#DelfinLee pretrial: will signatures of ex-PAGIBIG officials be marked: Guide for Reporters

    People vs. Delfin Lee et al for syndicated estafa, pretrial: Will signatures of ex-PAGIBIG officials be also marked as prosecution evidence? #DelfinLee Guide for Reporters

    Syndicated estafa accused Delfin Lee’s arraignment was reset to Friday. Upon arraignment, the pre-trial would be set or, if the parties are ready, would be held right after the arraignment.

     Pre-trial includes marking of documents. The documents include the PAGIBIG loan documents, deeds of sale, contracts to sell, mortgage documents, etc.

      Ideally, ALL  the signatures on the pertinent documents should also be marked – called “sub-markings”. When a signature is marked, there is an intent to present them as evidence.

     So… Here’s what to watch out for in the  pre-trial:

     Will the prosecution also mark in evidence the signatures of the former PAGIBIG officials who approved the loans, amounting to a total of 6 billion pesos?

    Because if these signatures are marked in evidence, it will draw attention to the fact that PAGIBIG and PAGIBIG members, were defrauded, to the tune of about 6 billion pesos, with the help of said former PAGIBIG officials.

    (I don’t know whose signatures from PAGIBIG appear in those documents. The former PAGIBIG CEOs, from most recent to oldest, are : Jaime Fabiaña, Miro Quimbo, Noli de Castro.)

     If they are marked as prosecution evidence, will those former PAGIBIG officials be impleaded (as respondents in a preliminary investigation and as accused later on)?

If the prosecution does not mark them in evidence … one would wonder why.

        If the lawyers of Delfin Lee are smart, they would notice if the signatures of the former PAGIBIG officials are not marked in evidence. If they have a theory of this case, they would sub-mark those signatures. But they’ll have to stipulate on those documents – and hopefully, those become common exhibits, thereby facilitating trial.

          Those who are just beginning to cover this case should probably read this  column piece from Prof. Randy David:

“The picture of Delfin Lee” By Randy David Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 00:11:00 10/31/2010 “Public Lives”

“IN A column I wrote in July this year (Inquirer, 07/17/10), I tried to interpret an intriguing photo that appeared in the Inquirer showing Globe Asiatique’s Delfin Lee with top officials of Pag-Ibig (Home Development Mutual Fund). The photo carried the following caption: “Globe Asiatique and Pag-Ibig Committed to Working Together.” If this was a news item, I said, what was it doing in the foreign section? If it was a paid advertisement, why was it not labeled as such? The main point of that article was to argue why it is important to mark the boundaries separating the news from advertisement and entertainment.

     “But, what initially drew me to the picture in question had little to do with the point I was making. There was just something curious and disturbing about the photo itself: A smiling man dressed casually (Delfin Lee) had his right hand on the shoulder of a formally dressed person (Jaime Fabiaña) in what appeared to be a formal pose. This man must be a celebrity, I thought to myself.

“Well, Lee might have felt like one because he used to host a television program on ANC in which he mainly promoted the projects of his real-estate company. Still, it seemed improper for anyone, especially one who has dealings with Pag-Ibig, to treat the chief executive officer of the agency as if they were buddies. To be fair, Fabiaña himself, like the other Pag-Ibig official in the photo, deputy CEO Emma Linda Faria, looked reluctant and uncomfortable in that picture.

“My instinct was instantly confirmed after I Googled Delfin Lee. One link led me to the website of Pag-Ibig Fund South Min, which featured more or less the same photograph minus the overreaching hand of Lee resting on Fabiaña?s shoulder. More interesting was the caption: “Apology to Pag-Ibig. Jaime A. Fabiaña (left), Chief Executive Officer of Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag-Ibig Fund), receives Delfin Lee (center), President of Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings Corporation at his office. Lee personally apologized to Fabiaña over his reported statements that HDMF officials have become lazy and have lost the vision to serve.”

(blog admin’s note: here’s that photo, right-clicked from the PAGIBIG South Min site, embedded below):

1DelfinLee

“Three months quickly passed since that picture saw print in the Inquirer. But one doesn’t have to be a journalist, I wrote in my column, to sense that there?s a bigger story buried here. What prompted the apology? What was the issue? What is the nature of Lee’s dealings with the Pag-Ibig Fund?

“As it turned out, one sharp-nosed journalist, the Inquirer’s own Tonette Orejas, correspondent for Central Luzon, had been quietly researching Lee’s projects in Pampanga long before that contested photograph appeared. Her carefully documented research resulted in a two-part report that the Inquirer published a month later. That report promptly triggered a Senate investigation of the activities of Globe Asiatique. Today, Globe Asiatique owner Delfin Lee and other officials of his company are facing charges of syndicated estafa. The complaint filed at the Department of Justice is signed by Pag-Ibig officer in charge Emma Linda Faria, the lady in that picture.

