Court affirms insurance execs’ conviction
A Makati City court has affirmed the conviction of two business executives who include the estranged husband of veteran actress Amalia Fuentes for failure to remit the Social Security System (SSS) contributions of their employees.
They were sentenced to almost three years in prison last year for violation of the SSS Law.
Regional Trial Court Judge Perpetua Atai-Pano of Branch 134 dismissed the appeal filed by Joseph Stevens and Florita Suba, president and vice president, respectively, of the defunct Imperial Insurance Co.
Complaints for two counts of estafa were filed against them in 2002 by fellow company officers, underwriting manager Helen Gonzales and assistant vice president for finance Evangeline Galban.
On March 22, 2010, Makati Metropolitan Trial Court Judge Joselito Calpatura convicted them on two counts of violation of the SSS Law, instead of estafa.
They were sentenced to maximum prison terms of up to two years and 11 months in the first count, and one year and 8 months in the second count.
Stevens and Suba were also ordered to pay P924 to the SSS on both counts, plus interest and penalties, representing the balance of the unremitted contributions of Galban and Gonzales since the cases were filed.
In their motion for reconsideration, Stevens and Suba maintained that the cases should have been dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy, citing a January 2001 case in which they said they were also accused and arraigned for the same offense.
They also argued that they were supposedly covered by the SSS’s condonation program for delinquent employers, which took effect in 2009.
But Pano said that “there is no double jeopardy rule where the accused has not been convicted or acquitted in a judgment or the case against him was terminated or dismissed with his express consent.”
“Hence, (Steven and Suba’s) contention that they have been vexed twice has no basis in fact and in law,” said Pano in a decision dated June 8.
As to whether both were covered by the SSS condonation program, the judge said that they failed to comply with its conditions, among them being the issuance of a certification from the SSS that they had already settled their obligations.
The ruling noted that the respondents only presented special bank receipts as proof of payment.
Even granting that they had settled their civil obligation in full, it said” (that) alone does not extinguish the criminal liability since (it) will only be considered as recompense for damages incurred by the private complainant.”
