Republic of the Philippines

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
National Prosecution Service
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Padre Faura St., Ermita, Manila

OLIVA V. MULATO,

Complainant – appellee NPS DOCKET No. XI-09-INV-20A-029

For: SYNDICATED ESTAFA.
-versus-
KING PAUL BRYAN AUDITOR,
RICO JOHN C. GARCIA, IAN PALIJO,
CHRISTINA PALIJO and
ALEJANDRO TELIN JR.,
Respondents- appellant
x---------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW

The respondent-appellant ALEJANDRO TELIN JR., by and through

the undersigned counsel, respectfully requests the Honorable Secretary of
Justice to review the Joint Resolution dated 03 March 2020 issued by the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Tagum City, Davao del Norte, in the above
case, recommending the filing of an information before Regional Trial Court
in Tagum City against the respondents for Syndicated Estafa. The
undersigned counsel sought a reconsideration of the said resolution through
a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in a subsequent Resolution
dated 23 July 2020.

PARTIES

Complainant-Appelle OLIVA MULATO, of legal age, with residence

at Prk. 6, Burgos, Carmel Subd., Canocotan, Tagum City, Davao del Norte.
She is the private complainant in the above-titled case where she charged,
together with the other respondents, the respondent–appellant with
syndicated estafa in which the assailed resolution was issued.
Respondent–Appellant ALEJANDRO TELIN JR. is of legal age,
married, Filipino Citizen, and a resident of Casiano Compound, Purok
Pioneer, Mankilam, Tagum City, Davao del Norte.

Appellee OFFICE of the CITY PROSECUTOR of Tagum City,

Davao del Norte, who rendered the assailed Resolutions (Annexes “1” and
“2”) has the office address at the Office of the City Prosecutor, Tagum City,
Davao del Norte.

II.

NATURE AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

This Petition for Review, filed under the 2000 National Prosecution
Service Rule on Appeal, seeks to:

a) nullify the JOINT RESOLUTION of the Office of the City

Prosecutor of Tagum dated March 3, 2020 (Annex “1”, infra), a copy
of which was received by the Appellant on July 16, 2020, and the
RESOLUTION dated July 23, 2020 (Annex “2”, infra), a copy of
which was received by the appellant on September 22, 2020, which
denied the Respondent-Appellant Tellin’s MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION.

b) command the Office of the City Prosecutor of Tagum to exclude

Respondent-Appellant Alejandro Tellin Jr., from the necessary
information for SYNDICATED ESTAFA in NPS DOCKET No. XI-
09-INV-20A-029;

The Appellee Honorable City Prosecutor of Tagum, in so issuing the

assailed RESOLUTIONS, gravely abused his discretion without and/or in
excess of jurisdiction.

This Petition for Review is timely and seasonably filed within the 15-
day period provided for under NPS Rules on Appeal from September 22,
2020 when Appellant’s counsel received the copy of the latest Order herein
assailed, said 15-day period will expire on October 7, 2020.

III.

STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS INVOLVED

On December 09, 2019, Complainant-Appellant filed a case against

Respondents KING PAUL BRYAN AUDITOR, RICO JOHN C. GARCIA,
IAN PALIJO, CHRISTINA PALIJO, officers of now-defunct RIGEN
WELLNESS PRODUCTS MARKETING/TRADING including the herein
Respondent-Appellant ALEJANDRO TELIN JR. for SYNDICATED
ESTAFA docketed as NPS No.: XI-09-INV-20A-029 before the OFFICE
OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF TAGUM CITY. A copy of the
COMPLAINT, and its mentioned annexes are hereto attached marked
collectively as ANNEX “3” hereof.

On February 24, 2020, Respondent-Appellant Alejandro Telin Jr. filed

his Counter–Affidavit alleging therein, among others, that while he was
hired to serve Rigen Marketing for ministerial function, his engagement
thereof was very short such he cannot be considered an officer of said
marketing. There was also no appointment from the top management for him
to be a branch manager as alleged by the complainant, neither was he
conferred with managerial and control functions in the branch office.
Respondent-Appellant is, like the herein complainant, an investor of Rigen
and had in fact filed criminal case against other respondents hereof.
Likewise, no acts of inducement attributable to the respondent-appellant was
committed by him at any given time that led the herein complainant to invest
in Rigen Marketing. A copy of the Counter - Affidavit is hereto attached as
ANNEX “4” hereof.

On March 03, 2020, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Tagum

issued JOINT RESOLUTION recommending the filing of an information
before the Regional Trial Court against respondents. A copy of the March
03, 2020 JOINT RESOLUITON is hereto attached as ANNEX “1” hereof.

