No criminal liability for Camp John Hay Dev. Co.
Camp John Hay Development Corporation (CJHDevCo) maintains that there is no criminal liability for all the transactions done and entered into during its tenure as developer of Camp John Hay in Baguio City.
The statement was issued following the Resolution dated 22 August 2025 issued by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio City, which dismissed for lack of merit multiple criminal complaints filed against CJHDevCo, Fil-Estate Management, Inc. (FEMI), and several of their directors and officers, and affirmed the absence of criminal liability on their part.
The original charge of syndicated estafa was downgraded to a minor offense of “Other Deceits” under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). This reclassification reflects the prosecution’s conclusion that the alleged acts do not rise to the level of serious fraud or organized criminal conduct. But CJHDevCo maintains that this is actually not even applicable given the evidence on hand.
The resolution categorically found no basis to pursue the original charge of syndicated estafa under Presidential Decree No. 1689. Prosecutors determined that key elements of the alleged offense— particularly the existence of a syndicate formed with the intent to defraud and the commission of deceit involving five or more individuals—were not supported by any of the evidence.
The resolution likewise declined to pursue a charge of simple estafa under Article 315 of the RPC. Prosecutors found no evidence of fraudulent inducement, false pretenses, or abuse of confidence — core elements required to establish estafa. The complainants entered into contractual arrangements with full knowledge of the terms and risks, and there was no showing that CJHDevCo or its officers misrepresented facts or concealed material information to secure consent. In fact, CJHDevCo was not even involved in any of the transactions in the case.
The transactions were commercial in nature and governed by civil law, not criminal fraud. As such, the prosecutor correctly ruled that the dispute, if any, is more appropriately addressed through civil remedies rather than penal sanctions.
“The transactions cited by complainants were contractual in nature and did not involve misrepresentation or fraudulent inducement. Moreover, the corporate structure and roles of the respondents did not reflect a conspiracy or coordinated effort to defraud, as required under the law. The absence of these essential elements led to the dismissal of the syndicated estafa charge and its reclassification to a lesser offense,” CJHDevCo also said.
CJHDevCo explained that complaints filed by the Gundran family, Bernardino, and Domingo were dismissed outright for lack of prima facie evidence. The resolution also cleared numerous directors and officers of CJHDevCo and FEMI. The complaints against CJHDevCo and FEMI themselves were likewise dismissed, recognizing their status as juridical entities not subject to criminal prosecution.
There are two remaining respondents —Robert John Sobrepeña and Ramon Jimenez—in the charge. However, CJHDevCo emphasizes that the available evidence clearly demonstrates their lack of criminal intent or participation in any fraudulent act. Both Sobrepeña and Jimenez acted in good faith and within the bounds of corporate authority, involving the sale of corporate assets all of which were duly approved by their respective boards. Moreso, the documents cited in the complaint do not support any finding of deceit.
CJHDevCo’s position is that the transactions were lawful, transparent, and conducted in good faith. It remains confident that the remaining charge under Article 318 of the RPC will be dismissed in due course. Given the minor nature of the charge and the absence of substantive evidence, CJDevCo believes that the truth will ultimately prevail and that full exoneration is forthcoming. ###
