Fiscals claim judge erred in not hearing estafa case

CEBU, Philippines - The Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office has filed a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court against a Municipal Trial Court judge in Cebu City assailing the latter’s decision on an estafa case which the judge allegedly dismissed without a hearing.

Cebu City prosecutor Nicolas Sellon and assistant city prosecutor Mary Ann Castro accused MTCC Branch 8 judge Edgemelo Rosales of having committed errors of judgment and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when the latter dismissed the criminal case for estafa against a certain Alma Figuera.

The city prosecutor’s office claimed that Rosales dismissed on September 28 the criminal case for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 otherwise known as estafa against Figuera without the benefit of a hearing.

Rosales made the outright dismissal of the case on the ground of prescription. On top of the case against Figuera there were 29 other cases that were also outrightly dismissed by Rosales on that same date.

According to the city prosecutor’s office, they have filed a joint motion for reconsideration for eight of the 29 dismissed cases considering that these are all estafa. But these were also denied by Rosales on October 21, thus, a petition for certiorari was filed before the RTC.

The prosecutor’s office said that Rosales, in dismissing the case against Figuera, relied solely on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Zaldivia versus Reyes in 1992 which said that, “in offenses punished by special laws like the BP 22, it is only the filing of the complaint of information in court, and not before the Fiscal’s Office, that stops the running of the prescriptive period.”

But the prosecutor’s office said Rosales erred in his ruling because the jurisprudence he cited was already abandoned by the Supreme Court in its November 2008 ruling in the case of Luis Panaguiton Jr. versus the Department of Justice, Ramon Tongson and Rodrigo Cawili in which the high tribunal said that the mere filing of the complaint at the prosecutor’s office already stops the running of the prescriptive period.

Despite the citing of the new doctrine, the petitioner claimed, Rosales still denied their motion for reconsideration.

“It maybe argued that the Honorable respondent Judge might just have simply been totally unaware of this new Panaguiton doctrine when it dismissed the case and denied the Motion for Reconsideration but this is not a viable explanation as a judge is supposed to be well abreast with the law and recent jurisprudence otherwise he will be perceived as being grossly ignorant of the law,” a portion of the petition read.

The prosecutor’s office prayed for the annulment of the decisions of Rosales and have Figuera’s case reinstated.

Figuera is charged with estafa for issuing an P80,000 check to Oscar Sanchez to be drawn against an already closed account. — Fred P. Languido/BRP   (FREEMAN NEWS)