MANILA - The Court of Appeals (CA) has reversed a lower court order dismissing estafa charges filed by Green Cross Inc. founder Gonzalo Co against 13 of his relatives.

The estafa charges were in connection with Co's allegations that his relatives misappropriated his shares in Green Cross, which he founded as Gonzalo Laboratories Inc., resulting in his ouster from the company.

The respondents were identified as Anthony Co, Mary Co Cho, Peter Co, Michael Anthony Co, Mark David-Cho, Dick Milton Cho, Ann Marie Co-Imperial, Joanna Liza Co Yap, Jim Lewis Co, Nessie Pearl Chan; Sandy Chan, Nancy Co and So Hua Co.

In a 24-page decision penned by Associate Justice Vicente Veloso, the CA's fourth division granted the petition for certiorari filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on behalf of Co, which sought the nullification of the April 11, 2008 ruling of Pasay City Regional Trial Court (RTC) branch 117.

In the said ruling, the Pasay RTC junked the estafa charges filed by Co against his relatives on the ground of prescription.

Citing Articles 90 and 91 of the Revised Penal Code, the lower court said "crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or reclusion perpetua" prescribe in 20 years, with the period of prescription starting from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party.

The Pasay RTC held that Co discovered the alleged misappropriation of his shares as early as December 29, 1986 based on the certificate of increase documents submitted by the prosecution to prove its allegation of misappropriation.

The lower court gave credence to the claim of the accused that Co's signatures on the certificate of increase document proved that he knew and participated in the conversion of the trust shares in Gonzalo Laboratories Inc. (now Green Cross Inc.).

The OSG, however, insisted that the prescription period should start not on the date of the conversion of the trust shares but on the date that the demand was made.

The CA agreed with the OSG's contention that the Pasay RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription. As argued by the OSG, the appelate court said that the element of demand under Article 315 (estafa) is necessary to indict the accused.

“The misappropriation or breach of confidence arose only when private respondents Anthony Co et al refused to return the shares held in trust despite Co’s demand in 2006," the CA said.

"There is therefore a need to demand from private respondents Anthony Co et al the return of the shares held in trust in order that they may be indicted for estafa. Until such demand is made, no criminal culpability for estafa could arise,” it added.