MANILA _PREDICTED INCREASE IN POPULATION BY 2025: 3.29 million

Manila By Nick CarboneWednesday, Oct. 26, 2011 SOURCE_ http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2097720_2097718_2097716,00.html Predicted increase in population by 2025: 3.29 million As the world's most densely populated city with over 46,000 people per square mile (nearly twice that of New York City), Manila is reaching its breaking point. Yet, the capital of the Philippines is still expected to grow by more than 3 million people by 2025. And with the predicted growth comes a host of challenges. Manila may be the Southeast Asian nation's business hub, but economic disparity plagues the city as spiking land prices make housing unaffordable for laborers who earn meager wages. As a result, the city has sprawled far outside comfortable reaches, making things like water distribution increasingly difficult. Currently the city relies on dated water pumps — an unsustainable and dirty method of distribution — that will need to be addressed in order for the city to sustain its growth. But Mother Nature could speak first: Manila is plagued by frequent earthquakes, a consequence of its location on the Ring of Fire, which coupled with its shoddy infrastructure makes the population boom increasingly precarious.

RURAL TO URBAN MIGRATION _ REFERENCE

Rural to Urban Migration source http://lailustrada.blogspot.com/2010/11/rural-to-urban-migration.html Volumes of Filipinos from the rural areas are continuously moving to metro cities in the Philippines like to Metro Manila, Cebu, or Davao. This is especially evident in the National Capital Region, which at present has a very high population density with 11.5 million recorded residents. Rural to urban migration, i.e., the movement of people from the countryside to the city, is facilitated by the thought that jobs are available in the metro city, which is their only hope to have a better life. Poverty, insufficient opportunities to have good education and healthcare, unproductive land, and fewer employment opportunities in the rural areas are among their reasons. I remember that my mother, who grew up in a rural area in the province, had to go by foot to be able to go to the nearest elementary school, specifically that was in the 1960's. Currently, students in this town still do this, i.e., they have to cross rivers and mountains on their slippers to be able to attend school. With basic necessities such as education, healthcare and jobs not sufficiently available in rural areas, Filipinos are encouraged to move to urban cities. But in reality urban migration does not guarantee an end to rural poverty. Those who move from the provinces to metro cities such as the National Capital Region end up jobless, homeless, and actually do not get to have a better quality of life just like what they have hoped for. What makes it worse is that this actually is detrimental to the growth and development of metro cities. Overpopulation, like in Metro Manila, one of the reasons of which is rural to urban migration, leads to higher unemployment and underemployment rates, high numbers of informal settlers, air, water, and noise pollution, more waste and garbage and greater abuse of natural resources in metro cities (e.g., families squatting near rivers and under bridges, lead to more wastes going to the Pasig River), which hinder the development of these cities, lead to more problems, and make sustainable development less attainable. Housing of rural to urban migrants often becomes a collection of primitive shacks made of any available material, and most houses lack basic necessities such as electricity, clean water, sewerage, human waste and rubbish disposal which are not only dangerous for the health and safety of those living in these houses but also to the environment. There is also an increase in crime rate and number of street children, with the lack of education and employment. Schools and health care centers are neither enough to accommodate and address the needs of these people. One of the reasons for urbanization is that people living in the rural areas think that urban life will be better - of course with the presence of better facilities such as schools, hospitals, technology and infrastructure in general. In addition, they think that urban life will be glamorous or maybe more stimulating - there are huge shopping centers and commercial areas, cinemas, hotels - which rural communities lack. But having a better quality of life is not attained simply by moving to an urban community where jobs are available. Yes, there could be jobs available, but the question is are those who are moving knowledgeable, skilled, and competent to qualify for these jobs? As supported by the human capital theory, education is a key to improving an individual's economic state and quality of life, which in turn will contribute to the economic development of the community that he or she belongs to. There are those who live in rural areas who have actually become successful given their knowledge, skills, creativity and determination in thinking of ways to improve their economic status in the province without having to move to a metro city. Agriculture is said to be one of the promising industries in the Philippines in the next ten years, and these successful individuals who live in rural areas have engaged in agribusiness (e.g., plant - vegetables, fruits and crops, animal, fish, salt production). Agribusiness is on top in terms of the industries that offer in-demand and hard-to-fill jobs in the Philippines at least in the next ten years, and this is something that rural communities can take advantage of. At the side of the government, promises have been made in terms of developing regional and rural areas such as in terms of transportation, education, and other basic needs that should be provided, i.e., if we could remember this has been repeatedly mentioned in a number of State of the Nation addresses in the past years. But what is the status of these projects and promises now? Higher rates of urban poverty is also one of the offshoots of rural to urban migration, which has become an additional social issue that needs to be resolved. From the end of the government there is still this pending task to facilitate development and bring in opportunities in rural areas (as well as in urban areas) so that people there would also have more chances to prosper without having to migrate to the already overcrowded and abused urban areas. However, at the end of the citizens, there is also a need to work  hard to improve their own standards of living (e.g., find ways to improve level of knowledge and skills, have the right attitude and try to go beyond just surviving day by day in poor living conditions) to prosper and contribute to the betterment of the society - ecologically, economically, and intellectually  - wherever they may decide to live.

