DOJ dismisses qualified theft case vs 1Pacman rep Romero, 2 others

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has dismissed the case for qualified theft against 1Pacman Rep. Michael Romero and two others on accusations that they issued 18 Harbour Centre checks on April 27, 2007, worth P3.4 million payable to nonexistent payees.

In a resolution dated Sept. 5, senior assistant state prosecutor Peter Ong, acting city prosecutor of Manila, dismissed the case against Romero, former chief operating officer Edwin Jeremillo and former cashier Felicia Aquino for lack of probable cause.

The three were slapped with a complaint for 18 counts of qualified theft case by Jerome Canlas, a representative of Harbour Centre Port Terminal Inc. (HCPTI). Canlas questioned the release of the checks worth P200,000 each payable to the National Food Authority (NFA) or Aquino.

The Manila Prosecutor’s Office, in its resolution last July, said the three had conspired to issue 18 checks in one day, with each bearing the amount of P200,000 supposedly for “marketing expenses” and payable to National Food Authority or Felicia Aquino.

“This cannot be done. Doing so indicates badges of felony. No document whatsoever was submitted by the respondents showing transaction between HCPTI (Harbor Center Port Terminal Inc.) and the NFA (National Food Authority),” the resolution stated.

Ong, in his resolution, granted the motions for reconsideration filed by the three.

In their motions, they pointed out that the prosecutor’s office disregarded their right to due process by not allowing them to present their side.

Romero, on the other hand, said the case was filed “to coerce him to surrender his majority shares in HCPTI in favor of his father, Reghis M. Romero II” and that was a rehash of the same criminal cases that were dismissed by various prosecutor’s office and the DOJ.

After review and evaluation, Ong said “the complaint in this case should be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence and owing to the existence of a prejudicial question.”

The prosecutor’s office of Manila “disregarded respondent Romero’s and Jeremillo’s right to due process by issuing the assailed resolution without allowing them to present their side,” said Ong.

The same resolution also declared that Canlas had no authority to represent HCPTI in the case since the ownership of the company was still pending in a Quezon City court.

“On the issue of whether or not Atty Canlas can qualify as an offended party and file this case in his personal capacity as a stockholder of HCPTI, the answer is in the negative. The money, assuming it was stolen, allegedly belongs to HCPTI who, being a judicial entity, has a personality separate and distinct from that of its stockholders,” the resolution read.