Wednesday, July 23, 2008 Oppus appeals dismisal of complaints v. Pelaez
SUPERINTENDENT Louie Oppus asked the Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office to reconsider a resolution dismissing the complaints of perjury and unjust vexation against businessman Efrain Pelaez Jr.
Oppus’ motion for reconsideration hooked on Pelaez’s failure to file a counter-affidavit.
The motion, prepared by lawyer Rameses Victorius Villagonzalo, noted that Pelaez only filed a motion to dismiss or motion for extension of time to file counter-affidavit dated Dec. 27, 2007.
“Up to this date, (Pelaez) did not file a counter-affidavit which makes the allegations in the affidavit of criminal complaint uncontroverted and unchallenged. Thus, there must be findings of probable cause to indict the respondent for perjury and unjust vexation,” read Oppus’ three-page motion.
The complaints, Oppus said, should be elevated before the Regional Trial Court.
Oppus filed the complaints for perjury and unjust vexation against Pelaez after the latter filed harassment and conspiracy complaints against Oppus before the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas.
The complaint-affidavit contained “perjured” statements, said Oppus.
Wounded
Oppus said he suffered “sleepless nights, anxiety, embarrassment, mental anguish, wounded feelings, great annoyance and unjust vexations because of the malicious and perjured statements” of Pelaez against him.
But Assistant Cebu City Prosecutor Patrick Osorio dismissed the complaints in a resolution dated June 10, 2008, approved by City Prosecutor Nicolas Sellon.
While the complainant believes that there was no counter-affidavit submitted before the prosecutor’s office, Osorio anchored his dismissal on Pelaez’s counter-affidavit that the complaint has no basis since the complaint before the anti-graft office is still raw.
“It is still premature to conclude that respondent committed perjury...the said complaint is still pending for consideration before the Office of the Ombudsman, hence, allegations that respondent submitted a perjured affidavit will not yet prosper,” Osorio’s resolution read.
Oppus argued in his motion that the “prematurity” clause used in dismissing the complaint would set a “very dangerous precedent” especially against public officers.
Unjust vexation
As for the complaint for unjust vexation, Osorio ruled, “(It) will not prosper considering that it was not established that (Pelaez) intended to cause annoyance, irritation or vexation or disturbance to the mind of complainant when he filed a complaint.”
The exchange of complaints between Pelaez and Oppus stemmed from the demolition of stalls at the Mactan Marina Mall last Oct. 19 for failure to secure business permits. Pelaez owns the mall.
Oppus led a team of policemen to secure the area, which prompted Pelaez to label the former as one of Lapu-Lapu City Mayor Arturo Radaza’s minions.
Oppus explained that he was only acting on a letter-request for police assistance by the City Government. (JGA)
