The Justice Department affirmed the dismissal of an estafa case against Japanese casino magnate Kazuo Okada and several others in connection with the supply of light-emitting diode strips for the façade of Okada Manila.
Assistant state prosecutor Alejandro Daguiso said in a 10-page decision respondent Tiger Resort, Leisure and Entertainment Inc. failed to prove conspiracy between Okada and other respondents Kengo Takeda, Tetsuya Yokota and Aruze Philippines Manufacturing Inc.
“From the records, there appears to be no concrete evidence at all of respondents’ alleged conspiracy and representations that brought about the contract in question,” Daguiso said in his decision as he affirmed the resolution of the Parañaque Prosecutors Office dismissing the case on May 15, 2018 for lack of probable cause.
The DOJ said this case appeared to be a business decision gone wrong due to lack of any due diligence on the part of the complainant. It said the case could be subject to another complaint, likely breach of contract, but not for criminal fraud due to lack of evidence on record.
The case stemmed from a complained filed by TRLEI chief executive adviser Dindo Espeleta which alleged that the responders conspired to enable Aruze Philippines Manufacturing Inc., a company allegedly owned by Okada, to get the LED supply contract.
The department said TRLEI’s complaint merely relied on the assertions of its Espeleta of perceived close personal association between respondents without any reference to specific meetings or conversations on particular dates during the period of negotiations for the awarding of the supply agreement.
The Justice Department said the TRLEI’s complaint rendered itself defective after it failed to present receipts in evidence—either of the LED strips upon delivery or of the payment for the same.
The DOJ also maintained that the supply agreement itself was executed several months after the delivery of the LED strips, rendering the contract consummated and extinguished several months before its actual terms were put into writing and notarized.
It also said that Espeleta had every opportunity to conduct due diligence in the preparation for the signing of the supply agreement – even against the wishes of Okada and Takeda – but he failed to do so.