DOES MANILA REALLY NEED ANOTHER RECLAMATION? (REFERENCE MATERIAL)

Does Manila really need another reclamation? SOURCE : https://bluprint.onemega.com/really-need-manila-reclamation/ An urban planner and founding commissioner of the former Metro Manila Commission (now MMDA) crafts an argument against the madness May 16, 2018   Written by Nathaniel Von Einsiedel A proposed 148-hectare reclamation project— roughly half the size of the Bonifacio Global City and McKinley Hill combined—was back on the table. Stopped in 1992, the project covers the southern portion of the bay including portions fronting the Manila Yacht Club and the Philippine Navy. It was revived through an agreement between the City of Manila and Manila Goldcoast Development Corporation in April of 2012. The project aims to develop a “business center” in the northern parcel of the Manila-Cavite Coastal Road Reclamation Project. Originally conceived and given the approval in March 1991 by the then Public Estates Authority (now the Philippine Reclamation Authority, or PRA), the project was stopped by virtue of a 1992 ordinance of the City of Manila prohibiting any reclamation in the area, as part of its efforts to preserve Manila Bay. The Office of the President also ordered the project stopped. These decisions were spurred by massive citizen objection. But that April, the PRA reaffirmed its 1991 awarding of the project to Goldcoast. At the same time, the Manila City Council also passed Ordinance No. 8233 authorizing Mayor Alfredo Lim to apply for the reclamation with the PRA, thus effectively repealing the 1992 ordinance banning reclamation on Manila Bay. The City subsequently entered into an agreement with Goldcoast on the condition the city be given a share in the reclaimed land. Goldcoast would fund and execute the reclamation while the city would facilitate the right of way, provide utilities and even labor. Sharing of the proceeds would be 70 percent for Goldcoast and 30 percent for the city. It has been Mayor Lim’s dream to create a “financial center” in Manila since his first term as Mayor. He has since been trying to convince various organizations to carry out his dream, but has not been successful. One of these organizations was the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) whom he asked to set aside a portion of the Manila South Harbor across Intramuros which the PPA aims to redevelop into a mixed-use complex. The PPA had agreed to Mayor Lim’s request, but the plan has not prospered for one reason or another. Now, it appears that Mayor Lim has found the vehicle in the Goldcoast reclamation project to realize his dream. But does Manila need another reclamation? Environmental Implications Reclamation, by its very nature, is an environmentally invasive activity. It basically alters the natural ecological system of shorelines and coastal areas. It is also an expensive alternative to creating more land supply for urban development purposes. Constructing roads and buildings on reclaimed land is also expensive because of the additional reinforcement required. Buildings on reclaimed land also tend to sway more violently during earthquakes, not to mention their higher risk to tsunami. Furthermore, in addition to the ecological and economic reasons against further reclamation in Manila Bay, reclamation is also a major cause of widespread flooding. An example of this is the Dagat-dagatan housing development in Navotas, adjacent to the Tondo Foreshore urban redevelopment project, which was developed in the late 1960s to accommodate the thousands of informal settler families displaced by the Manila North Harbor Container Port. According to various reports, the Dagat-dagatan project has caused severe flooding in the coastal communities in Navotas and Malabon which never flooded before, because it lengthened the distance that flood waters have to travel to drain out to the sea. Open to Manila Bay on the west and to Laguna Lake in the southeast, Metro Manila constitutes a vast urbanized drainage basin that experiences frequent inundations from overflowing rivers and storm waters which the existing system of esteros and canals constructed during the Spanish and American periods can no longer handle. Despite the growing vulnerability of much of the metropolitan area, however, rapid urbanization has continued unabated with residential, industrial, and commercial land uses increasingly exposed to flood-related destruction. Flooding has been a feature of daily life in Manila since at least the 19th century. When rains were particularly strong or tides were high, the natural drainage system was unable to cope with the sudden volume of water and the city was turned into one vast lake. The gradual expansion of the urban area into the surrounding marshes, primarily through reclamation, only increased the frequency and magnitude of such inundations. Over the years, rapid population growth, changes from open to urbanized lands, and environmental factors have combined to magnify the nature and extent of flooding in the metropolis. Apart from the factors that predispose Metro Manila to flooding, such as topography, annual rainfall, typhoons, tidal variations, storm surges, and poor drainage capacity of soils, its vulnerability is increased considerably by human actions such as reclamation. Climatic and environmental factors, which themselves are evolving over time, partly as a result of natural processes and partly from human-induced ones, also inter-relate in complex ways with the changes brought about as a result of human activity to make Metro Manila more vulnerable to floods. These improper land management practices directly increase the vulnerability of Metro Manila to floods as more and more lands are allowed to be developed into impermeable, or non-water-absorbing, urban sites. Manila and the other component cities need to look beyond the confines of their respective jurisdictions and accept the fact that they are part and parcel of a single floodplain, a vast urbanized drainage basin which does not respect political boundaries. The history of urban development and flooding in Metro Manila has been one of lost opportunities and uncertainty. Patronage politics, lack of commitment to planning and implementation, weak regulation enforcement, and inadequate urban management capacity have created conflicts of interest and rent-seeking strategies that have resulted in a mega-city that is exposed to high levels of disaster risk. If more reclamation is carried out in Manila Bay, it is more likely that in the near future, flooding in Metro Manila will get worse before it gets better. The pressures of rapid and massive population growth and urbanization are simply outpacing the capacity of Metro Manila—whether this is taken to be the 17 local governments, or the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), or combined as one entity including the national government agencies based in the metropolis—to plan, manage and fund the more environmentally sensitive pattern of metropolitan development. Under this future