RSP junks appeal vs execs, workers of motorcycle dealership

The Office of the Regional State Prosecutor affirmed the dismissal of the criminal complaints filed by the Land Transportation Office (LTO)- 7 against the officers and employees of a motorcycle dealership for alleged falsification of commercial documents.

Regional Prosecutor Fernando Gubalane denied LTO-7 Regional Director Victor Emmanuel Caindec’s appeal for reconsideration on the earlier dismissal of falsification charges against the officers and employees of DES Strong Motors, Inc. (DSMI) for lack of merit.

Gubalane sustained an earlier finding exonerating respondents Renie Tumon, an area manager; Joann Lanzaderas, a branch manager; employees Julio Arabejo Jr., Rovelyn Ranises and Emelita Binarao, all of DSMI. As well as DSMI president Dr. Silvestre Lumapas Jr. and corporate secretary Marilou Lumapas.

Filed on December 29, 2020, Caindec alleged that on three separate occasions, the respondents conspired to falsify the commercial documents they submitted or uploaded to LTO’s Do It-Yourself System of reporting sales.

In a four-page resolution dated March 15, 2022, Gubalane said Caindec failed to present substantial evidence to prove that the respondents may be guilty of the crime.

“All told, the complainant-appellant in this instance has failed to establish probable cause against respondentsappellees for the offense alleged in the complaints,” said Gubalane.

On March 29, 2022, Gubalane also denied the petition for review filed by Caindec on the December 16, 2021 dismissal of the complaint by the Mandaue City Prosecution Office for failure to present suitable proof to hold respondents liable for the crime charged.

Gubalane said that Caindec’s argument that respondents had possession and control of the questioned sales invoices because they admitted that said documents “were all issued by and in the name of DSMI” only shows that there is indeed no evidence in this case that would determine the precise participation and degree of culpability of each of the respondents in the perpetration of the crime alleged in the complaint.

The regional prosecutor explained that the mentioned admission pertains to acts supposedly done by and in the name of a legal entity with a personality separate and distinct from the respondents and which however is not a party in this case.

Gubalane added that the mentioned authority of representative is impertinent to show conspiracy and culpability of respondents because apparently the said document was issued several months after the dates of the questioned sales invoices.

“This Office will not sanction a ruling that will hold respondents-appellees for trial in court on the basis of a finding that they never denied the falsified entries in the sales invoices because that would be tantamount to guesswork. Besides, in this proceeding respondent-appellees are not called upon to disprove what the complainantappellant failed to establish by independent and reliable evidence,” read the resolution.