Talo nanaman ang PCCI!!!! Eto isang liham mula sa kanilang bagong abogado. Bakit PAPALIT PALIT sila ng abogado? Sino kaya ang kumikita dito? Hindi ba si DInky? NEW LAWYER means NEW ACCEPTANCE FEE. Dinky gets P500,000 from PCCI , P100,00 for the lawyer and P400,000 for DINKY. Ganun ang profit sharing.
ANG TANONG:
1) Hindi ba mas may pag-asa kung idemanda ang bangko para mabawi ang P7 Million nawala? Yan ay kung totoo yung sinasabi nila pero bakit hanggang ngayon wala pang kaso naisampa laban sa METROBANK?
2) Que horror! Mula January hanggang September pala nag encash kuno si Danny ng mga tseke. Tanga lang ang maniniwala na he did it on his own! Tanga ka ba?
3) Nasaan ang sinasabi ng PCCI na CIDG and PNP Crime Lab report tungkol sa forgery? Bakit hindi nila ito nasubmit sa QC Prosecutor bilang ebidensiya?
Pag binasa mo ang Summary of Facts halatang wala naman balak ipakulong ng PCCI si Danny in the first place bakit “Falsification of Public Documents”?? Anong Public Document na-falsify niya? Dapat forgery and qualified theft hindi ho ba? Dito pa lang kitang kita MORO MORO LANG.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
FROM THE PCCI WEBSITE
4 MARCH 2009
THE PHILIPPINE CANINE CLUB, INC.
Rm A206 Hillcrest Condominium
1616 E. Rodriguez Sr. Avenue
Cubao, Quezon City
Attention: ATTY. JOSE LEYNES
Director
Re: I.S. No. 08-9567, "Philippine Canine
Club, Inc. vs. Danny Ramillano"
Gentlemen:
Per your request, we submit herewith a summary of the criminal case for Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents which your Company, the Philippine Canine Club, Inc. ("PCCI"), filed against its former Treasurer, Mr. Danny Ramillano ("Ramillano").
SUMMARY OF FACTS
1. From the Complaint Affidavit of your Chairman Augusto Benedicto Santos III filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor ("OCP") of Quezon City, it appears that Ramillano, as Treasurer of PCCI, succeeded in withdrawing various sums of money totaling Php7.3 Million from PCCI's account with Metrobank by forging the signature of one of your signatories, Florentino Bustos, Corporate Secretary of PCCI.
2. The amounts, which were withdrawn and encashed by Ramillano for "payment of various taxes" are as follows:
CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT
4391 1/24/2008 PHP60,000.00
4505 3/03/2008 416,419.44
4723 4/29/2008 250,000.00
4759 5/08/2008 300,000.00
4758 5/08/2008 165,000.00
4799 5/15/2008 225,000.00
4825 5/22/2008 190,000.00
4849 5/28/2008 200,000.00
4892 6/05/2008 180,000.00
4914 6/11/2008 320,000.00
4958 6/19/2008 380,000.00
4964 6/25/2008 225,000.00
4980 6/27/2008 270,000.00
4987 7/02/2008 180,000.00
5014 7/08/2008 200,000.00
5025 7/10/2008 250,000.00
5045 7/15/2008 200,000.00
5061 7/18/2008 180,000.00
5062 7/18/2008 120,000.00
5073 7/23/2008 250,000.00
5096 7/24/2008 150,000.00
5103 7/29/2008 200,000.00
5148 8/06/2008 270,000.00
5161 8/08/2008 150,000.00
5166 8/11/2008 300,000.00
5183 8/14/2008 150,000.00
5192 8/20/2008 160,000.00
5218 8/22/2008 300,000.00
5238 8/28/2008 150,000.00
5248 9/02/2008 100,000.00
5249 9/02/2008 150,000.00
5296 9/10/2008 120,000.00
54903 9/15/2008 180,000.00
54904 9/15/2008 150,000.00
3. During the preliminary investigation, Ramillano did not file his Counter-Affidavit.
4. In a Resolution dated 3 December 2008, the OCP of Quezon City dismissed the case against Ramillano "for insufficiency of evidence."
The OCP Resolution made the following findings:
a. PCCI failed to prove that Florentino Bustos and Ramillano were the only authorized signatories of PCCI;
b. PCCI failed to prove the type of account, i.e., whether your Metrobank account is an "AND," or an "AND/OR" account to establish the accountability of Ramillano;
c. PCCI failed to prove that the signatures of Florentino Bustos were forged by Ramillano, as the only proof adduced was the Affidavit of Denial of Florentino Bustos and no handwriting expert was presented;
d. There was no proof of misappropriation of PCCI funds by Ramillano since PCCI made no demand on Ramillano to account for the funds withdrawn under the subject checks.