scenario, the most that can realistically be expected in the short term is for all the local governments comprising the metropolis to have in place proper disaster preparedness plans. But if Metro Manila is to develop as a flood-free mega-city, Manila and the other component cities need to look beyond the confines of their respective jurisdictions and accept the fact that they are part and parcel of a single floodplain, a vast urbanized drainage basin which does not respect political boundaries. If this acceptance is achieved, then the preparation of an ecologically-based regional plan can proceed. Unless this happens, Metro Manila will likely not only remain vulnerable but even become highly susceptible to more frequent and severe disasters in the face of climate change. Cultural Heritage Implications When the original proposal was submitted in 1991, one of the major objections to the project came from the private businesses and residents in the Malate-Ermita area who wanted to retain the scenic view of Manila Bay and its famous sunset. At that time, then Secretary of Tourism Rafael Alunan supported this position. From a cultural heritage conservation viewpoint, the Manila Bay sunset is considered a highly significant natural cultural asset which provides Manila its unique identity and sense of place, thus worthy of preservation. Recently, a proposal has been submitted to the National Committee on Monuments and Sites of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) recommending the declaration as a National Cultural Treasure, as a National Historical Landmark and as Important Cultural Property, the portion of Roxas Boulevard from Rizal Park up to the Cultural Center of the Philippines, including the boulevard itself and the waters of Manila Bay extending therefrom as well as the view of the Bay, Cavite, Corregidor, and Bataan from the promenade and seawall. This proposal cites that the area and its immediate vicinity are where the Rajas of Manila (Soliman and Matanda) fought the troops of Martin de Goiti and Miguel Lopez de Legazpi; where British troops landed in 1762 (near Malate Church); and where American forces landed in 1898 after the Battle of Manila Bay. It is the only public and park area in Manila where one can clearly see Cavite where the Manila Galleon docked for close to 300 years, and the Corregidor and Bataan Peninsula (with Mount Samat) where heroes of World War II fought and died. According to Dr. Jaime C. Laya, former Chairman of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts, the area as well as the adjacent waters clearly qualify for the declaration as a National Cultural Treasure under Republic Act 10066, being a “cultural property [site] having exceptional cultural, artistic, and historical significance to the Philippines…” Dr. Laya further explains that it also qualifies for declaration as a Historical Landmark, being a “site . . . associated with events or achievements significant to Philippine history . . .” The area further qualifies for declaration as a Historical Shrine, being one of the country’s “historical sites . . . hallowed and revered for their history or association . . .” Apart from this historical significance, the incomparable view, recognized as such under the Burnham Plan of 1905 and by generations of tourists and visitors, also justifies its declaration as Important Cultural Property under R.A. 10066, also known as the Heritage Law. The area is widely recognized as also one of the few remaining beautiful places in Manila that the whole country can be proud of. This is the last remaining part of Manila where the public can see the bay, enjoy the view and the sea breeze, reminisce on history without special permission, without buying something, or without paying for the privilege. It gives Manila its unique identity and sense of place. We will lose all these if we allow the proposed reclamation to be implemented. There are other alternatives to reclamation, such as urban redevelopment. And given the environmental implications, particularly the risk of more severe flooding, do we really need, or want, another reclamation project?

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION DIRECTORS_REFERENCE

CSC NCR - No. 25 Kaliraya St., Brgy. Doña Josefa, Quezon City    Director IV JUDITH DONGALLO-CHICANO chicano_judith@yahoo.com Director III MARIA VICTORIA M. SALAZAR Director III KATHERINE LIMARE-DELMORO roncr@csc.gov.ph cscncr2015@gmail.com Tel. # 740-8412 / 749-0980 / 781-5864           781-5886 / 741-6097      CSC NCR - Field Offices  Director II Dick N. Echavez  CSC Field Office - BIR Rm. 210, BIR Bldg., Agham Road Diliman, Quezon City Tel.# 929-5568 / 9297515 roncr.fo_bircoahor@csc.gov.ph Director II Dick N. Echavez CSC Field Office - COA 2/F COA Bldg., Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City roncr.fo_bircoahor@csc.gov.ph Tel.# 932-7136 Director II Dick N. Echavez CSC Field Office - HOR Basement, South Wing, House of Representatives, Constitution H8ills, Quezon City roncr.fo_bircoahor@csc.gov.ph Tel.# 932-6221 Director II Evelyn E. Viernes  CSC Field Office - DPWH Mezzanine Floor, DPWH Bldg., Bonifacio Drive, Port Area, Manila Tel.# 304-3292 Tel.# 304-3549 Fax.# 304-3331 roncr.fo_dpwh@csc.gov.ph Director II May Antonette D. Arriola  CSC Field Office - BSP Rm. 605 EDPC Bldg., BSP Complex, F. B. Harrison St., Roxas Blvd., Manila Tel.# 708-7347 roncr.fo_bsp@csc.gov.ph bsp_fo@yahoo.com Acting Director II Imelda R. Banzon CSC Field Office - DOST 4/F Philippine Textile Research Institute Building PITRI Compound, Gen. Santos Avenue Bicutan, Taguig City Tel.# 837-2071 locs 2278/2279 roncr.fo_dost@csc.gov.ph Director II Jocelyn Patrice L. Deco CSC Field Office - DBP 4/F DBP Bldg., Gil Puyat Ave. cor Makati Avenue, Makati City roncr.fo_dbp@csc.gov.ph Tel.# 818-9511 loc. 3404 Fax # 812-6371 Director II Jocelyn Patrice L. Deco CSC Field Office - Makati 7/F Building 2, Makati City Hall, Poblacion, Makati City Tel.# 870-1794 roncr.fo_makati@csc.gov.ph Director II Claudia A. Tan CSC Field Office - Manila Lions Drive, Arroceros St., Ermita, Manila Tel.# 310-5289 roncr.fo_manila@csc.gov.ph Director II Henry B. Peliño CSC Field Office - DFA 3/F DFA Bldg., Roxas Blvd., Pasay City Tel.# 834-3381/834-4809 Fax # 834-4455 roncr.fo_dfa@csc.gov.ph Director II Laura D. Mangorangca CSC Field Office - TESDA Building 7 TESDA Complex East Service Road South Super Highway, Taguig City Director II Laura D. Mangorangca Duty Free Philippines Corporation Duty Free Phils., 3/F EHA Building, Ninoy Aquino Ave. Parañaque City Tel.# 552-4391 Director II Eva F. Olmedillo CSC Field Office - DILG 23/F DILG-NAPOLCOM Center Bldg., EDSA cor. Quezon Avenue, Quezon City Tel.# 929-9622/925-9113 roncr.fo_dilg@csc.gov.ph Director II Eva F. Olmedillo CSC Field Office - SSS 10/F SSS Bldg., East Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City Tel.# 924-7826/920-6401 loc. 5959 roncr.fo_sss@csc.gov.ph Director II Hans R. Alcantara CSC Field Office - Quezon City Government 5/F Quezon City Hall, Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City Tel.