Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez urged newly appointed Maharlika Investment Corp. (MIC) president and CEO Rafael Consing Jr. to address issues involving a fraud/estafa case he and his mother had faced.
Though Consing has claimed in a short statement that the case had already been dismissed, he did not say when the complaint was thrown out and which court finally resolved it, Rodriguez said.
“I am urging him to provide or disclose all of the details, and to show proof of dismissal so that all concerns about his qualification to head the government corporation that will manage tens of billions in assets of the Maharlika Investment Fund (MIF) will be resolved,” Rodriguez said.
He noted that such concerns have been raised in social media by persons who care about the integrity of the MIC and the MIF and the qualifications of the individuals who will run the corporation and manage the investment or sovereign fund.
Rodriguez said the rules and regulations implementing Republic Act 11954, the law creating the MIF, disqualify a person from being appointed to the MIC board of directions five years before his appointment.
These rules include: if the appointee was convicted by final judgment of an offense punishable by imprisonment of more than six years; if he was found administratively liable for any offense involving fraudulent acts; if he was convicted by final judgment or found liable by a foreign court or equivalent foreign regulatory authority for acts, violations,
or misconduct; and if the person has a pending administrative, civil or criminal case
relating to fraud, plunder, corrupt practices, money laundering, tax evasion, or any similar crimes involving misuse of fund in the person’s possession or breach of trust.
Rodriguez said it is important for Consing to clarify when the fraud/estafa case and any related complaint involving him and his mother had been dismissed and to provide proof of dismissal because of the conditions set by the rules and regulations on the qualifications
of MIC appointees.
“If the complaint has been thrown out five years before his appointment, then he is qualified. If the case was resolved with finality within the five-year period or if it is still pending, then he clearly is disqualified,” he said.
He said the Supreme Court E-Library lists a case “G.R. No. 161075.
July 15, 2013,” which is apparently the fraud/estafa complaint filed against Consing and his mother.
The decision on the case was written by then chief justice and now Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin.
The ruling partly states, “Even if respondent is declared merely an agent of his mother in the transaction involving the sale of the questioned lot, he cannot be adjudged free from criminal liability. An
agent or any person may be held liable for conspiring to falsify public documents. Hence, the determination of the issue involved in Civil Case No. SCA 1759 for Injunctive Relief is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the respondent in the criminal case for estafa
through falsification of public document.”
“Maybe, the Supreme Court, through its spokesman, can tell the public when this particular case and related complaints against Mr. Consing were dismissed, and if there is still any pending,” Rodriguez said.