5. For reasons not known, PCCI received the OCP Resolution only on 27 February 2009.
6. Under existing Rules governing preliminary investigations, PCCI can either file a Motion for Reconsideration of the OCP Resolution with the OCP of Quezon City, or appeal the Resolution to the Secretary of Justice within 15 days from receipt of the Resolution, in this case, up to 14 March 2009.
COUNSEL'S RECOMMENDATION
1. It is recommended that PCCI file a Motion for Reinvestigation/Reconsideration of the OCP Resolution with the OCP of Quezon City. The Motion should address all of the findings of the OCP to give the latter the chance to correct its errors.
Moreover, the OCP Resolution explicitly notes that it is "without prejudice to its refiling" --- an indication that the OCP itself is open to reconsidering its ruling upon submission of sufficient evidence.
2. The Motion for Reinvestigation/Reconsideration will focus on the following points:
a. Contrary to the ruling of the OCP, there is no need to prove that Florentino Bustos and Ramillano are the only signatories of PCCI. It is enough that there is proof that Ramillano is a signatory. In this case, ample proof was presented to show that Ramillano was indeed a signatory of PCCI. These proofs are:
1. Complaint Affidavit of Mr. Augusto Santos where he named Ramillano as a signatory of PCCI;
2. Ramillano signed the checks in question and
3. was able to encash them --- an act which can only be done if Ramillano was a signatory. Otherwise, Metrobank would have dishonored the subject checks.
b. It is not true that there is no proof that the signatures of Florentino Bustos on the subject checks are forged considering that:
i. PCCI presented the Affidavit of Denial of Florentino Bustos stating that he did not sign the checks in question and that his signatures thereon are not his signatures. This affidavit is entitled to full faith and credit.
ii. No proof was presented by Ramillano to show that the signatures on the checks are the genuine signatures of Florentino Bustos. Ramillano did not even file his counter-affidavit to dispute the statements of PCCI's witnesses.
c. It is not true that there is no proof of misappropriation of PCCI's funds by Ramillano. Although no demand to account for the amounts withdrawn was made by PCCI on Ramillano which, if not complied with, is considered implicit proof of misappropriation, Ramillano's misappropriation of PCCI's funds for his own personal use and benefit is established by other facts and circumstances such as:
i) his apology;
ii) his Promissory Note;
iii) the dubious and questionable purpose stated in the invoices covering the disbursements, i.e., "payment for various taxes" which do not state the particular taxes to be paid and the respective amounts thereof;
iv) debits from the account of PCCI with Metrobank;
v) absence of official receipts for the supposed "various taxes to be paid from the check withdrawals."
We believe that upon a showing of the errors committed by the OCP and the additional evidence to be attached to the Motion for Reinvestigation/Reconsideration, PCCI will secure a reversal of the OCP Resolution and prompt the latter to file the corresponding information for Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents against Ramillano. In our view, it will be difficult for the OCP not to charge Ramillano as there is clearly probable cause that the crime charged has been committed and that Ramillano is probably guilty thereof and should be bound over to trial.
Very truly yours,
LAW FIRM OF DIAZ DEL ROSARIO
& ASSOCIATES
By:
ANACLETO M. DIAZ
(letter published at the PCCI website www.pccionline.org.ph)
THE PHILIPPINE CANINE CLUB, INC.
Rm A206 Hillcrest Condominium
1616 E. Rodriguez Sr. Avenue
Cubao, Quezon City
Attention: ATTY. JOSE LEYNES
Director
Re: I.S. No. 08-9567, "Philippine Canine
Club, Inc. vs. Danny Ramillano"
Gentlemen:
Per your request, we submit herewith a summary of the criminal case for Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents which your Company, the Philippine Canine Club, Inc. ("PCCI"), filed against its former Treasurer, Mr. Danny Ramillano ("Ramillano").
SUMMARY OF FACTS
1. From the Complaint Affidavit of your Chairman Augusto Benedicto Santos III filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor ("OCP") of Quezon City, it appears that Ramillano, as Treasurer of PCCI, succeeded in withdrawing various sums of money totaling Php7.3 Million from PCCI's account with Metrobank by forging the signature of one of your signatories, Florentino Bustos, Corporate Secretary of PCCI.
