The Pasay City Prosecutor’s Office has ordered the indictment of a real estate executive for allegedly falsifying a document in the family-owned company.
In a resolution released last Feb. 26, Assistant City Prosecutor Neil Hector T. Duenas found probable cause to indict Fernando Martin O. Pena, secretary of San Antonio Condominium Building, Inc. (SACBI), for violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The resolution was issued after conducting a preliminary investigation on the complaint filed by Pena’s siblings -- former SACBI treasurer Juan O. Pena and SACBI shareholders Jose Eduardo O. Pena and Rosanna O. Pena.
“After a judicious perusal of the records of the case, this Office finds probable cause to indict the respondent (Fernando) for the crime of falsification by causing it to appear that a person or persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate,” the resolution, which was also approved by Pasay City Prosecutor Elmer Cris L. Rillo, stated.
The case involved the Fed. 17, 2020 special stockholders and directors’ meeting that led to the removal of Juan in compliance to the SACBI by-laws. Juan was alleged to be a director of SACBI’s competitor, RAJL Inc.
The complainants questioned the minutes of the special stockholder’s meeting which stated that there was a quorum to hold the meeting held on Feb. 17 at 10 a.m. since three stockholders representing 55 percent of the outstanding capital stocks were present and that Eduardo and Rosanna also participated in the proceedings.
Aside from respondent Fernando, the other directors and stockholders of SACBI are their father Juan N. Pena Rivadeneria, who is the chairman and president, and their other sibling Guillermo Enrique O. Pena.
The prosecutor’s resolution stated:
“It must be noted that the complainants themselves denied their participation of the said Stockholder’s Meeting. And while admittedly they were physically present at that time., they were there not to participate in the proceedings but solely for the purpose of registering their vehement objection and protest to the holding of the said meeting.
“While this Office notes the different claims of the parties, this Office gives more weight to the version of the complainants.
“Clearly, the complainants did not want the meeting to proceed as they oppose the matters that will be taken up thereto, but despite their insistence, the Special Meeting proceeded.
“Worst, it was made to appear that they were present -- to justify and give the meeting the semblance of regularity and to make it appear that there is a quorum. This office can only speculate why.”
The prosecutor was informed that there were two meetings held on Feb. 17, one at 10 a.m. and another at 11 a.m.
“If they (Eduardo and Rosanna) did not participate in the said meeting (10 a.m.), then it is logical to believe that they were not present and did not also participate in the said 11 o’clock meeting. Taking into account the circumstances surrounding the instant case, this office cannot be faulted if it gives more credence to the claims of the complainants,” the prosecutor said.