FOR lack of merit, the Danao City Prosecutor's Office dismissed the complaint for qualified theft and estafa filed against the brother and wife of Cebu City councilor candidate Ernest Herrera II.
But the legal battle is not over yet, according to the complainants, as they will exhaust all the legal remedies available.
In a nine-page resolution dated March 12, Danao City Prosecutor Jose Dionisio Kyamko said the complainants failed to prove that Ernesto Herrera III and Vanessa Herrera committed the crime.
Spouses Niel Richard and Janice Kintanar filed a criminal case against Herrera III and his wife last February 8.
The Kintanars said Herrera III, their business partner in running a Kambal Pandesal bakery outlet inside the Cebu Mitsumi branch in Danao City, had unpaid supplies and did not give them their agreed percentage of the bakery income.
But the prosecutor also found out that the complaint filed against Herrera III was not proper because he was not involved in the Kambal Pandesal business and not even working in Cebu.
Herrera III is based in Manila and is not Vanessa’s husband.
The Kintanar couple wanted to supposedly implead Herrera II, or commonly known as Ernest, who was their business partner in Kambal Pandesal business.
“The former even strongly represented that they know the respondent spouses very well as they are longtime friends. But how can it be explained that respondent Ernest Herrera III is not the actual husband of respondent Vanessa? He is a brother-in-law. In this score alone the dismissal of the instant complaints in favor of the latter is a foregone conclusion,” the resolution stated.
The prosecutor also found that Vanessa’s alleged acts of not signing and verifying the housekeeping accounts does not point criminal liability.
Lawyer Abraham Rey Acosta, who served as counsel for the Herreras, said they are happy with the decision and hopes that the other party will accept that there is really no case against his clients.
In an interview, Herrera II said he is vindicated and the case was purely a form of "political harassment" considering that he is running as councilor in Cebu City's north district.
Sought for comment, lawyer James Sayson, counsel for the Kintanars, said there is undue haste in deciding the complaint.
Sayson said they received the counter affidavit of the Herreras on March 12, but resolution of the Prosecutor’s Office was also received on the same day.
“Under the rules, within five days, we can file our reply-affidavit. But shockingly, the fiscal decided the case. We were able to find our reply-affidavit yesterday (March 18) exactly when we received the copy of the resolution,” he said.
As to names impleaded in the complaint, Sayson said it is only a typographical error, which was already corrected and explained in their reply-affidavit.
Sayson said they will fight out the matter by filing a motion for reconsideration or a new complaint on the matter.
Earlier, Ernest also filed a complaint for violation of Republic Act 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, against the Kintanars and spouses Ramon and Karla Fernandez for posting “malicious and baseless” accusations against him on social media. (RVC)