Regional fiscal affirms dismissal of cases filed by LTO 7 chief vs. motorcycle dealer

·2 min read

REGIONAL prosecutors in Central Visayas have upheld the dismissal of the criminal charges filed by Land Transportation Office (LTO) 7 Director Victor Emmanuel Caindec against the officers and employees of an accredited Cebu-based motorcycle dealer.

In two separate resolutions issued on March 2022, Regional State Prosecutor Fernando Gubalane denied Caindec’s appeal on the earlier dismissal of falsification charges against the officers and employees of DES Strong Motors Inc. (DSMI) for lack of merit.

But Caindec, in a statement sent to SunStar Cebu, said he plans to appeal the case before the Department of Justice (DOJ).

“We’re bringing that to DOJ. Not a big deal. This case helped LTO to build better succeeding cases. There’s a thousand more being prepared,” Caindec said.

Named respondents are Renie Tumon, area manager; Joann Lanzaderas, branch manager; employees Julio Arabejo Jr., Rovelyn Ranises and Emelita Binarao, all of DSMI.

Also named respondents are Dr. Silvestre Lumapas Jr.

and Marilou Lumapas, the company’s president and corporate secretary, respectively.

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

In a four-page resolution dated March 15, 2022, Gubalane denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Caindec and resolved to stay the dismissal of the complaints against the respondents.

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

In a separate five-page resolution dated March 29, 2022, Gubalane also denied the petition for review filed by Caindec on the Dec. 16, 2021 dismissal of the complaint by the Mandaue City Prosecutor’s Office for failure to present suitable proof to hold respondents liable for the crime charged.

Gubalane said the argument on the part of Caindec 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.

Gubalane 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 clearly not a party in this case.

He added that the main proof that will establish probable cause of the offense charged will be that which has been presented by Caindec and any alleged admission would merely be secondary.

Gubalane further said 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. (JKV, PR)

Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions. In order to improve our community experience, we are temporarily suspending article commenting