# 988-4242 loc. 8506 Fax # 988-4242 loc. 8505 roncr.fo_qcg@csc.gov.ph Director II Hans R. Alcantara CSC Field Office - UP  G/F NEC Bldg., UP Campus, Diliman, Quezon City Tel.# 981-8500 loc. 3022 roncr.fo_up@csc.gov.ph Director II Noel V. Salumbides  CSC Field Office - Caloocan City Government 6/Floor, New Caloocan City Hall, 8th Street, 8th Avenue, Grace Park, Tel.# 781-4329 651-7800/743-8301 local 2252 roncr.fo_cal@csc.gov.ph Director II Noel V. Salumbides CSC Field Office - DOH Building 12, San Lazaro Compound, Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Manila Tel.# 781-4329 651-7800/743-8301 local 2252 roncr.fo_doh@csc.gov.ph Director II Cecilia C. Villafuerte CSC Field Office - DND Camp Gen. Aguinaldo, Boni Serrano St., Quezon City Tel.# 982-5673/911-6001 local 8212 982-5600 loc. 5673 roncr.fo_dnd@csc.gov.ph Director II Fe P. Lacaba CSC Field Office - DENR DENR Annex Bldg., Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City Tel.# 929-6626 loc. 2079 Fax # 928-6190 roncr.fo_denr@csc.gov.ph Director II Fe P. Lacaba CSC Field Office - DA G/F DA Bldg., Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City Tel.# 920-1814/928-8741/928-8758 Fax # 637-3451/920-4359 roncr.fo_da@csc.gov.ph Director II Lucila C. Pagdanganan  Civil Service Commission-National Capital Region Field Operations and Strategy Implementation Center (FOSIC) No. 25 Kaliraya St., Brgy. Doña Josefa, Quezon City 1113 Tel.#740-8412 loc. 209 381-7681 494-3984 cscncr_fosic@yahoo.com.sg Director II Roderick J. Romualdo  CSC Field Office - OP Room 476 Mabini Bldg., Malacañang, Manila Tel.# 736-1032/735-6201 local 6382/6472 roncr.fo_op@csc.gov.ph Director II Velda E. Cornelio  CSC Field Office - PNP 2/F DPRM Annex Bldg., Camp Crame, Quezon City Tel.# 723-0401 loc. 3662 Fax # 723-0401 loc. 3662, 4431 roncr.fo_pnp@csc.gov.ph

SYNDICATED ESTAFA CASE _REFERENCE

SECOND DIVISION RAFAEL H. GALVEZ and KATHERINE L. GUY, Petitioners, -versus- HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ASIA UNITED BANK, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x ASIA UNITED BANK, Petitioner, -versus- GILBERT G. GUY, PHILIP LEUNG, KATHERINE L. GUY, RAFAEL H. GALVEZ and EUGENIO H. GALVEZ, JR., Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x GILBERT G. GUY, PHILIP LEUNG and EUGENIO H. GALVEZ, JR., Petitioners, -versus- ASIA UNITED BANK, Respondent. G.R. No. 187919 G.R. No. 187979 G.R. No. 188030 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: April 25, 2012 x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x D E C I S I O N PEREZ, J.: THE FACTS In 1999, Radio Marine Network (Smartnet) Inc. (RMSI) claiming to do business under the name Smartnet Philippines[1] and/or Smartnet Philippines, Inc. (SPI),[2] applied for an Omnibus Credit Line for various credit facilities with Asia United Bank (AUB). To induce AUB to extend the Omnibus Credit Line, RMSI, through its directors and officers, presented its Articles of Incorporation with its 400-peso million capitalization and its congressional telecom franchise. RMSI was represented by the following officers and directors occupying the following positions: Gilbert Guy - Exec. V-Pres./Director Philip Leung - Managing Director Katherine Guy - Treasurer Rafael Galvez - Executive Officer Eugenio Galvez, Jr. - Chief Financial Officer/Comptroller Satisfied with the credit worthiness of RMSI, AUB granted it a P250 million Omnibus Credit Line, under the name of Smartnet Philippines, RMSIs Division. On 1 February 2000, the credit line was increased to P452 million pesos after a third-party real estate mortgage by Goodland Company, Inc.,[3] an affiliate of Guy Group of Companies, in favor of Smartnet Philippines,[4] was offered to the bank. Simultaneous to the increase of the Omibus Credit Line, RMSI submitted a proof of authority to open the Omnibus Credit Line and peso and dollar accounts in the name of Smartnet Philippines, Inc., which Gilbert Guy, et al. represented as a division of RMSI,[5] as evidenced by the letterhead used in its formal correspondences with the bank and the financial audit made by SGV & Co., an independent accounting firm. Attached to this authority was the Amended Articles of Incorporation of RMSI, doing business under the name of Smartnet Philippines, and the Secretarys Certificate of SPI authorizing its directors, Gilbert Guy and Philip Leung to transact with AUB.[6] Prior to this major transaction, however, and, unknown to AUB, while RMSI was doing business under the name of Smartnet Philippines, and that there was a division under the name Smartnet Philippines, Gilbert Guy, et al. formed a subsidiary corporation, the SPI with a paid-up capital of only P62,500.00. Believing that SPI is the same as Smartnet Philippines - the division of RMSI - AUB granted to it, among others, Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 990361 in the total sum of $29,300.00 in favor of Rohde & Schwarz Support Centre Asia Ptd. Ltd., which is the subject of these consolidated petitions. To cover the liability of this Irrevocable Letter of Credit, Gilbert Guy executed Promissory Note No. 010445 in behalf of SPI in favor of AUB. This promissory note was renewed twice, once, in the name of SPI (Promissory Note No. 011686), and last, in the name of Smartnet Philippines under Promissory Note No. 136131, bolstering AUBs belief that RMSIs directors and officers consistently treated this letter of credit, among others, as obligations of RMSI. When RMSIs obligations remained unpaid, AUB sent letters demanding payments. RMSI denied liability contending that the transaction was incurred solely by SPI, a corporation which belongs to the Guy Group of Companies, but which has a separate and distinct personality from RMSI. RMSI further claimed that while Smartnet Philippines is an RMSI division, SPI, is a subsidiary of RMSI, and hence, is a separate entity. Aggrieved, AUB filed a case of syndicated estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 1 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1689 against the interlocking directors of RMSI and SPI, namely, Gilbert G. Guy, Rafael H. Galvez, Philip Leung, Katherine L. Guy, and Eugenio H. Galvez, Jr., before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City. AUB alleged that the directors of RMSI deceived it into believing that SPI was a division of RMSI, only to insist on its separate juridical personality later on to escape from its liabilities with AUB. AUB contended that had it not been for the fraudulent scheme employed by Gilbert Guy, et al., AUB would not have parted with its money, which, including the controversy subject of this petition, amounted to hundreds of millions of pesos. In a Resolution dated 3 April 2006,[7] the Prosecutor found probable cause to indict Gilbert G. Guy, et al. for estafa but dismissed the charge of violation of PD No. 1689 against the same for insufficiency of evidence, thus: WHEREFORE, it is recommended that respondents be charged for ESTAFA under Article 315, par. 