By Joel R. San Juan
THE Court of Appeals (CA) has denied the petition filed by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. (PDIC) seeking the nullification of the joint resolution issued by a Makati trial court denying its motion to issue a hold departure order (HDO) against the officers of the closed LBC Development Bank who have been charged with estafa for allegedly misappropriating the bank’s money in the amount of P229.5 million.
In a 14-page decision penned by Associate Justice Isaias Dicdican, the CA’s Eighth Division held that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Maximo M. de Leon, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Makati City Branch 143 in issuing the joint resolution dated October 13, 2014.
Aside from denying the PDIC’s motion for the issuance of an HDO against LBC President Ma. Eliza Berenguer and bank borrower Benito Ramon Araneta, the joint resolution also denied PDIC’s motion to set aside Araneta’s arraigment and motion seeking de Leon’s inhibition from the case.
Berenguer and Araneta were charged on July 17, 2014, by the Department of Justice (DOJ) before the RTC in Makati for 16 counts of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 1, paragraph 2 of Presidential Decree 1689, for misapproprating money solicited from the general public in the form of deposits.
In appealing the joint resolution, the PDIC argued that it was not duly notified that the trial court had issued an order setting the arraignment of Araneta, thus, it was not able to move for its suspension.
It added that Berenguer’s arraigment, on the other hand, was railroaded considering that de Leon had yet to rule on its motion for inhibition.
The PDIC objected to the arraignments of the two as it would render its motion for consideration pending before the DOJ seeking the reversal of the dismissal of the complaint insofar as the other respondents in the case are concerned.
The PDIC also claimed that its motion for HDO should have been granted considering that Araneta and Berenguer are both flight risks.
In denying PDIC’s motion, the CA noted that it is imperative for the RTC in Makati to hold the arraignments of the respondents in line with their right to a speedy disposition of cases under Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
The CA also pointed out that the PDIC failed to substantiate its claims that the respondents are flight risk.
“In conclusion, we find that the public respondent presiding judge did not exercise a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in conducting the arraignment of the private respondents, in denying the petitioner’s motion for hold departure and motion to inhibit,” the CA ruled.
“Corollary to this, there exists no sound ground for the issuance of a temporary restraing order and/or writ of preliminary injunction directing the public respondent presiding judge to cease and desist from conducting further proceedings in the criminal case,” it added.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Elihu Ybañez and Victoria Isabel Paredes.
In its complaint, the PDIC further alleged that the respondents took advantage of their positions and connived to deceive regulators and the depositing public into believing that the bank had sufficient capital to continue operations.
LBC Bank was ordered closed by the Monetary Board and placed under the receivership of the PDIC on September 9, 2011.
1 comment
As usual, money , money and money plays an important part in the decisions of Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals.