Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

Third Judicial Region
Branch 14
Malolos, Bulacan

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

-versus- CRIM. CASE NO. 1366-M-2011

For: Estafa
ROSARIO BALADJAY, MARILYN
MANGALINO, ROMEO DE GALICIA
MANGALINO &
LEILA MENDOZA MANGALINO,
Accused.
x-------------------------------------------x

DECISION

Accused Rosario Baladjay, Marilyn Mangalino, Romeo de Galicia

Mangalino and Leila Mendoza Mangalino stand charged of the crime of
Estafa, penalized under the provisions of Article 315, par. 2(a) of the
Revised Penal Code in relation to P.D. 1689, committed as follows:

“That on June 10, 2002, or on dates prior thereto, in

Plaridel, Bulacan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, being officers, employees and/or
agents of MULTITEL and with the intention of carrying out the
unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme of
soliciting funds from the general public by way of investments,
without being lawfully authorized to do so, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, by means of false
pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously
with the commission of the fraud to the effect that they have the
power, qualifications, property, credit and business to solicit and
accept investments from the general public and by means of other
deceits of similar import, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously induce, lure and convince LORETA LEE with a
promise of huge interest, to invest, give and deliver, as in fact the
latter invested, gave and delivered to said accused the amount
THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00), but said
accused once in possession of such amount, fraudulently,
misapplied, misappropriated and converted the same, and despite
repeated demands to return such amount and the promise interests
thereon, said accused failed and refused, and still fail and refuse to
return the same, to the damage and prejudice of LORETA LEE.

Contrary to law.”

The instant case is a consolidated case from RTC-Branch 21 of this

Court.
Order
People v. Rosario Baladjay, et al.
Crim. Case Nos. 1366-M-2011

Considering that accused Rosario Baladjay is detained at the

Correctional Institute for Women in Mandaluyong City, the undersigned
Presiding Judge requested to the Supreme Court for the taking of the
testimony of the prosecution witnesses as well as the defense evidence be
conducted in Mandaluyong which was granted per Resolution of the Third
Division of the Supreme Court dated January 28, 2013. Hence, the instant
case was forwarded to the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial
Court, Mandaluyong City.

On April 23, 2013, the instant case was reraffled to RTC Branch 211
Mandaluyong City for the purpose of taking the testimony of the accused
and receiving of evidence for the prosecution and the defense within the
premises of the Correctional Institute for Women (C.I.W) pursuant to A.M
No. 13-1-02- RTC, Supreme Court Resolution dated January 28, 2013.

On June 05, 2013, when arraigned, accused Rosario Baladjay y

Austria, Marilyn Mangalino y Mendoza and Romeo Mangalino y De
Galicia, all pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Whereas accused Leila
Mendoza Mangalino remains at large to date

The pre-trial conference was held and terminated. Thereafter, trial

proper ensued.

Be it noted that the case against accused Baladjay was already

dismissed per Order dated October 30, 2015 in view of the grant of the
demurrer to evidence that she filed.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION

The prosecution’s evidence consists of the testimonies of Loreta Lee,

Leonardo Lee and bank representative Rolando R. Peralta.

Loreta Lee testified that: she came to know accused Marilyn

Mangalino, Romeo Mangalino and Leila Mendoza Mangalino as they were
introduced to her by Ed Luteria, the principal of the school of their children;
that Sps. Mangalino are the owners of Bethel Multipurpose Cooperative who
offered them to join in the pyramiding so that their money will grow at an
interest of eight (8) per cent; that Ed Luteria offered to them the investment
scheme sometime in the year 2002 at their house in No. 1954 Emerald St.,
Union Village, Caloocan City; that she issued a check in the amount of
P200,000.00 in favor of Bethel and the same was handed to Ed Luteria while
he was in their house; that the said amount will earn interest after 6 months
and would amount to P379,000.00; that a Certificate of Contribution Roll
Over Plan as proof of her investment which bears the signature of Marilyn
Mangalino was issued; she knows that it was the signature of Marilyn
2
Order
People v. Rosario Baladjay, et al.
Crim. Case Nos. 1366-M-2011

Mangalino because the same signature also appeared in the Planters Bank
check in the amount of P379,595.70 issued by Bethel; that when she
deposited the said check, the same bounced for reason “Account Closed”;
she asked Ed Luteria as to what happened to their money and demanded for
its return but the latter just told them to wait; up to the present, their money
has not yet been returned; that it was only her husband who personally met
Sps. Mangalino; that she sent a demand letter dated January 7, 2002 to Sps.
Mangalino; he did not run after Ed Luteria as he merely offered to them the
investment; she has no communication whatsoever with accused Baladjay
regarding the transaction; that Marilyn Mangalino and Romeo Mangalino
were not present when the Certificate of Contribution Roll Over Plan was
given to her by Ed Luteria in Valenzuela City; that it took several days
before she received the Certificate of Contribution Roll Over Plan as well as
the check from Ed Luteria; that she charged Sps. Mangalino because they
were the one who issued the check bearing the name Bethel Multipurpose
Cooperative; that accused Baladjay was also impleaded being the head of the
said pyramiding scam; that the Planters Bank check issued by BMPC
bounced at Robinson Bank, Malate, Manila.