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code, and the attached information be filed with the Regional Trial Court in Pasig City, with a recommended bail of P40,000.00 for each respondent. It is further recommended that the charge of violation of P.D. 1689 against the said respondents be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.[8] Accordingly, an Information dated 3 April 2006[9] was filed against Gilbert Guy, et al. with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City. Both parties, i.e., the AUB and Gilbert Guy, et al., filed their respective Petitions for Review with the Department of Justice (DOJ) assailing the 3 April 2006 Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City. In a Resolution dated 15 August 2006,[10] the DOJ reversed the City Prosecutors Resolution and ordered the dismissal of the estafa charges against Gilbert Guy, et al. for insufficiency of evidence. The AUBs Motion for Reconsideration was denied, constraining it to assail the DOJ Resolution before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA partially granted AUBs petition in a Decision dated 27 June 2008, thus: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED, finding probable cause against private respondents for the crime of ESTAFA under Article 315, par 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code. The assailed Resolution dated August 15, 2006 of the Department of Justice is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE, subject to our ruling that the private respondents are not liable under P.D. 1689. The April 3, 2006 Resolution of Assistant City Prosecutor Paudac is hereby REINSTATED.[11] Aggrieved, Gilbert Guy, Philip Leung and Eugenio H. Galvez Jr. (in G.R. No. 188030) and separately, Rafael Galvez and Katherine Guy (in G.R. No. 187919) filed the present petitions before this Court assailing the CA Decision which reinstated the City Prosecutors Resolution indicting them of the crime of estafa. The AUB also filed its own petition before us, docketed as G.R. No. 187979, assailing the Court of Appeals Decision for dismissing the charge in relation to Section 1 of PD No. 1689. Hence, these consolidated petitions. Gilbert Guy, et al. argue that this case is but a case for collection of sum of money, and, hence, civil in nature and that no fraud or deceit was present at the onset of the transaction which gave rise to this controversy, an element indispensable for estafa to prosper.[12] AUB, on the other, insists that this controversy is within the scope of PD No. 1689, otherwise known as syndicated estafa. It contends that Guy, et al., induced AUB to grant SPIs letter of credit to AUBs damage and prejudice by misleading AUB into believing that SPI is one and the same entity as Smartnet Philippines which AUB granted an Omnibus Credit Transaction. After receiving and profiting from the proceeds of the aforesaid letter of credit, Gilbert Guy, et al. denied and avoided liability therefrom by declaring that the obligation should have been booked under SPI as RMSI never contracted, nor authorized the same. It is on this premise that AUB accuses Gilbert Guy, et al. to have committed the crime of estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to PD No. 1689. At issue, therefore, is whether or not there is probable cause to prosecute Gilbert Guy, et al. for the crime of syndicated estafa on the basis of fraudulent acts or fraudulent means employed to deceive AUB into releasing the proceeds of Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 990361 in favor of SPI. Our Ruling This controversy could have been just a simple case for collection of sum of money had it not been for the sophisticated fraudulent scheme which Gilbert Guy, et al. employed in inducing AUB to part with its money. Records show that on 17 February 1995, Radio Marine Network, Inc. (Radio Marine) amended its corporate name to what it stands today Radio Marine Network (Smartnet), Inc. This was a month after organizing its subsidiary corporation the Smartnet Philippines, Inc. with a capital of only P62,500.00.[13] A year earlier, Gilbert Guy, et al., established Smartnet Philippines as a division of Radio Marine under which RMSI operated its business. It was, however, only on 26 March 1998, when the Securities and Exchange Commission approved the amended corporate name, and only in October 1999 did RMSI register Smartnet Philippines as its business name with the Department of Trade and Industry.[14] It is in this milieu that RMSI transacted business with AUB under the name Smartnet Philippines and/or SPI. Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code provides: Art. 315. Swindling (estafa) any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned herein below x x x : x x x x 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud: (a)  By using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar deceits. x x x. The elements of estafa by means of deceit are the following: a.       That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; b.      That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; c.       That 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; d.      That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.[15] First, Gilbert Guy, Philip Leung, Katherine Guy, Rafael Galvez and Eugene Galvez, Jr., interlocking directors of RMSI and SPI, represented to AUB in their transactions that Smartnet Philippines and SPI were one and the same entity. While Eugene Galvez, Jr. was not a director of SPI, he actively dealt with AUB in his capacity as RMSIs Chief Financial Officer/Comptroller by falsely representing that SPI and RMSI were the same entity. Gilbert Guy, Philip Leung, Katherine Guy, Rafael Galvez, and Eugene Galvez, Jr. used the business names Smartnet Philippines, RMSI, and SPI interchangeably and without any distinction. They successfully did this by using the confusing similarity of RMSIs business name, i.e., Smartnet Philippines its division, and, Smartnet Philippines, Inc. the subsidiary corporation. Further, they were able to hide the identity of SPI, by having almost the same directors as that of RMSI. In order to let it appear that SPI is the same as that of Smartnet Philippines, they submitted in their application documents of RMSI, including its Amended Articles of Incorporation,[16] third-party real estate mortgage of Goodland Company[17] in favor of Smartnet Philippines, and audited annual financial statement of SGV & Co.[18] Gilbert Guy, et al. also used RMSI letterhead in their official communications with the bank and the contents of these official communications[19]conclusively pointed to RMSI as the one which transacted with the bank. These circumstances are all indicia of deceit. 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.[20] Second, the intent to deceive AUB was manifest from the start. Gilbert Guy et al. laid down first all the necessary materials they need for this deception before defrauding the bank by first establishing Smartnet Philippines as a division of Radio Marine under which Radio Marine Network Inc. operated its business.