Respondent–Appellant Alejandro Telin Jr. timely filed his MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION [Re: Order dated March 03, 2020]. A copy of
said Motion is hereto attached as ANNEX “5” hereof.

Then, on July 23, 2020, Office of the City Prosecutor issued the
assailed RESOLUTION denying Respondent–Appellant Alejandro Telin Jr.
Motion for Reconsideration which was received by the undersigned counsel
on September 22, 2020. A copy of the said RESOLUTION is hereto
attached as Annex “2”. The RESOLUTIONS of the CITY PROSECUTOR
are being assailed in this petition, for having been issued in grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Hence, this petition assailing the said RESOLUTION on the

following-

IV

ISSUES
1. THE RESPONDENT ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION IN RECOMMENDING THE FILING OF
SYNDICATED ESTAFA AGAINST THE RESPONDENT-
ASSAILANT ALEJANDRO TELIN JR.

2. THE RESPONDENT CITY PROSECUTOR

COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION IN RENDERING RESOLUTION DATED
JULY 23, 2020 DENYING THE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT-
ASSAILANT ALEJANDRO TELIN JR.

V.

GROUNDS

Any person who causes pecuniary damage upon another through any
of the acts of abuse of confidence or of deceit, as enumerated in Article 315
of the RPC, commits the crime of estafa or swindling. According to the
Honorable City Prosecutor of Tagum, to be charged with Estafa by means of
deceit under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code, the following
elements must concur, to wit:

a. That there must be false pretense or fraudulent representation

as to the offender’s power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;
b. That such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made
or executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the
fraud;
c. That the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent
act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his
money or property; and
d. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

The crime known as syndicated estafa, on the other hand, is set

forth and penalized by Section 1 of PD No. 1689. The said section
reads:

Section 1. Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or

other forms of swindling as defined in Article 315 and 316 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall be punished by life
imprisonment to death if the swindling (estafa) is committed by
a syndicate consisting of five or more persons formed with the
intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction,
enterprise or scheme, and the defraudation results in the
misappropriation of moneys contributed by stockholders, or
members of rural banks, cooperative, "samahang nayon(s)", or
farmers' associations, or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public.

In essence, syndicated estafa is but the commission of any kind

of estafa under Article 315 of the RPC (or other forms of swindling
under Article 316) with two (2) additional conditions: one, the estafa
or swindling was perpetrated by a "syndicate" and two, the estafa or
swindling resulted in the "misappropriation of money contributed by
stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperative, samahang
nayon(s), or farmers association, or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general public." Thus, in People v.
Balasa1, the Supreme Court detailed the elements of syndicated estafa
as follows:

1. Estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Articles 315

and 316 of the Revised Penal Code is committed;

2. The estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate; and

3. The defraudation results in the misappropriation of moneys

contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks,
cooperatives, samahang nayon(s), or farmers associations, or
of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general
public.

With due respect to the Honorable City Prosecutor, the above

elements are absent with respect to the Respondent-Appellant Alejandro
Telin Jr.

Respondent-Appellant Alejandro Telin Jr.

Is Not Part Of The Association/Corporation
Who Defraud Its Own Stockholders, Members
Or Depositors.

The Association/Corporation who purportedly defrauded its

depositors or members in this instant case is the RIGEN WELLNESS
PRODUCTS MARKETING/TRADING (RIGEN for brevity) where co-
respondents KING PAUL BRYAN AUDITOR as CEO, RICO JOHN C.
GARCIA as COO and co-respondents IAN PALIJO and CHRISTINA
PALIJO as officers.
1
G.R. No. 106357, 3 September 1988.
Alejandro Telin admits that he was hired by RIGEN for a very short
period of time. Thinking of the legitimacy and legality of the business at the
onset, Telin was first a member and investor of RIGEN. It operated openly
in Tagum City and nearby Municipalities without prohibition from local
authorities which gives color to its legitimacy. After its successful launching
in Tagum City at the early months of 2019, with the massive turnout of
investors, RIGEN expanded its operations to neighboring municipalities. A
branch was opened purposely to cater investors from Asuncion, Davao del
Norte but the physical office is located at Villa Maggsanoc, Mankilam,
Tagum City, without Branch Manager; rather, the same is under the direct
control of the Main Office in Apokon Road, Magugpo East, Tagum City.
Several personnel were hired specifically to accept pay-ins and remit the
collection to the main office within the day—including the herein
respondent-appellant Telin. Other than the benefit of a compensation of
P1,000.00/day excluding overtime pay for the services rendered, Telin
accepted the job order because he was allowed to invest at RIGEN without
the need of paying the corresponding registration fee.

