No estafa: Court junks suit vs Meralco
By DJ Yap
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:47:00 10/10/2008
MANILA, Philippines—The Manila Electric Co. does not qualify as a criminal syndicate, a Pasig court ruled Thursday as it junked a complaint for syndicated estafa filed by a consumer group against the utility giant.
Judge Franco Falcon of Pasig Regional Trial Court Branch 71 threw out the complaint by the National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reforms (Nasecore) against Meralco’s directors, saying it failed to prove the crime.
In a 12-page order dated October 6 but released Thursday, the court said there was no basis to issue arrest warrants against Meralco chair Manuel Lopez and 16 other officers who were charged, “there being no finding of probable cause.”
The case stemmed from an allegation by Nasecore that Meralco illegally declared as income some P889 million in consumers’ money—representing interest earned by meter and bill deposits collectively known as “customers’ deposits.”
In his order, Falcon said the case did not qualify as estafa committed by a syndicate upon a careful review of P.D. 1689, which defines the offense.
“What characterizes syndicated estafa is not only the number of alleged offenders, but more importantly, the underlying intention of carrying out an unlawful or illegal act in the formation of the group,” he said.
Falcon said Meralco had not been created specifically to carry out unlawful or illegal acts, and thus it could not qualify as a syndicate.
“Meralco was not formed with the intention to carry out unlawful acts and to defraud people,” the judge said.
The court added that the complaint was left with no leg to stand on since no evidence had been presented showing any acts of misappropriation or conversion on the part of Meralco.
“Therefore, the accused can never be charged of taking part in the commission of syndicated estafa not only because they are not part of a syndicate as contemplated by law in P.D. 1689, but, more so, because there was no estafa committed against the private complainants,” he said.
The judge added, quoting a Supreme Court decision, that “prior demand should be made by the offended party on the accused to comply with the obligation before the latter may be charged criminally.”
“The absence of the essential element of demand is very fatal to the case of the private complainants because there would be no showing or evidence that Meralco has reneged on its obligation to refund the meter and bill deposits to the prejudice of the private complainants,” Falcon said.
“Clearly the lack of demand is not negligible. The complaint is reduced to a litany of baseless and malicious accusations, and at the very least, downright premature,” he said.
Nasecore had said the P889 million represented the four-percent differential interest from customers’ deposits since 1995. Interest on the deposits was pegged at six percent until 1995, when the then Energy Regulatory Board (ERB) increased the rate to 10 percent.
Meralco classified six percent of the interest under customers’ deposits, while four percent was initially placed under the operating reserves account, as seen in Meralco’s financial statements. Later, the four percent was also included under customers’ deposits.
|