[21] Then it organized a subsidiary corporation, the SPI, with a capital of only P62,000.00.[22] Later, it changed the corporate name of Radio Marine Network Inc. into RMSI.[23] Undoubtedly, deceit here was conceived in relation to Gilbert Guy, et al.s transaction with AUB. There was a plan, documented in corporations papers, that led to the defraudation of the bank. The circumstances of the directors and officers acts in inserting in Radio Marine the name of Smartnet; the creation of its division Smartnet Philippines; and its registration as business name as Smartnet Philippines with the Department of Trade and Industry, together with the incorporation of its subsidiary, the SPI, are indicia of a pre-conceived scheme to create this elaborate fraud, victimizing a banking institution, which perhaps, is the first of a kind in Philippine business. We emphasize that fraud in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal duty or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another.[24] It is a generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can device 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.[25] As early as 1903, in U.S. v. Mendezona,[26] we held that an accused may be convicted for estafa if the deceit of false pretense is committed prior to or simultaneous with fraud and is the efficient cause or primary consideration which induced the offended party to part with his money or property. Third, AUB would not have granted the Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 990361, among others, had it known that SPI which had only P62,500.00 paid-up capital and no assets, is a separate entity and not the division or business name of RMSI. Gilbert Guy, et al. however, contends that the transaction subject in this controversy is a letter of credit and not a loan, hence, SPIs capital does not matter.[27] This was also the contention of the DOJ in reversing the Resolution of the City Prosecutors Office of Pasig. The DOJ contended that: It is also noted that the subject transaction, one of the several series of transactions between complainant AUB and SPI, is not a loan transaction. It is a letter of credit transaction intended to facilitate the importation of goods by SPI. The allegation as to the lack of capitalization of SPI is therefore immaterial and irrelevant since it is a letter of credit transaction. The seller gets paid only if it delivers the documents of title over the goods to the bank which issued the letter of credit, while the buyer/importer acquires title to the goods once it reimburses the issuing bank. The transaction secures the obligation of the buyer/importer to the issuing bank. [28] It is true that ordinarily, in a letter of credit transaction, the bank merely substitutes its own promise to pay for the promise to pay of one of its customers, who in turn promises to pay the bank the amount of funds mentioned in the letters of credit plus credit or commitments fees mutually agreed upon. Once the issuing bank shall have paid the beneficiary after the latters compliance with the terms of the letter of credit, the issuing bank is entitled to reimbursement for the amount it paid under the letter of credit.[29] In the present case, however, no reimbursement was made outright, precisely because the letter of credit was secured by a promissory note executed by SPI. The bank would have not agreed to this transaction had it not been deceived by Gilbert Guy, et al. into believing the RMSI and SPI were one and the same entity. Guy and his cohorts acts in (1) securing the letter of credit guaranteed by a promissory note in behalf of SPI; and, (2) their act of representing SPI as RMSIs Division, were indicia of fraudulent acts because they fully well know, even before transacting with the bank, that: (a) SPI was a separate entity from Smartnet Philippines, the RMSIs Division, which has the Omnibus Credit Line; and (b) despite this knowledge, they misrepresented to the bank that SPI is RMSIs division. Had it not for this false representation, AUB would have not granted SPIs letter of credit to be secured with a promissory note because SPI as a corporation has no credit line with AUB and SPI by its own, has no credit standing. Fourth, it is not in dispute that the bank suffered damage, which, including this controversy, amounted to hundreds of millions of pesos. It is worth emphasizing that under Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the function of a preliminary investigation is to determine whether there is a sufficient ground to engender a well-grounded belief that a crime x x x has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.[30] A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not, the accused committed the crime.[31]  Preliminary investigation is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence.[32]  It is for the presentation of such evidence only as may engender a well-founded belief that an offense has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof.[33]  The validity and merits of a party's accusation or defense, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated during the trial proper.[34] We, therefore, sustain the findings of the CA and the City Prosecutors Resolution finding that probable cause exists against Gilbert Guy, et al. for the crime of estafa under Article 315 (2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code and that Gilbert Guy, et al. are probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. AUBs voluminous documents submitted to this Court overcome this difficulty and established that there is sufficient ground to engender a well-grounded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondents are probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. Lest it be misunderstood, we reiterate that this Courts finding of probable cause is grounded on fraud committed through deceit which surrounded Gilbert Guy, et al. transaction with AUB, thus, violating Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code; it is neither their act of borrowing money and not paying them, nor their denial thereof, but their very act of deceiving AUB in order for the latter to part with its money. As early as the Penal Code of Spain, which was enforced in the Philippines as early as 1887 until it was replaced by the Revised Penal Code in 1932, the act of fraud through false pretenses or similar deceit was already being punished. Article 335 of the Penal Code of Spain punished a person who defrauded another by falsely pretending to possess any power, influence, qualification, property, credit, agency or business, or by means of similar deceit.[35] Anent the issue as to whether or not Gilbert Guy, et al. should be charged for syndicated estafa in relation to Section 1 of PD No. 1689, which states that: SEC 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, cooperatives, samahang nayon(s), or farmers associations, or of funds solicited by corporations/ associations from the general public. We hold that the afore-quoted law applies to the case at bar, for the following reasons: Under Section 1 of PD No. 1689, the elements of syndicated estafa are: (a) estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Artilce 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code is committed; (b) the estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate of five or more persons; and (c) 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.