Leonardo Lee y Rivera testified that Loreta Lee is his wife; that they
were encouraged by Pastor Ed Luteria to invest in Bethel; he came to know
accused Sps. Mangalino when he was accompanied by Ed Luteria to Bethel
Multipurpose Cooperative in Plaridel, Bulacan to complain the bounced
Planters Bank check No.0000401427 in the amount of P379,595.70 issued
by Bethel; there were around 30 persons in Bethel when they arrived therein
and it was Mrs. Mangalino who talked to them; that Mrs. Mangalino was
evading her obligation with the checks that they issued; that Mrs. Mangalino
and Leila Mendoza Mangalino were the signatories to the check; that Mrs.
Mangalino, up to the present, failed to comply with their demand to return
the money that they invested; it was Pastor Ed Luteria who gave them the
check; they did not implead Pastor Ed Luteria in their complaint because he
was the one who helped them in filing the instant case.

Rolando R. Peralta testified that: he is the branch manager of

Planters Development Bank, Plaridel, Bulacan branch since 2007 up to the
present; he appeared to testify before the Court pursuant to a Subpoena
duces tecum ad testificandum issued directing him to bring two (2) signature
cards covering Account No. 00-15-40170-2 of Bethel Multipurpose
Cooperative1; that the signatures of Marilyn Mangalino, Romeo Mangalino
and Leila M.Duenas appear in the signature cards; that both accounts were
opened on May 15, 2001; when said bank accounts were opened, he was not
yet assigned at Plaridel branch; that he did not witness the affixing of the
signatures appearing therein; that the account was already closed since 2002;
it was Romeo G. Esteban, the Service Head of Plaridel branch, who
authenticated the signatures on the signature cards.

1
Exhibit D & E
3
Order
People v. Rosario Baladjay, et al.
Crim. Case Nos. 1366-M-2011

Offered and admitted documentary evidence for the prosecution are

the following:

Exhs. “A”-“A-4” Joint Complaint Affidavit;

“A-5”- name and signature of Loreta Lee;
“A-6”- name and signature of Edwin Delos Santos;
“A-7”- name and signature of Monette Dela Cruz;
“A-8”- date of signature;
“B”- Certificate – roll over plan;
“B-1”- signature of Loreta Lee;
“C” “C-2”- Check Booklet – Planters Bank;
“C-3”- signature of M. Mangalino;
“C-4”- account closed;
“D”- Demand Letter;
“D-1”- signature of Loreta Lee;
“D-2”- date of signature.

During the initial presentation of evidence for the defense, counsel for
accused Marilyn Mangalino and Romeo de Galicia Mangalino marked and
orally offered its evidence, Exhibit “1” which is the Information in
Criminal Case No. 14-908 filed before the MTC of Plaridel, Bulacan by
Loreta Lee. With the admission of said exhibits, the defense rested its case
while the prosecution moved additional time to study whether to present
rebuttal evidence.

During the hearing on March 7, 2017, the prosecution manifested that

he will no longer present rebuttal evidence. On even date, the instant case is
deemed as submitted for decision.

The only issue in this case is whether or not the accused Marilyn
Mangalino and Romeo de Galicia Mangalino are guilty of the offense
charged.

In the instant cases, accused was charged with Estafa under Art.
315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). The elements of estafa
therewith are as follows: (1) There must be a false pretense, fraudulent act
or fraudulent means; (2) Such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud; (3) 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) As a result thereof, the offended party suffered
damage.2

Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated

to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving a
breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed,
2
Augusto Sim, Jr. v. CA & People, GR No. 159280, May 18, 2004 citing The Revised Penal Code of Luis
B. Reyes, Book Two.
4
Order
People v. Rosario Baladjay, et al.
Crim. Case Nos. 1366-M-2011

resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious

advantage is taken of another.[3] It is a generic term embracing all
multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are
resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false
suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all surprise, trick,
cunning, dissembling and any unfair way by which another is cheated. [ 4] On
the other hand, deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact, whether
by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment
of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to
deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.[5]
It was established in the instant case that sometime in the year 2000
Loreta Lee issued a check in the amount of P200,000.00 in favor of Bethel
Multipurpose Cooperative (Bethel, for brevity) owned and managed by Sps.
Marilyn and Romeo Mangalino upon the inducement of Ed Luteria,
representative of the Mangalinos; that she was made to believe that her
P200,000.00 will earn high interest and will become P379,000.00 more or
less after 6 months; that she was issued a Certificate of Contribution Roll
Over Plan which bears the signature of Marilyn Mangalino as proof of her
investment. In addition, Planter’s Bank Check amounting to P379,595.70
bearing the name of Bethel and signed by Marilyn Mangalino and Lucila
Mendoza Mangalino was issued to Loreta Lee. Ed Luteria served as
middleman of the transaction. On due date, the Planters Bank check
bounced for reason “Account Closed”. Despite demand, accused failed to
pay the amount.

