Defendants deny conspiracy to defraud PH bank

A couple who co-owned a defunct remittance center have asserted that they had no knowledge of a conspiracy to defraud a Philippine bank.

Haydn L. Villegas, through counsel Timothy H. Bellas, said neither he nor Ana Maria V. Villegas were aware that co-defendant Armilaine Salamat was falsifying their company’s books.

Ms. Villegas did not request Salamat to do so, nor did she request Salamat to illegally wire the money, said Bellas in Mr. Villegas’ motion to exclude alleged co-conspirator statements.

“Even if the court believes there is evidence to support Ms. Villegas’ knowledge of the conspiracy, the same cannot be said for Mr. Villegas,” Bellas said.

The lawyer said that before admitting a statement of a co-conspirator into evidence against a defendant, the court must have independent evidence of the existence of the conspiracy and the defendant’s connection to it. He said the court must conclude that the statement was made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

“Nothing that has been disclosed to Mr. Villegas suggests he was aware of specific conversations between his wife and Ms. Salamat,” Bellas said.

Bellas added that the admissibility of such statements, however, even for the limited purpose of inculpating Ms. Villegas, would have a prejudicial effect on Mr. Villegas.

Bellas said the evidence must either be excluded entirely or Mr. Villegas must be given a separate trial from Ms. Villegas.

Salamat used to serve as manager of PNB Express, which was then a subsidiary of Philippine National Bank.

In June 2010, Salamat pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud. She is currently awaiting sentencing.

In Mr. Villegas’ motion, Bellas said there are a number of statements made by Ms. Villegas and Salamat—both of whom are alleged coconspirators in the case—that should be excluded.

Bellas said a threshold issue of admissibility of coconspirator statements is whether a conspiracy actually existed.

“The facts as presented are completely void of evidence that would support a finding of conspiracy, particularly as to Mr. Villegas,” the lawyer said.

When interviewed by an FBI special agent and an assistant U.S. attorney, Bellas said, one of the alleged co-conspirators—Salamat—stated that she “did not have an agreement with Ms. Villegas” to cover the costs of bad checks.

Bellas said Salamat further stated that she “never received anything of value from Ms. Villegas” and “only falsified records in the daily proofsheets to avoid being fired.”