Court of Tax Appeals. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) resolution dismissing the over P100-million estafa case filed against the officials of Philcomsat Holdings Corporation (PHC), Philcomsat and the Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC).
In a two-page resolution made public on Monday, the appeals court’s former special third division said PHC, through Erlinda Ilusorio-Bildner, failed to raise new issues that would warrant a reversal of their March 29, 2016 decision.
“A perusal of the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner of the Court’s decision promulgated on March 29, 2016 shows that the issues raised and arguments in support thereof have already been given due consideration and resolved,” the CA resolution penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez stated.
“Thus, this court finds no new or substantial matters to justify a modification or reversal of the assailed decision,” the court added.
The case for estafa was filed by Bildner against Enrique L. Locsin, Philip G. Brodett, Benito V. Araneta, Luis K. Lokin Jr., Manuel D. Antal, Julio Jalandoni and Guy De Leon. She alleged that the respondents misrepresented themselves to the public that they are members of the Board of Directors of PHC, Philcomsat and POTC.
She said that due to the misrepresentation, the respondents were able to siphon out PHC’s corporate funds in various forms from 2003 to 2007 worth P122,199,459 which were booked under “advances to affiliates” but the said funds were never credited to POTC or Philcomsat.
The respondents, however, said Bildner has no authority to represent PHC because she belonged to a group claiming to be PHC’s board of directors when there exist a legitimate board of directors and that the documents used as evidence against them were manipulated and presented without authentication.
The Makati City prosecutor dismissed the case finding no probable cause to the complaint for failure to present the original copies of the balance sheets, accounting records and other supporting documents.
The prosecutor noted there was no indication or identity of the person who prepared and examined the balance sheets. The balance sheet, according to the prosecutor, “is a mere statement of assets, liabilities and stockholders’ equity.”
A petition for review was filed with the DOJ. It was, however, dismissed by Prosecutor General Claro Arellano. Then, a motion for reconsideration was filed but was denied by former justice secretary and now Senator Leila De Lima. The case was then elevated to the CA.
The appeals court, however, said “the petition is bereft of merit.”
“This Court finds that the respondent DOJ Secretary correctly concluded that the documents submitted by petitioner did not constitute prima facie case for estafa against private respondents.”
“It is true that a finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and was committed by the accused. In the present case, however, no such evidence exists that would engender a well founded belief that estafa under Article 315(1) (b) of the RPC was in fact committed by private respondents,” the court added.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Jhosep Y. Lopez. RAM/rga
RELATED STORIES