In the case at bar, the Court finds that conspiracy to commit estafa and
estafa itself had been adequately established; that the accused through their
representative Ed Luteria conspired with each other in their scheme to
induce others to put their money in an alleged investment of roll over plan.

Conspiracy, as a rule, has to be established with the same quantum of

proof as the crime itself. It has to be shown as clearly as the commission of
the offense.6 It need not be by direct evidence, but may take the form of
circumstances which, if taken together, would conclusively show that with
their full cooperation and participation. 7 It may be deduced from the acts of
the perpetrators before, during and after the commission of the crime, which
are indicative of a common design, concerted action and concurrence of
sentiments. 8

The Court finds that the following circumstances together,

conclusively show accused Sps. Mangalino’s role in defrauding
3
People v. Vicente Menil, Jr., G.R. No. 115054-66. September 12, 2000; citing CIR vs. CA, 257 SCRA 200.
4
supra; citing Alleje vs. CA, 240 SCRA 495.
5
Supra; citing People vs. Castillo, 76 Phil. 72
6
Erquioga v. CA, G.R. No. 124513, October 17, 2001; citing People v. Legaspi, G.R. No. 117802, 331
SCRA 95
7
Ibid
8
 People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 128890, 332 SCRA 485, 496 (2000), citing People vs. Parungao,
G.R. No. 125812, 265 SCRA 140, 149 (1996)
5
Order
People v. Rosario Baladjay, et al.
Crim. Case Nos. 1366-M-2011

complainant: 1) Ed Luteria acted as middlemen by offering to complainant

to invest money in accused’ roll over plan being promoted by Bethel
Cooperative; 2) that Bethel Cooperative is owned and managed by Sps.
Mangalino; 3) when the complainant was bro bearin ught by Ed Luteria at
Bethel Cooperative’s office, Mrs. Mangalino was there and who also
explained to the complainant the investment; 4) complainant fell for their
misrepresentation and the lure of profits offered by the accused made her
issue a check as roll over investment; 5) accused issued a check in the name
of Bethel Cooperative bearing their signatures with the rolled amount of the
investment.

Patently, the said acts constitute the elements of estafa as earlier

discussed and the guilt of the accused had been adequately proved beyond
reasonable doubt.

Accused are charged with Estafa under Art. 315 par. 2 (a) of the
Revised Penal Code in relation to P.D. 1689 and the penalty for which is
provided under the first paragraph of the said law, to wit:.

Ist. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum

period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the amount of the
fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos; and if
such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year
for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be
imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in
connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and
for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall
be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be;

xxx xxx xxx

The penalty for estafa depends on the amount defrauded. Article 315
of the Revised Penal Code provides that “the penalty of prision correccional
in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period (or
imprisonment ranging from 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day to 8 years), if the
amount of the fraud is over P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00, and
if such amount exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph
shall be imposed in its maximum period (6 years, 8 months and 21 days to 8
years), adding one year for each additional P10,000.00 pesos; but the total
penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such case,
and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and
for the purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be
termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.[9]

9
De la Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 299; People vs. Bautista, 241 SCRA 216.

6
Order
People v. Rosario Baladjay, et al.
Crim. Case Nos. 1366-M-2011

Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the

penalty shall be “that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could
be properly imposed” under the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum shall
be “within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed” for the
offense.[10] The penalty next lower should be based on the penalty prescribed
by the Code for the offense, without first considering any modifying
circumstance attendant to the commission of the crime. The modifying
circumstances are considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of
the indeterminate sentence.[11]
In computing the penalty for estafa, the fact that the amounts involved
exceed P22,000.00 should not be considered in the initial determination of
the indeterminate penalty; instead the matter should be taken as analogous to
modifying circumstances in the imposition of the maximum term of the full
indeterminate sentence. This interpretation of the law is in accord with the
rule that penal laws should be construed in favor of the accused. Since the
penalty prescribed by law for estafa is prision correccional maximum to
prision mayor minimum, the penalty next lower would then be prision
correccional in its minimum to medium periods. Thus, the minimum term of
the indeterminate sentence should be anywhere within six (6) months and
one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months while the maximum term of
the indeterminate sentence should at least be six (6) years and one (1) day
because the amounts involved exceeded P22,000.00, plus one (1) year for
each additional P10,000.00.[12] The maximum penalty should not exceed
twenty years.

See Section 1 of Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence
10

Law, as amended.
11
People vs. Gabres, 267 SCRA.
12
Ibid
7