He began working therein sometime in the first week of April and

immediately resigned even before the release of the Securities and Exchange
Commission’s Advisory that RIGEN was not a registered investment or
trading corporation because he already sensed that there was something
wrong in the management of funds. As a hired individual, he was only
conducting a ministerial function such that he cannot be considered an
officer or even an employee thereof. In fact, as stated in the Respondent-
Appellant’s Counter Affidavit2, a Certification made by King Paul Bryan
Auditor wherein the latter listed down the names of his employees, the
former’s name did not come up on the list. A copy of such Certification is
hereto attached as ANNEX “6” and forms as an integral part hereof.

Moreover, the finding that Telin is a branch manager of Rigen

Marketing was never substantiated by any documentary evidence and the
Honorable City Prosecutor only relied upon the self-serving allegations of
the private complainant and an alleged picture3 claiming Alejandro Telin Jr
as the branch operator which was obtained from an unknown and unverified
source hence, unofficial and can easily be fabricated.

There was also no appointment from the top management for

Alejandro Telin Jr to be considered as manager. Neither was he conferred
with managerial and control functions in the branch office where he, as
previously stated, was merely daily-paid hired personnel who left work
immediately in the second week of May 2019. He was not in a position to
dip his fingers into the company’s creation and legitimacy. Like the private
complainant, Telin believed in RIGEN’s initial representation that they are a
legitimate business engaged in cryptocurrency or security trading. As a
matter of fact, Alejandro Telin Jr. filed a criminal case against the other
2
ANNEX 4
3
ANNEX D-2 of the Affidavit of Complaint dated 9 December 2019.
respondents hereof. A copy of such Complaint is hereto attached as ANNEX
“7” and forms as an integral part hereof.

The Supreme Court resolution in the case of Galvez v. Court of

Appeals, et al.,4 the high court declared that in order to be considered as a
syndicate under PD No. 1689, the perpetrators of an estafa must not only be
comprised of at least five individuals but must have also used the
association that they formed or managed to defraud its own
stockholders, members or depositors. Thus:

On review of the cases applying the law, we note that the swindling
syndicate used the association that they manage to defraud the
general public of funds contributed to the association. Indeed,
Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1689 speaks of a syndicate
formed with the intention of carrying out the unlawful scheme for the
misappropriation of the money contributed by the members of the
association. In other words, only those who formed [or] manage
associations that receive contributions from the general public who
misappropriated the contributions can commit syndicated estafa.
xxx. (Italics and Emphasis supplied).

Hence, Galvez held that since the directors therein were "outsiders" or
were not affiliated in any way with the commercial bank whose funds they
allegedly misappropriated, they cannot be charged with syndicated estafa but
only of simple estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC.

Guided by the foregoing standards, Respondent-Appellant Telin,

being only a hired personnel of RIGEN, cannot be made to have formed [or]
manage the corporation and receive contributions from the general public
then misappropriated the same which constitutes an involvement/indictment
of Syndicated Estafa.

Respondent-Appellant Alejandro Telin Jr.

Is Not Even Guilty Of A Simple Estafa.

There is, however, a more fundamental reason why the finding of

probable cause against Respondent-Appellant Alejandro Telin Jr. should
fail. Respondent Telin, under the circumstances, could not even be
considered to have committed simple estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the
RPC.

The first three (3) elements of estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the
RPC do not exist by the factual circumstances of this case.

The first element is absent since there was no false pretense or

fraudulent representation ever committed by Telin as to his power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
4
704 Phil. 463 (2013).
transactions. He never claimed to be an officer or manager of RIGEN.
During his short stint at RIGEN, as previously stated, he was merely hired
specifically to accept pay-ins and remit the collection to the main office
within the day together with his own personal pay-ins. Those persons whom
Telin received pay-ins from knew what his role was in the branch office and
was never deceived or manipulated to part-in their money or property. Like
them, Telin was also an investor and the same was publicly known to the
other investors.

The second element of false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent

means to induce, and relied on by, the offended party to part with his money
or property is absent with respect to Alejandro Telin Jr. To implicate the
Respondent Telin as the one who entices, directly or indirectly, the private
complainant to part in her money is gravely misplaced. Telin Jr. does not
personally know the private complainant nor remember meeting her in
person or transacted with her. Perhaps, Telin was merely implicated in this
case by the private complainant because of his short engagement with the
RIGEN Marketing at the time he was hired in one of its branches and that
during this time, he may be the one who accommodated the transaction of
the complainant. The purported receipts5 attached by the private complainant
in her Affidavit of Complaint do not bear his true signature even if the
rubber stamped thereto bore the name of Alejandro Telin Jr. The
management of RIGEN, without Telin’s knowledge and consent, used the
latter’s name and rubber stamp bearing his name in accepting payment at its
office in Mankilam but the signatures thereof pertain clearly to some other
persons.

