DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
Estafa
Sunday, 02 05, 2006
Estafa, as defined under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and in the context of the case involving two lawyers who were recently charged by the Department of Justice (DoJ), is a crime committed by one who misappropriates or converts, to the prejudice of another, money received by the offender in trust for another; or by one who denies ever having received such money.
There are much simpler terms that are easily understood, like swindling or, to the really street-savvy, diddling.
The facts are pretty clear, as cited in the DoJ resolution promulgated on Jan. 2, 2006: there was a law partnership of four lawyers; the partnership handled a case for a fee; the case was won; their client paid the fees; only two of the four lawyers in the partnership benefited from the fees, while the two others were deprived of their shares. The two who ran away with the entire fees also denied ever having received the same.
When the two lawyers refused to give the two others their respective shares in the fees and instead, converted these shares to their own benefit and to the prejudice of their erstwhile partners in the law firm, they committed estafa. Out there in the street, people would say: Those buggers swindled their partners. Similarly, when they denied having received the fees from their client, when in truth and fact they did receive the fees, they committed estafa. Street translation: Those buggers gave their partners a royal screwing.
So the screwees took their grievance to the DoJ, which ruled in their favor. The lawyers who stand accused — one of them the jaded Yale-educated mentor who was a hero to the young lawyers in their law firm before the swindle and the other who is now living it up from the fruits of the diddle by spending money like it was going to be declared illegal tomorrow — are now calling in debts and favors extended in the hope that some of them would be able to pull some strings. They have even spent lavishly on paid advertisements and column feeds in several newspapers, on the chance that they could redeem their tarnished images as a duo of diddlers and at the same time paint the swindled partners as a pair of ingrates. These are evident acts of panic; they are clutching at straws because they have no more recourse to stop the trial of the case against them.
The case of top executives of Fil-Estate Properties, Inc., decided by the Supreme Court (SC) only last October 2005, is instructive on this point. There as here, the executives were charged for estafa. The DoJ denied their petition for review of a resolution of the City Prosecutor’s Office indicting them for the crime. They brought the case to the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking to stop the filing of an Information against them. Rebuffed by the CA, the executives elevated the case to the SC. The SC resolved to deny the appeal, saying the CA did not err in dismissing the petition for review; courts cannot interfere with the exercise of discretion by the public prosecutor in evaluating the offense charged; and the decision as to whether to dismiss a complaint is dependent upon the sound discretion of the prosecutor and ultimately, that of the secretary of Justice.
Lawyers have a duty to their brethren in the profession: To be courteous, fair and candid. This much is clear under Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The lawyers who should by now be the accused under an Information for estafa before the Regional Trial Court, violated this Canon. Now, they have to answer also to a disbarment case filed by the two lawyers whom they swindled of their fees.
It is sad to realize that being rich beyond the ordinary dreams of avarice is definitely the motivation behind the swindle committed by these two “super” lawyers — yes, that is how they style themselves in a paid headline in some tabloid. The dazzling glint of lucre has blinded them to all that is decent, fair and courteous. They can even salve their conscience by the probability that the prosecution of the criminal case will take years and during all that time they could continue to wallow in their ill-gotten wealth. Unless, in the meantime, the proceedings at the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, which move at a much faster pace, will be resolved toward their disbarment.
As I always advise my students in Criminal Procedure, if you are pretty sure about your evidence that could lead to acquittal, proceed to trial right away. Do not employ any more delaying tactics. You will get justice much faster. Your acquittal without delay is that important. Under the Speedy Trial Act, you could be acquitted in a year’s time. If you delay the trial, you will only have yourself to blame for the lingering doubts about your honor. So, to the two lawyers who now stand accused for estafa, I say they had better confront now the issues in a court trial.
As we go to press, the Information for estafa has not yet been filed with the Regional Trial Court, four weeks after the promulgation of the resolution directing the filing of the Information. I refuse to believe that the delay is due to what one observer wrote about the power of a woman to summon tears at will. That is not in the Rules of Criminal Procedure. But then, even the most devilishly crafty lawyer will have to resort to unwritten rules. Running away with another’s money, after all, is not playing by the rules of civilized conduct.
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
No comments:
Post a Comment