I would like to request for assistance in explaining the contents of a resolution a friend of mine received for an estafa case filed against him.
He acquired a loan from some people (who are "partners"), who asked him to guarantee his payment with some post dated checks. He was unable to follow through with the deposits and the said current account eventually closed, hence, resulting in 2 bouncing checks.
Now, the people he owed money to filed two separate estafa cases against him, with one check amounting to Php 65,000, and the other one amounting to around Php 200,000.
He was unable to file a counter-affidavit during the course of the case, but he managed to show up for all the court proceedings.
Recently, he received a resolution in the mail (for the first check) stating that "the complainant has not established in his complaint that the check was postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the issuance and delivery of the check". It further states that "The meaning given to the phrase, 'in payment of an obligation' is that the check should not be postdated or issued in payment of pre-existing obligation."
It also states that "the complainant failed to offer documentary proofs or receipts showing that the respondent issued the subject check simultaneously that the respondent allegedly contracted his obligation." and that "the complainant failed to establish the element of fraud on the part of the respondent in issuing the check".
The end of the document states that "it is respectfully recommended that an information be filed against the respondent for Violation of BP Blg 22... however, it is respectfully recommended that the charge against the respondent for the crime of Estafa be dismissed due to insufficiency of evidence... Bail recommended: as stated in the information."
My questions are as follows:
1. Does this document mean that the court's FINAL decision is to dismiss the case already and that he has nothing to worry about anymore regarding the Php65000 check?
2. If so, why does it state that bail is recommended? What does the statement "it is respectfully recommended that an information be filed against the respondent for Violation of BP Blg 22" mean?
2. Is there a chance that the complainant would request that the case be reopened and that new evidence be presented?
3. He says that there were two checks. The one mentioned in this document is just one of them. He is expecting another similar document pertaining to the second check soon. Is there a chance that the resolution for the second check will be different, that it will not be "dismissed"?
4. What can he do in case that happens, if the resolution for the second case happens to be against him?
Thank you so much for going through my lengthy message. I really appreciate whatever advice you can offer.