[36] First, as defined under Section 1 of PD No. 1689, a syndicate consists of five or more persons formed with the intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme. Five (5) accused, namely, Gilbert G. Guy, Rafael H. Galvez, Philip Leung, Katherine L. Guy, and Eugenio H. Galvez, Jr. were, (a) all involved in the formation of the entities used to defraud AUB; and (b) they were the officers and directors, both of RMSI and SPI, whose conformities paved the way for AUB to grant the letter of credit subject of this case, in AUBs honest belief that SPI, as Gilbert Guy, et al. represented, was a mere division of RMSI. As already discussed, although Eugenio Galvez, Jr. was not a director of SPI, he, together with Gilbert Guy and Philip Leung, actively participated in the scheme through their signed correspondences with the bank and their attendance in the meetings with executives of AUB.[37] Rafael Galvez and Katherine Guy, on the other hand, were the directors of RMSI and SPI who caused and authorized Gilbert Guy and Philip Leung to transact with AUB.[38] Second, while these corporations were established presumably in accordance with law, it cannot be denied that Gilbert G. Guy, Rafael H. Galvez, Philip Leung, Katherine L. Guy, and Eugenio H. Galvez, Jr. used these corporations to carry out the illegal and unlawful act of misrepresenting SPI as a mere division of RMSI, and, despite knowing SPIs separate juridical personality, applied for a letter of credit secured by SPIs promissory note, knowing fully that SPI has no credit line with AUB. The circumstances of the creation of these entities and their dealings with the bank reveal this criminal intent to defraud and to deceive AUB. Third, the fact that the defraudation of AUB resulted to misappropriation of the money which it solicited from the general public in the form of deposits was substantially established.[39] Section 3.1 of the General Banking Law defines banks as entities engaged in the lending of funds obtained in the form of deposits. The Old General Banking Act (R.A. No. 337) gave a fuller picture of the basic banking function of obtaining funds from the public by way of deposits and the lending of these funds as follows: Sec 2. Only entities duly authorized by the Monetary Board of the Central Bank may engage in the lending of funds obtained from the public through the receipt of deposits of any kind, and all entities regularly conducting such operations shall be considered as banking institutions, xxxx. Gilbert Guy et al. want this Court to believe that AUB, being a commercial bank, is beyond the coverage of PD No. 1689. We hold, however, that a bank is a corporation whose fund comes from the general public. P.D. No. 1689 does not distinguish the nature of the corporation. It requires, rather, that the funds of such corporation should come from the general public. This is bolstered by the third whereas clause of the quoted law which states that the same also applies to other corporations/associations operating on funds solicited from the general public. This is precisely the very same scheme that PD No. 1689 contemplates that this species of estafa be checked or at least be minimized by imposing capital punishment involving funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public because this erodes the confidence of the public in the banking and cooperative system, contravenes public interest and constitutes economic sabotage that threatens the stability of the nation.[40] Hence, for the stated reasons, we applied the law in People v. Balasa,[41] a non-stock/non-profit corporation the Panata Foundation of the Philippines, Inc. We held that PD No. 1689 also applies to other corporations/associations operating on funds solicited from the general public. In People v. Romero,[42] we also applied the law to a stock corporation engaged in marketing, the Surigao San Andres Industrial Development Corporation. Likewise, in People v. Menil,[43] we applied the law to another marketing firm known as ABM Appliance and Upholstery. In these cited cases, the accused used the legitimacy of their entities to perpetrate their unlawful and illegal acts. We see no reason not to apply this law to a banking institution, a corporation imbued with public interest, when a clear reading of the PD 1689 reveals that it is within its coverage. WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 27 June 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 97160 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that Gilbert G. Guy, Rafael H. Galvez, Philip Leung, Katherine L. Guy and Eugenio H. Galvez, Jr. be charged forSYNDICATED ESTAFA under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1689. SO ORDERED. JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice WE CONCUR: ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson ARTURO D. BRION MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Associate Justice Associate Justice BIENVENIDO L. REYES Associate Justice A T T E S T A T I O N I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division. ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson       C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice [1] Rollo in G.R. No. 188030, p. 111. [2] In Civil Case No. 68366, RMSI filed a complaint, claiming that it was doing business under the name Smartnet Philippines and Smartnet Philippines, Inc. Id. at 486. [3] Goodland Co., Inc. v Asia United Bank, G.R. Nos. 195546 and 195561, 14 March 2012. [4] Rollo in G.R. No. 188030, p. 471. [5] Id. at 472. [6] Id. [7] Rollo in G.R. No. 187919, pp. 137-148. [8] Id. at 148. [9] Filed before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, entitled People of the Philippines v. Gilbert Guy et al., Branch 57, docketed as Criminal Case No. 133010-PSG. Id. at 53 [10] Rollo in G.R. No. 188030, p. 398. [11] Penned by Associate Justice Vicente Veloso, with Associate Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., concurring. Rollo in G.R. No. 187919, pp. 8-41. [12] Rollo in G.R. No. 188030, p. 16. [13] Incorporated on 24 January 1995. Rollo in G.R. No. 187919, p. 294. [14] Rollo in G.R. No. 188030, p. 111. [15] Montano v. People, 423 Phil. 141, 147-148 (2001). [16] Rollo in G.R. No. 188030, pp. 458-467. [17] Id. at 114. [18] Id. at 494-502. [19] Id. at. 481, 492-493, 502, 505, 507-512. [20] People v. Balasa, 356 Phil. 362. 382-383 (1998). [21] Rollo in G.R. No. 188030, p. 381. [22] Id. at 89-100. [23] Id. at 101. [24] Id. at 382. [25] Id. citing Alleje v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107152, 25 January 1995, 240 SCRA 495, 500 citing further Blacks Law Dictionary., 4th Edition., p. 788 (1951). [26] 2 Phil. 353 (1903). [27] Rollo in G.R. No. 188030, p. 22. [28] Resolution of the Department of Justice. Rollo in G.R. No. 188030, p. 201. [29] Prudential Bank v. IAC, 216 SCRA 257 (1992). [30] Webb v. Hon. De Leon, 317 Phil. 758. 