution Witness)

Sister-in-law of accused Rosario Baladjay; testified to close personal and transactional connection.
Accepted job as Multitel counselor on Baladjay’s offer, promised commissions of seven percent (7%) of capital she would bring in.
Recruited investors and brought them to Baladjay’s office at Enterprise Building in Ayala, Makati City until 2001.
Afterwards counselors were organized into separate groups/cooperatives established by Baladjay; investments were placed in cooperatives which in turn placed them in Multitel.
Stated that Baladjay personally talked to persons she brought and investors invested immediately because Baladjay was articulate.
Described commission structure (testimony includes statement that Baladjay would give her seven percent and to the investor four percent) and that post-dated checks were issued for the principal and monthly interest was given in cash and investors had to sign receipts.
Testified that she began as counselor in year 2000 at Multitel office in Enterprise Building; about 16 cooperatives were established an