2. The amounts, which were withdrawn and encashed by Ramillano for "payment of various taxes" are as follows:
CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT
4391 1/24/2008 PHP60,000.00
4505 3/03/2008 416,419.44
4723 4/29/2008 250,000.00
4759 5/08/2008 300,000.00
4758 5/08/2008 165,000.00
4799 5/15/2008 225,000.00
4825 5/22/2008 190,000.00
4849 5/28/2008 200,000.00
4892 6/05/2008 180,000.00
4914 6/11/2008 320,000.00
4958 6/19/2008 380,000.00
4964 6/25/2008 225,000.00
4980 6/27/2008 270,000.00
4987 7/02/2008 180,000.00
5014 7/08/2008 200,000.00
5025 7/10/2008 250,000.00
5045 7/15/2008 200,000.00
5061 7/18/2008 180,000.00
5062 7/18/2008 120,000.00
5073 7/23/2008 250,000.00
5096 7/24/2008 150,000.00
5103 7/29/2008 200,000.00
5148 8/06/2008 270,000.00
5161 8/08/2008 150,000.00
5166 8/11/2008 300,000.00
5183 8/14/2008 150,000.00
5192 8/20/2008 160,000.00
5218 8/22/2008 300,000.00
5238 8/28/2008 150,000.00
5248 9/02/2008 100,000.00
5249 9/02/2008 150,000.00
5296 9/10/2008 120,000.00
54903 9/15/2008 180,000.00
54904 9/15/2008 150,000.00
3. During the preliminary investigation, Ramillano did not file his Counter-Affidavit.
4. In a Resolution dated 3 December 2008, the OCP of Quezon City dismissed the case against Ramillano "for insufficiency of evidence."
The OCP Resolution made the following findings:
a. PCCI failed to prove that Florentino Bustos and Ramillano were the only authorized signatories of PCCI;
b. PCCI failed to prove the type of account, i.e., whether your Metrobank account is an "AND," or an "AND/OR" account to establish the accountability of Ramillano;
c. PCCI failed to prove that the signatures of Florentino Bustos were forged by Ramillano, as the only proof adduced was the Affidavit of Denial of Florentino Bustos and no handwriting expert was presented;
d. There was no proof of misappropriation of PCCI funds by Ramillano since PCCI made no demand on Ramillano to account for the funds withdrawn under the subject checks.
5. For reasons not known, PCCI received the OCP Resolution only on 27 February 2009.
6. Under existing Rules governing preliminary investigations, PCCI can either file a Motion for Reconsideration of the OCP Resolution with the OCP of Quezon City, or appeal the Resolution to the Secretary of Justice within 15 days from receipt of the Resolution, in this case, up to 14 March 2009.
COUNSEL'S RECOMMENDATION
1. It is recommended that PCCI file a Motion for Reinvestigation/Reconsideration of the OCP Resolution with the OCP of Quezon City. The Motion should address all of the findings of the OCP to give the latter the chance to correct its errors.
Moreover, the OCP Resolution explicitly notes that it is "without prejudice to its refiling" --- an indication that the OCP itself is open to reconsidering its ruling upon submission of sufficient evidence.
2. The Motion for Reinvestigation/Reconsideration will focus on the following points:
a. Contrary to the ruling of the OCP, there is no need to prove that Florentino Bustos and Ramillano are the only signatories of PCCI. It is enough that there is proof that Ramillano is a signatory. In this case, ample proof was presented to show that Ramillano was indeed a signatory of PCCI. These proofs are:
1. Complaint Affidavit of Mr. Augusto Santos where he named Ramillano as a signatory of PCCI;
2. Ramillano signed the checks in question and
3. was able to encash them --- an act which can only be done if Ramillano was a signatory. Otherwise, Metrobank would have dishonored the subject checks.
b. It is not true that there is no proof that the signatures of Florentino Bustos on the subject checks are forged considering that:
i. PCCI presented the Affidavit of Denial of Florentino Bustos stating that he did not sign the checks in question and that his signatures thereon are not his signatures. This affidavit is entitled to full faith and credit.
ii. No proof was presented by Ramillano to show that the signatures on the checks are the genuine signatures of Florentino Bustos. Ramillano did not even file his counter-affidavit to dispute the statements of PCCI's witnesses.
c. It is not true that there is no proof of misappropriation of PCCI's funds by Ramillano. Although no demand to account for the amounts withdrawn was made by PCCI on Ramillano which, if not complied with, is considered implicit proof of misappropriation, Ramillano's misappropriation of PCCI's funds for his own personal use and benefit is established by other facts and circumstances such as:
i) his apology;
ii) his Promissory Note;
iii) the dubious and questionable purpose stated in the invoices covering the disbursements, i.e., "payment for various taxes" which do not state the particular taxes to be paid and the respective amounts thereof;
iv) debits from the account of PCCI with Metrobank;
v) absence of official receipts for the supposed "various taxes to be paid from the check withdrawals."
We believe that upon a showing of the errors committed by the OCP and the additional evidence to be attached to the Motion for Reinvestigation/Reconsideration, PCCI will secure a reversal of the OCP Resolution and prompt the latter to file the corresponding information for Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents against Ramillano. In our view, it will be difficult for the OCP not to charge Ramillano as there is clearly probable cause that the crime charged has been committed and that Ramillano is probably guilty thereof and should be bound over to trial.
Very truly yours,
LAW FIRM OF DIAZ DEL ROSARIO
& ASSOCIATES
By:
ANACLETO M. DIAZ
(letter published at the PCCI website www.pccionline.org.ph)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)