A LOCAL real estate broker is mulling to press charges against a businessman and a judge in connection with an estafa case junked by a regional court and reaffirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).
Gemma Pabayo-Velasco, owner of GPV Realty, said she would file malicious prosecution with damages against her business partner, Vicente Tan while an administrative case will be filed against Judge Vincent Rosales before the Supreme Court.
“He (Tan) started it in court I will finish it in court,” Velasco said.
Tan charged Velasco with estafa for issuing 28 bouncing checks amounting to nearly P7 million in January, 2015.
The two were business partners since 2006. She said after their business boomed, Tan already earned about P12 million from their partnership.
Velasco said the falling out started when she failed to give Tan the agreed five percent share or P432,000 monthly for about three months.
This after Velasco suffered financial difficulty relative to the brokering of the sale of a property in Sitio Kamakawan in Barangay Gusa to the National Housing Authority (NHA) intended as resettlement site for Sendong survivors.
“Nayabo ko sa akong negosyo kay 3 ka legal issues akong giatiman sa ani nga transaction. So wala ko kahatag kang Vic Tan ug gisulod niya ang 28 ka cheke nga akong gi-issue nga nag bounce then iya kong gi-filan og kaso,” she said.
On the other hand, Velasco cried foul for the alias warrant ordered by Rosales on March 28, 2016, as she calls it miscarriage of justice since there has been no original arrest warrant because she has a pending motion not yet acted by the court due to the fire that razed the Hall of Justice.
Rosales was the presiding judge of RTC branch 23, which formerly handles the case before it was re-raffled at branch 38 under Judge Emmanuel Pasal.
Pasal then ordered the case dismissed on July 28, 2016. The court also denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Tan in an October 11, 2016 ruling.
The court said “that the offended party handed the amounts to the accused not because of the postdated checks but because of the trust and confidence she (he) had on the accused as well as the promise of the fruitful project. This is not the kind of estafa covered by Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.”
“Na-appreciate sa judge nga ang element sa estafa nga deceit and fraud is not present sa maong case,” Velasco said.
Velasco said the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA) but the appellate court, likewise, dismissed the case in May 12, 2017.
While being elated after finally vindicated through the CA ruling, Velasco said she is now working with her lawyer in filing the case against her accuser for tarnishing her hard-earned reputation in the brokerage industry.
“I would like the public to know that it has been decided and that the justice system works. Dako kaayo og epekto kini nga kaso sa akong negosyo ug sa akong pagkatawo kay gipakaulawan ko nga grabe akong struggle to build my name and reputation and its unfair nga ingnon kag estafador,” she said. (Alwen Saliring/SunStar Cagayan de Oro)