Due to the popularity of RIGEN in Tagum City and nearby

municipalities at that time, there was no need to personally entice the
complainant to invest. Admittedly, Respondent-Appellant Telin was at the
grand launching of RIGEN because he was one of the investors who were to
receive an early pay-out to be released during the event. He was not a
speaker nor an organizer of the said event and as such, he cannot be the one
who enticed the private complainant.

To reiterate, Respondent Telin had no participation in the perpetration

of massive fraud by RIGEN Marketing. No acts of inducement attributable
to him was ever committed by him at any give time. He had not posted or
promoted through social media nor publicly solicited from any person for
the investment in the RIGEN Marketing.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays of this Honorable

Office of the Secretary of Justice and in the interest of justice, fair play and
applicable laws:

5
ANNEXES E TO E-3 of Affidavit of Complaint dated 09 December 2019
1. nullify the JOINT RESOLUTION of the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Tagum dated March 3, 2020 (Annex “1”, infra) and the
RESOLUTION dated July 23, 2020 (Annex “2”, infra) which denied
the Respondent-Appellant Tellin’s MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION.

b) command the Office of the City Prosecutor of Tagum to exclude

Respondent-Appellant Alejandro Tellin Jr., from the necessary
information for SYNDICATED ESTAFA in NPS DOCKET No. XI-
09-INV-20A-029;

Petitioner also prays for such other reliefs and remedies as may be
legal, equitable and just under the premises.

Tagum City, Davao del Norte for Manila, Philippines, October 05,
2020.

JOVES-BOJA LAW OFFICE

Counsel for the Respondent-Appellant Alejandro Telin Jr.
Boja Arcade, Rizal Street
Tagum City, Davao del Norte
By:

ATTY. LYNDON MELVI C. SUMI-OG

Collaborating Counsel for the Respondent Alejandro Telin Jr.
Roll No. 74318
PTR No. 2847859 Jul. 29, 2020
IBP No. 128282 Sep. 04, 2020
TIN: 288-886-690-000

Copy Furnished:

NOEL PADILLA PALMA

City Prosecutor
Department of Justice
Office of the City Prosecutor
Tagum City

Oliva V. Mulato
Prk. 6 Burgos, Carmel Subd.,
Canocotan, Tagum City,
Davao del Norte
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

I, ALEJANDRO TELIN JR., petitioner in the above-entitled

Petition for Review, under oath state that I have caused the preparation of
the foregoing Petition for Review whose contents and those of its annexes
are true and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based on
authentic records of the case.

I further certify that:

1. I have not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the
same issues in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, or different divisions
thereof, or any other court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency;

2. No such action or claim is pending in the Supreme Court, Court of

Appeals, or different divisions thereof, or any other court, tribunal or quasi-
judicial agency;

3. If there is any such action or proceeding either pending or may have

been terminated, or I learn that a similar action or claim has been filed or is
pending before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or different divisions
thereof, or any other court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, I undertake to
report that fact to this Honorable Court within five (5) days from knowledge
thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 5 th day

of October, 2020 at Tagum City, Davao del Norte.

ALEJANDRO TELIN JR.

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 5th day of October, 2020 at

Tagum City, Davao del Norte by the above-named affiant, who is personally
known to me and who attest to the truth of the foregoing.

Doc. No. _________;

Page No._________;
Book No._________;
Series of 2020.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE and EXPLANATION

I, ALEJANDRO TELIN JR., the petitioner in the above-entitled

case, under oath state that:

I have served copies of the foregoing Petition by Registered Mail

with Return card to the following:

(1) NOEL PADILLA PALMA

City Prosecutor
Department of Justice
Office of the City Prosecutor
Tagum City
As Per REGISTRY RETURN RECEIPT NO.: ______________

(2) OLIVA V. MULATO

Prk. 6 Burgos, Carmel Subd.,
Canocotan, Tagum City,
Davao del Norte
As Per REGISTRY RETURN RECEIPT NO.: _______________

I have filed the Petition for Review and its annexes with the
Office of the Secretary of Justice by registered mail on ________________,
in lieu of personal filing which is not practicable because of far distance
and lack of manpower.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this

_________________, at ___________________.
ALEJANDRO TELIN JR.
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____________________,

at _______________________ by the affiant who is personally known to me
and appeared personally before me and who exhibited to me his
credential indicated above.

Doc. No.:_________:
Page no.:_________;
Book no.:_________;
Series of 2020.