Previous Story
Motion to dismiss case vs. co-owner of defunct remittance center denied anew
|
Posted on Dec 06 2011
By Ferdie de la Torre
Reporter
Reporter
U.S. District Court for the NMI designated judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood has stood pat on her earlier decision that denied a motion to dismiss a criminal case filed against a co-owner of a defunct remittance center who was indicted for alleged conspiracy to defraud a Philippine bank.
In denying defendant Haydn L. Villegas’ motion for reconsideration, Tydingco-Gatewood ruled that she did not commit a clear error in applying the law.
“Essentially, defendant is merely asking the court to rethink what it has already thought through, and that is not a proper justification for reconsideration,” the judge pointed out.
Tydingco-Gatewood also rejected Villegas’ argument that the court improperly invaded the province of the jury.
The judge said her findings in her order denying the motion to dismiss were for purposes of deciding the motion.
“Defendant will still have an opportunity to argue his theory that the last overt act was outside the scope of the statute of limitations to the jury at trial,” Tydingco-Gatewood said.
Villegas was the co-owner of the defunct Philippine Express Remittance who allegedly defrauded the Philippine National Bank of about $109,855. He pleaded not guilty to the charge of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
Villegas, through counsel G. Anthony Long, moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the charges were untimely filed.
Tydingco-Gatewood denied the motion. She determined that Villegas’ last overt act occurred on Jan. 17, 2007, and that the grand jury returned the indictment on Dec. 16, 2010, which was within five years of the last overt act.
Thus, the judge said, the charge of conspiracy is not barred by the statute of limitations.
Villegas moved the court to reconsider its ruling.
Long argued that reconsideration is proper as the court erred in ruling that the indictment alleges a timely offense.
The U.S. government opposed the motion. The prosecution argues that the defendant fails to demonstrate that the court clearly erred in applying the law and fails to present arguments that could have been raised in the initial briefings.
The judge agreed with the prosecution.