777 (1995). [31] Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Hon. Desierto, 375 Phil. 697 (1999). [32] Id. [33] Id. [34] Id. [35] Lozano v. Martinez, G.R. No. 63419, 18 December 1986, 146 SCRA 323, 332. [36] People v. Balasa,supra note 20 at 395-396. [37] Rollo in G.R. No. 188030, pp. 149-160. [38] Id. at 115. [39] Section 95. Definition of Deposit Substitutes. The term deposit substitutes is defined as an alternative form of obtaining funds from the public, other than deposits, xxx. [40] Preamble of PD No 1689: WHEREAS, there is an upsurge in the commission of swindling and other forms of frauds in rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon (s)", and farmers' associations or corporations/associations operating on funds solicited from the general public; WHEREAS, such defraudation or misappropriation of funds contributed by stockholders or members of such rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon(s)", or farmers' associations, or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public, erodes the confidence of the public in the banking and cooperative system, contravenes the public interest, and constitutes economic sabotage that threatens the stability of the nation; WHEREAS, it is imperative that the resurgence of said crimes be checked, or at least minimized, by imposing capital punishment on certain forms of swindling and other frauds involving rural banks, cooperatives, "samahang nayon(s)", farmers' associations or corporations/associations operating on funds solicited from the general public; [41] Supra note 20. [42] 365 Phil. 531 (1999). [43] G.R. Nos. 11504-66, 12 September 2000, 340 SCRA 125. Syndicated estafa - G.R. No. 187919 G.R. No. 187919 "x  x x. Anent the issue as to whether or not Gilbert Guy, et al. should be charged for syndicated estafa in relation to Section 1 of PD No. 1689, which states that: SEC 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, cooperatives, “samahang nayon(s)”, or farmers associations, or of funds solicited by corporations/ associations from the general public. We hold that the afore-quoted law applies to the case at bar, for the following reasons: Under Section 1 of PD No. 1689, the elements of syndicated estafa are: (a) estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Artilce 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code is committed; (b) the estafa or swindling is committed by a syndicate of five or more persons; and  (c) 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.[36]  First, as defined under Section 1 of PD No. 1689, a syndicate “consists of five or more persons formed with the intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme.” Five (5) accused, namely, Gilbert G. Guy, Rafael H. Galvez, Philip Leung, Katherine L. Guy, and Eugenio H. Galvez, Jr. were, (a) all involved in the formation of the entities used to defraud AUB; and (b) they were the officers and directors, both of RMSI and SPI, whose conformities paved the way for AUB to grant the letter of credit subject of this case, in AUB’s honest belief that SPI, as Gilbert Guy, et al.represented, was a mere division of RMSI. As already discussed, although Eugenio Galvez, Jr. was not a director of SPI, he, together with Gilbert Guy and Philip Leung, actively participated in the scheme through their signed correspondences with the bank and their attendance in the meetings with executives of AUB.[37] Rafael Galvez and Katherine Guy, on the other hand, were the directors of RMSI and SPI who caused and authorized Gilbert Guy and Philip Leung to transact with AUB.[38]     Second, while these corporations were established presumably in accordance with law, it cannot be denied that Gilbert G. Guy, Rafael H. Galvez, Philip Leung, Katherine L. Guy, and Eugenio H. Galvez, Jr. used these corporations to carry out the illegal and unlawful act of misrepresenting SPI as a mere division of RMSI, and, despite knowing SPI’s separate juridical personality, applied for a letter of credit secured by SPI’s promissory note, knowing fully that SPI has no credit line with AUB. The circumstances of the creation of these entities and their dealings with the bank reveal this criminal intent to defraud and to deceive AUB.   Third, the fact that the defraudation of AUB resulted to misappropriation of the money which it solicited from the general public in the form of deposits was substantially established.[39] Section 3.1 of the General Banking Law defines banks as “entities engaged in the lending of funds obtained in the form of deposits.” The Old General Banking Act (R.A. No. 337) gave a fuller picture of the basic banking function of obtaining funds from the public by way of deposits and the lending of these funds as follows: Sec 2. Only entities duly authorized by the Monetary Board of the Central Bank may engage in the lending of funds obtained from the public through the receipt of deposits of any kind, and all entities regularly conducting such operations shall be considered as banking institutions, xxxx. Gilbert Guy et al. want this Court to believe that AUB, being a commercial bank, is beyond the coverage of PD No. 1689. We hold, however, that a bank is a corporation whose fund comes from the general public. P.D. No. 1689 does not distinguish the nature of the corporation. It requires, rather, that the funds of such corporation should come from the general public.  This is bolstered by the third “whereas clause” of the quoted law which states that the same also applies to other “corporations/associations operating on funds solicited from the general public.” This is precisely the very same scheme that PD No. 1689 contemplates that this species of estafa “be checked or at least be minimized by imposing capital punishment involving funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public” because “this erodes the confidence of the public in the banking and cooperative system, contravenes public interest and constitutes economic sabotage that threatens the stability of the nation.”[40]      Hence, for the stated reasons, we applied the law in People v. Balasa,[41] a non-stock/non-profit corporation – the Panata Foundation of the Philippines, Inc.  We held that PD No. 1689 also applies to other corporations/associations operating on funds solicited from the general public. In People v. Romero,[42] we also applied the law to a stock corporation engaged in marketing, the Surigao San Andres Industrial Development Corporation.  Likewise, inPeople v. Menil,[43] we applied the law to another marketing firm known as ABM Appliance and Upholstery.  In these cited cases, the accused used the legitimacy of their entities to perpetrate their unlawful and illegal acts. We see no reason not to apply this law to a banking institution, a corporation imbued with public interest, when a clear reading of the PD 1689 reveals that it is within its coverage. x x x."