CA nullifies arrest order vs. party-list congressman Mikee Romero

1-Pacman party-list Representative Michael “Mikee” Romero is now free from qualified theft charges after the Court of Appeals (CA) recently nullified the arrest order issued against him and his co-accused by a Manila judge early this year.

Romero, the richest congressman last year with a net worth of P7 billion, has yet to surface since Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 11 Judge Cicero Jurado Jr. issued the arrest order for the non-bailable offense on January 6, which the CA Fifth Division voided on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.

In a ruling dated November 16, the CA took Judge Jurado to task for his decision to deny the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) motion to withdraw the case in September last year, find probable cause, and issue a warrant of arrest against Romero, Felicia Aquino and Edwin Jeremillo.

“Clearly, respondent judge gravely abused his discretion when he denied the DOJ’s motion to withdraw information. In denying the motion to withdraw, he further abused his discretion when he determined the existence of probable cause and worse, he issued a warrant of arrest against petitioners,” the CA said through Associate Justice Magdangal De Leon.

The DOJ had said there was insufficient evidence to support the complaint of Jerome Canlas, corporate secretary of the lawmaker's father and rival Harbour Centre Port Terminal Inc. (HCPTI) claimant Reghis Romero II, that the three pocketed corporate funds worth P3.4 million.

Canlas alleged that the funds were released on Apr. 27, 2007 by issuing 18 checks to the “National Food Authority and/or Felicia T. Aquino.”

Aquino is a cashier at HCPTI while Jeremillo is said to be the company’s former chief operating officer.

The DOJ also said Canlas cannot represent HCPTI in the case because the company's ownership has yet to be settled before a Quezon City court.

“In this case, records reveal that the ownership of HCPTI has been in dispute for years prior to the filing of the criminal complaint for qualified theft with Office of the City Prosecutor-Manila and has yet to be resolved with finality, and that it clearly constitutes a prejudicial question which is sub judice (Latin for 'under judgment'),”  the decision stated.

“The prejudicial question deals not only with the lack of capacity of Atty. Canlas to file the criminal complaint in behalf of HCPTI before the OCP-Manila but also the power of the purported controlling directors of HCPTI to issue a Board Resolution authorizing Atty. Canlas,” it added.

The CA, however, clarified its decision was “without prejudice” to the re-filing of the qualified theft case in the event that the prejudicial question is “resolved with finality.”

Associate Justices Franchito Diamante and Zenaida Galapate-Laguilles concurred in the ruling. —ALG, GMA News