The case stemmed from the theft case filed by the SMHC against Eri Shadik Wahono and Nadiya Stamboel. SMHC accused Wahono of allegedly funneling P50 million from the Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corp., which operates the Skyway, into another company he created called Citra Central Expressway Corp.
File
Trial of theft case vs San Miguel's Indonesian partner to continue — CA
(Philstar.com) - January 10, 2019 - 6:23pm

MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals affirmed its earlier decision to allow the Makati court’s trial of San Miguel Holdings Corp. theft case against its former Indonesian partner and three others.

The CA’s Special Former Ninth Division, in a decision dated January 7, junked Shadik Wahono’s appeal assailing the appellate court’s July 11, 2018 ruling that ordered for the trial to continue.

The CA said that it did not find “compelling reason to reconsider, modify or reverse our decision dated July 11, 2018 it appearing that there are no new and substantial matters discussed in the instant motion.”

Associate Justice Sesinando Villon penned the ruling. Associate Justices Manuel Barrios and Germano Francisco Legaspi concurred.

The case stemmed from the theft case filed by SMHC against Indonesians Eri Shadik Wahono and Nadiya Stamboel. SMHC accused Wahono of allegedly funneling P50 million from the Citra Metro Manila Tollways Corp., which operates the Skyway, into another company he created called Citra Central Expressway Corp.

The parties elevated the case to the appellate court after Marikina Judge Alice Gutierrez refused to inhibit from the case.

Gutierrez earlier cleared Wahono and his co-accused of the theft case in October 2017, but the CA blocked the dismissal through a writ of preliminary injunction.

The CA, on July 2018, ordered Gutierrez to take her hands off the case and the trial to continue under a new judge.

Wahono, in seeking anew a relief from the CA, argued that the ongoing trial of the theft case violates their constitutional right against double jeopardy.

But the CA dismissed this argument as “misplaced.”

The court held: “If there is grave abuse of discretion, granting petitioner’s prayer is not tantamount to putting private respondents in double jeopardy.” — Kristine Joy Patag

COURT OF APPEALS SAN MIGUEL HOLDING CORP
Philstar
  • Latest
  • Trending
Latest
Latest
Recommended
Are you sure you want to log out?
X
Login

Philstar.com is one of the most vibrant, opinionated, discerning communities of readers on cyberspace. With your meaningful insights, help shape the stories that can shape the country. Sign up now!

SIGN IN
or sign in with