“Lee is accused of using fictitious buyers of housing units supplied by his company to take out loans from Pag-Ibig. The amount involved is P6.65 billion, representing payment for 8,790 units in the Xevera projects of Globe Asiatique. Of these, only 1,209 are actually occupied by buyers/borrowers on Pag-Ibig’s records. A total of 1,576 housing units that were supposed to have been bought by Pag-Ibig members/borrowers are actually being occupied by people who say they are tenants or in-house buyers of Globe Asiatique.

“The charges allege that Delfin Lee, in effect, fraudulently accessed the funds belonging to Pag-Ibig members to finance his own real-estate projects. This scam is so reminiscent of the misuse of public funds that doomed the well-intentioned Unified Home Lending Program during the Ramos administration that it is difficult to believe that people at Pag-Ibig and the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC) could not have smelled this rip-off earlier.

“Every legitimate Pag-Ibig member knows how tortuous and protracted the process of securing a housing loan can be. Yet, individuals sponsored by Globe Asiatique, who became instant Pag-Ibig members upon paying P5,000, the equivalent of two years’ contributions, could get their loan applications processed and approved in less than a week. For a given period, month after month, a big bulk of the agency

s available housing credit was taken out by the same company. If no one in Pag-Ibig or the HUDCC felt any alarm over this, the only logical conclusion one can draw is that the officials of these government agencies were incompetent, in collusion with the private developer, or were intimidated by a powerful official.

“As a long-time member of the Pag-Ibig Fund, I feel violated. This matter cannot end with the filing of charges against Globe Asiatique and one low-ranking employee at Pag-Ibig. Delfin Lee could not have gotten this far without the backing of someone who uses political muscle to soften the stiffest resistance from professionals in government. The man in that photograph who carried himself as if he owned Pag-Ibig definitely had a protector who was clever enough not to be in that picture.”

 

     

 

Arrest of Delfin Lee, legal or not: Guide for Reporters

Delfin Lee’s lawyers will file a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus – if they haven’t done that yet, it’s already 5:33pm Friday. The lawyers are probably looking for his next-of-kin to sign it. If they  know their way around the courts or know some judges or justices or clerks of court, they can file it tonight or tomorrow, or at the latest, manually, by Monday.

      Will it be granted? – Based on news reports (i haven’t seen any of the court orders and writs in this case) : 1)The RTC-Pampanga issued a warrant of arrest; 2) The Court of Appeals through an injunction case filed by Lee, issued a resolution ordering the RTC-Pampanga “to lift” said warrant of arrest; 3)The prosecution, through the DOJ, filed an injunction case or an “appeal” in the Supreme Court (petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for  a writ of prelim injunction and a TRO etc. under Rule 65 or an “appeal” from an order of the CA or petition for review and certiorari under Rule 45), asking the SC to stop or set aside the order issued by the CA; 4)Lee was arrested last night.

    Is the arrest legal? 1) The police said that when the prosecution filed the injunction case in the SC (petition for certiorari and prohibition etc under Rule 65), or an appeal (“appeal” from an order of the CA or a petition for review and certiorari under Rule 45) the Court of Appeals, upon being notified of said action, issued an order “deferring” the execution of its order on the RTC “to lift” the arrest warrant. IF TRUE (that the CA issued such an order “deferring” the execution of its earlier order), then, yes, THE ARREST IS LEGAL.

      2)IF NOT TRUE – If it is not true that there was such an order from the CA “deferring” the  execution of its earlier order, is the arrest legal?

…. Hmmmm. Do not use the argument that just because you filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 in the SC or an appeal under Rule 45, that, that stays the earlier order of the CA lifting the warrant of arrest. There’s no TRO, or stay order, or status quo order, or writ of prelim injunction, or any kind of order from the Supreme Court, staying or suspending the earlier order of the CA. It is basic that the mere filing of a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition or an appeal under Rule 45 will not stay any questioned order. If you keep using this theory and not use any other remedial tactics, he will walk – Delfin Lee walks when a court hears his  Petition for the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

      Between now and Monday or Tuesday, get the TRO  applied for in the SC.

      If you cannot do that, use the argument that: When the CA issued its resolution ordering the RTC-Makati “to lift” the warrant of arrest, no motion was filed by Delfin Lee in the RTC-Makati to quash said warrant of arrest. The warrant of arrest does not quash by itself, or on its own, without any motion filed in the RTC that issued it , with a notice of hearing and a hearing upon the motion. And the accused never filed any such motion in the RTC to quash it, therefore, the warrant of arrest is still alive.

      Igor-rrrr! (roll your rrr’s and use your Russian accent) — it’s ah-live!!! (bolt of lightning and clap of thunder).

     Then, arraign him quickly. Once arraigned, the criminal case will proceed against him regardless of any ruling on his petition for the writ of habeas corpus.

The moral of the story is… the safe and prudent thing to do is,   to always go back to the RCT that issued the warrant of arrest and go through the motions of quashing it in that court even after a higher court has issued an injunction — just to play safe.

     Between now and Monday or Tuesday however, you’re going to see a Petition for the issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus fired your way (filed in court).