Trial a go for skyway builder
By Leila Salaverria
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:24:00 09/08/2008
Filed Under: Crime, Law & Justice,Heavy construction
MANILA, Philippines -- The Court of Appeals has allowed the trial to proceed of the former chairman of the board of highway developer Star Infrastructure Development Corp. (SIDC), who stands accused of defrauding the company of more than P100 million.
The appellate court upheld the denial of the Pasig Regional Trial Court of Cezar Quiambao’s plea to have his trial for estafa (fraud) postponed while he appealed his indictment.
SIDC is involved in the development of the skyway on the South Luzon Expressway, among other projects.
In one of the two charges he is facing, Quiambao is accused of misappropriating P85.808 million in SIDC funds. SIDC, represented by Louie Turgo as complainant, charged Quiambao with disbursing money to his two companies, Stradec and Strategic Alliance Holdings Inc., without authority, as well as to his brother.
In the second case, Quiambao stands accused of defrauding SIDC of P15.18 million which he allegedly converted to his personal use and benefit.
Turgo, who is also the complainant in this case, said Quiambao used deceit when he obtained the funds from SIDC in the form of loan repayments and salaries.
The charges against Quiambao were filed in the Pasig RTC on June 4, 2007.
On June 19, Quiambao contested the prosecutor’s findings with the Department of Justice and asked the court to suspend the proceedings until the DOJ resolved his appeal.
Up to Pasig court
The court denied his plea. He then filed a motion questioning the RTC’s ruling not to stop the proceedings, but this was also denied. He then brought the issue to the Court of Appeals.
In an August 19 decision penned by Justice Normandie Pizarro, the appellate court said the Pasig RTC had the discretion to decide whether or not to suspend the proceedings.
In this case, it found no reason to rule the RTC had abused its powers, considering that it even deferred Quiambao’s arraignment for more than two months.
“More to the point, although the RTC denied the petitioner’s motion to suspend the proceedings, it ordered, as a court of equity, the resetting of the petitioner’s arraignment to a much further date, even beyond the 60-day limit prescribed under the Rules,” it said.
Rule allows deferment
It pointed out the rule that allows deferment of an arraignment does not provide for an indefinite postponement. The rule provides that postponement is allowed if there is a pending petition for review of the prosecutor’s resolution, but the postponement should not exceed 60 days.
In this case, it said the 60-day limit had lapsed from when Quiambao filed his petition in the DOJ after the RTC denied his motion for reconsideration to suspend the proceedings.
“Whether or not the DOJ has finally resolved the petitioner’s appeal is of no moment. The 60-day period allowed by the rules has lapsed. The RTC, therefore, acted within the bounds of its authority when it ordered the continuance of the court proceedings,” it said.
|
