Businessman in Baladjay scam to keep assets – CA
MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed a 2010 ruling of a Manila court dismissing the government’s claim on the assets of a businessman tagged in a scam perpetrated by “pyramiding queen†Rosario Baladjay’s firm, Multitel International Holding Inc.
In a decision released Friday, the CA’s 11th division dismissed the petition for review filed by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) questioning the ruling of the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 24 clearing the personal bank account of Juan Carlos Palanca in the forfeiture case.
The CA held that the RTC was correct in lifting the Oct.9, 2002 freeze order on Palanca’s US dollar account worth $38,097.11 in its July 28, 2010 decision, which was affirmed on Sept. 21, 2010, based on his defense that the AMLC failed to state the cause of action against him when it did not specify his involvement in the pyramiding scam.
The AMLC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, questioned the ruling before the CA, insisting that Palanca’s account should have not been touched pursuant to an earlier order issued by the Supreme Court (SC) directing all banks involved to implement the freeze order.
The CA, however, ruled that while “there might have been an existing directive before the (SC) urging banks and all persons acting on their behalf to give full force and effect to the freeze orders but this does not preclude the AMLC from lifting the freeze orders in favor of a party whose inclusion thereof has been adequately found to be without basis.â€
Associate Justice Stephen Cruz penned the ruling, while Associate Justices Magdangal de Leon and Myra Garcia-Fernandez concurred.
Palanca was dragged into the controversy after probers alleged that Multitel had invested P51 million in his firm, Cellmode International Inc.
The CA, in April 2012, upheld the conviction of Baladjay for estafa by a Makati RTC. The special 15th division of the CA, however, downgraded her sentence from 12 years to reclusion perpetua imposed by the lower court to four years to 20 years.
- Latest
- Trending