The case of two parties who were the best of friends before they were locked in a bitter legal battle has reached the Department of Justice with the three respondents filing a petition for review. But before the DOJ can act on the petition, the lawyer of Restituto Tan, complainant of the instant case, filed an opposition citing at least three grounds. It may be recalled that Tan accused three of his former friends—Carlito Pinoliad, Eugenia Pinoliad and Julieta Pinoliad Cabibil, all siblings, of estafa for a botched deal involving the planned subdivision christened Bethany Village. The supposed subdivision located in Tiptip district, this city, went under after the three respondents collected reservation fees from about 30 buyers and failed to remit the same to the proprietor of the business in this case Tan. According to Tan, had the Bethany deal went in force, its proceeds would have prevented the collapse of the family bank known as Rural Bank of Maribojoc. Due to panic withdrawal sometime in December last year, the bank was forced to close leaving in its wake hundreds of depositors holding the empty bag.
Tan's Bethany Village would have been the “white knight in shining armor” in the matter of saving the rural bank from collapse if not with the owner's misunderstanding with the Pinoliad siblings. The male Pinoliad was the president of the shuttered bank while Eugenia was the architect of the failed subdivision project. In defense of the complaint, the three respondents raised the issue of partnership to justify their possession of Bethany Village official receipts. However, when this issue was raised, the city prosecutor's office, denied the defense of partnership of respondents. In finding probable cause to indict the respondents, the city prosecutor said that the acts of the respondents in receiving the payments from 30 lot buyers as reservation money under the business name Bethany Village reflecting complainant Restituto Tan as the proprietor, are deemed to be received in behalf of the latter. The prosecutor added: respondents, therefore, have the obligation involving the duty to make delivery of the said payments to complainant. Failure to do so after demand constitutes estafa as respondents are presumed to have misappropriated the amount. GROUNDS
In support of the opposition to the petition for review before the DOJ, Tan's lawyer, Nilo Ahat cited at least three grounds, namely:
The extant petition for review is fatally defective for failure to comply with the requirements of appeal hence, it should be dismissed outright. Contrary to the argument of respondents-appellants, there is more than sufficient evidence to establish probable cause against them for the crime of estafa. The honorable office of the city prosecutor correctly acted within the scope of its function in conducting preliminary investigation when it interpreted the joint venture agreement in accordance with law and jurisprudence.
|
