1) The term "syndicate" in Presidential Decree No. 1689 refers to a group of at least five people who form an entity with the intention of carrying out an unlawful act.
2) Jurisprudence has clarified that simply because five people conspire to commit estafa against members of certain associations does not automatically make it a case of syndicated estafa.
3) There are three standards for a group to be considered a syndicate under PD 1689: they must have at least 5 members, formed or managed a specified type of financial institution, and formed or managed that institution with the intent to defraud its members through illegal acts.
1) The term "syndicate" in Presidential Decree No. 1689 refers to a group of at least five people who form an entity with the intention of carrying out an unlawful act.
2) Jurisprudence has clarified that simply because five people conspire to commit estafa against members of certain associations does not automatically make it a case of syndicated estafa.
3) There are three standards for a group to be considered a syndicate under PD 1689: they must have at least 5 members, formed or managed a specified type of financial institution, and formed or managed that institution with the intent to defraud its members through illegal acts.
1) The term "syndicate" in Presidential Decree No. 1689 refers to a group of at least five people who form an entity with the intention of carrying out an unlawful act.
2) Jurisprudence has clarified that simply because five people conspire to commit estafa against members of certain associations does not automatically make it a case of syndicated estafa.
3) There are three standards for a group to be considered a syndicate under PD 1689: they must have at least 5 members, formed or managed a specified type of financial institution, and formed or managed that institution with the intent to defraud its members through illegal acts.
1) The term "syndicate" in Presidential Decree No. 1689 refers to a group of at least five people who form an entity with the intention of carrying out an unlawful act.
2) Jurisprudence has clarified that simply because five people conspire to commit estafa against members of certain associations does not automatically make it a case of syndicated estafa.
3) There are three standards for a group to be considered a syndicate under PD 1689: they must have at least 5 members, formed or managed a specified type of financial institution, and formed or managed that institution with the intent to defraud its members through illegal acts.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 14
CRIMINAL LAW
Art. 315 REMO v. SEC OF JUSTICE, G.R. No. 192925, Dec. 9, 2016 Estafa (syndicated PD
In PD No. 1689, the term syndicate is described as "consisting
1689)
of five or more persons formed with the intention of carrying
out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme xxx." By itself, however, such description can be vague and somewhat confusing. Indeed, going by the description alone, one can be led into the inference that an estafa committed by five conspiring persons against any of the stockholders or members of the associations mentioned under PD No. 1689 would automatically give rise to the crime of syndicated estafa. But is such inference really what the law contemplates? Fortunately, the true import of the term "syndicate" has already been elucidated upon by relevant jurisprudence. Drawing from textual clues from the statute itself, our case law answers the foregoing query with a clear no. xxx Dissecting the pronouncement in Galvez v. CA (GR No 187919) for our present purposes, however, we are able to come up with the following standards by which a group of purported swindlers may be considered as a syndicate under PD No. 1689: 1. They must be at least 5 members 2. They must have formed or managed a rural bank, cooperative, samahang nayon, farmers association or any other corporation or association that solicits funds from the general public 3. They formed or managed such association with the intention of carrying out an unlawful or illegal act,
transaction, enterprise or scheme i.e., they used the very
association that they formed or managed as the means to defraud its own stockholders, members and depositors.
