JEDI BENTILLO

LAW 411
Atty. Oliver Saniel

GS 105 (4:30- 6:30 pm)

July 18, 2016

CASE No.5:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VICENTE MENIL, JR.

G.R. No. 115054-66, September 12, 2000
ISSUE
Where there instances or acts of chain distribution or a pyramid sales scheme?
Cite or identify at least 10 acts.
Acts which justify the abovementioned case which proved that this case is a
large scale swindling scheme:
1) Inconsistent investment scheme
The companys investment scheme constitutes some form of swindling or
Ponzi scheme practiced at a large scale. As previously cited,
characteristics in which is described to be:
a) An investment swindle in which high profits are promised from
fictitious sources and early investors are paid off with fund raised
from later ones.
Presented in the case findings, the accused-appellants assured that
money invested in his business would have returns of 1000%, later
reduced to 700%, after 15 days. (see corresponding attached case, noted
as (A)).
2) Company is registered as a non-stock corporation
Similar in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Priscilla Balasa, et. al
presented also a non-stock, non-profit corporation. Whereas this case
presented that ABM Development Center, Inc. was in fact incorporated as
a non-stock corporation (see corresponding attached case, noted as (B)).
As previously cited under the Corporation code of the Philippines, section
87, prohibits non-stock, non-profit corporations to engage in
undertakings, such as the investment business, where profit is the main or
underlying purpose. Although the non-stock corporation may obtain profits
as an incident to its operation, such profits are not to be distributed

BENTILLO [CASE No.5: People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Menil, Jr.,]

among its members but must be used for the furtherance of its purposes
(R.A. 68, Title 11, Section 87).

3) Duration of business operations

Started the investment business on June 15, 1989, and stopped
operations within the same year on September. Similarly like in the case of
People of the Philippines vs. Romero Martin, and as previously cited,
based on characterized Ponzi schemes or sometimes called a pyramid
sales scheme noted in Article 7394 (50), only lasts weeks, or months at
most, just like in this case.

4) Inconsistent business practices

These inconsistencies in business operations and un-systematized
processing workflow in financial transactions similar to the case of People
of the Philippines vs. Priscilla Balasa, et. al. Whereas described in the
case as people invested in the business were issued coupons, and similar
unorthodox practices like using of sales executives and/or ushers wrote
down in yellow pad paper.

5) Disappearance of both the accused

Court findings presented that accused-appellant and his wife went into
hiding in Davao City but eventually they were arrested by police
authorities led by a certain Colonel Panchito. (see corresponding attached
case, noted as (H)).

6) Physically Injuries acquired by the accused due to question of unreturned

investments
A certain Col. Macatangcop questioned them as to the delay in the
payment of investments. He was then mauled by a certain Lt. Arab and

BENTILLO [CASE No.5: People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Menil, Jr.,]

two sons of Col. Macatangcop when he refused to issue to them a check

for P500,000.00. (see corresponding attached case, noted as (I)).
The accused-appellant even presented a medical certificate for physical
injuries to the court upon subjecting himself after hearing rumors that he
was being hunted.

7) Not engaged in any lucrative business to finance its operations

Based on presented fact regarding this case the fact that accusedappellant was not engaged nor authorized to engage in any lucrative
business to finance its operation (see corresponding attached case, noted
as (F)).
This upholstery business and not an authorized investment business was
based on factual evidence justified that the Mayors Permit issued to
accused-appellant shows that he was only permitted to act as dealer of
appliances and upholstery (see corresponding attached case, noted as
(G)).

8) Testimonial Evidence admitted that money used to pay off maturing

investment were taken from remittances received
Court findings presented testimonial evidence proving the accusedappellant engaged in a large scale Ponzi scheme.
In other words, accused-appellant merely paid the returns of maturing
investments from the remittances of succeeding investors. What accusedappellant actually offered to the public was a Ponzi Scheme. (see
corresponding attached case, noted as (J)).
9) Failure of the accused to present specific business plan
Court findings presented testimonial evidence regarding this:
a) The fact that accused-appellant could not present any specific
business plan or cite any donations or bequests which he received to

BENTILLO [CASE No.5: People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Menil, Jr.,]

finance his money-making scheme clearly shows that the investment

scheme which he foisted on the unsuspecting public was fraudulent
(see corresponding attached case, noted as (C)).
b) That accused-appellant refused to answer when asked about the
specifics of his business and about how he would be able to fulfill his
obligation of paying the promised exorbitant rates of return (see
corresponding attached case, noted as (E)).
Further strengthens our defense that what the accused-appellant
offered to the general public was a Ponzi scheme.

10) Small Paid up Capital

Paid up Capital registered was only amounting to P11,000.00 but engaged
in transactions in terms of millions as cited in the case findings as
described as its paid-up capital was only P11,000.00 and yet it was able
to transact business in terms of millions of pesos (see corresponding
attached case, noted as (D)).

BENTILLO [CASE No.5: People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Menil, Jr.,]