High Court allows Arenas staff to post bail

Sunday, February 5, 2012

THE Supreme Court has given its go-signal for the former assistant of socialite Rosemarie "Baby" Arenas and he co-accused to post bail in a multi-million estafa case filed before the Makati regional trial court (RTC).
 
In a two-page resolution, the Court en banc ordered the Makati RTC to comply with the directive of the Court of Appeals in February 16, 2011 allowing Joanne So-Villena to post bail.
 
The SC denied, however, the petition filed by Villena's father, David So, seeking the issuance of a writ of amparo following her continued detention at the National Bureau of Investigation despite the favorable ruling of the CA for her and her co-accused last year.
 
The High Court said it is no longer necessary for it to decide on the petition for amparo considering that the CA has already issued a directive for the RTC to allow the posting of bail in connection with the case.
 
"The Court is bound by its August 17, 2011 resolution affirming the correctness of the CA decision of February 16, 2011 and, therefore, finds no genuine issue to resolve in the present case. Only the enforcement of the CA's final decision remains," the court said.
 
Aside from Villena, also covered by the CA ruling were her three siblings identified John So, Maria Melitona Sanches and Maria Elena So-Guisande, who was believed to be the mastermind behind the scam. Her husband Antonio Vicente Guisande was also named as accused in the estafa case.
 
The complaint was filed by Christopher Arenas, son of Baby Arenas, spouses Michael and Barbara Tolentino, Agnes Huibonhoa and Doris Deborrah Palispis.
 
The complainants alleged that Guisande acted as one of the Tolentinos' sales agents in the jewelry trade who was supposed to earn on a commission basis.
 
But instead of selling the jewelry, the Tolentino couple learned in December 2008 that these were being pawned. They also found out that the postdated checks issued to them by the accused were either issued with a stop-payment order or were worthless because the accounts were closed. 
 
The CA, in its February 2011 ruling, declared null and void the warrants and the subsequent alias warrants of arrest issued by the trial court on June 8, 2010 against the accused for having been issued without recommending bail.
 
The appellate court also held that while there was probable cause for the issuance of the warrants of arrest against the accused, they must be allowed to post bail since the crime charged is not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
 
It directed the RTC to fix the amount of bail preparatory to the issuance of new warrants of arrest and subsequently denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
 
The NBI elevated the case before the SC through a petition for review but was denied on August 17, 2011 after finding that the CA did not commit error in issuing its February 16, 2011 resolution.
 
However, the Makati RTC failed to heed the CA's directives, prompting So to file a petition for a writ of amparo, praying that her daughter be released on recognizance while the case is being deliberated. (JCV/Sunnex)