KRIS Aquino candidly admitted that she was deeply hurt with the unexpected ending of her TV career at ABS-CBN that sizzling bitsserved as her home for the past 20 years. Nevertheless, Kris pointed out that said network should not be included in her word war with Nicko Falcis.

Nicko is supposed to answer for the 44 counts of qualified theft that the actress is complaining about against her former entrepreneur/brand-marketing expert.

Kris also apologized to ABS-CBN executives for involving the Kapamilya network in the issue between them and Nicko.

On the other hand, Nicko adamantly said that Kris was admittedly furious when ABS-CBN-affiliated website was given an access at the media coverage of the Hollywood premiere of the Crazy Rich Asians.

Anyway, last Wednesday evening, January 9, Nicko sent to PEP.ph the screenshots of the exchange of messages between her and Ms. Kris during that time.

Kris’ message stated that Nicko’s “mistake” was that he let people who underestimated his abilities have “access” to him.

The exchange of messages between the two also mentioned the actress/TV host’s feelings in connection with her “half-baked homecoming” at ABS-CBN when she did the movie I Love You, Hater, sometime in July 2018.

Well, stay tuned for the next chapters!

All I can say is, in fairness to Kris, Kris has a point.

Kris Aquino qualified-theft complaint vs Nicko Falcis in Makati Prosecutor’s Office dismissed
Makati Prosecutor’s Office dismisses Kris Aquino’s qualified-theft complaint against Nicko Falcis for lack of probable cause.
The Makati Prosecutor’s Office has dismissed the qualified theft complaint filed by Kris Aquino against her former business manager Nicko Falcis.

The complaint was said to have “no sufficient evidence” and should not have reached the court for a full-blown trial.

In the four-page decision signed by Assistant City Prosecutor Paolo C. Barcelona, ​​and approved by Senior Deputy City Prosecutor Emmanuel D. Medina, the resolution stated that Kris did not prove that Nicko robbed her of P1.270 million by using a company credit card.

The decision is dated February 18, 2019. In her complaint affidavit, Kris accused Nicko of using Kris Cojuangco Aquino Productions (KCAP) credit card without her permission.

The amount stolen by Nicko from Kris’ company is said to have reached over one million.

As a result, Kris filed 44 counts of qualified theft against Nicko in seven cities in Metro Manila, including Makati, and the cities of San Juan, Mandaluyong, Pasig, Taguig, Manila, and Quezon City.

Kris is seeking damages of P32.27 million.

This includes P1,270,980.31 as actual damages, P15,000,000 as temperate damages, P1,000,000 as exemplary damages, P10,000,000 as moral damages, P5,000,000 as attorney’s fees, and the cost of the hearing.THE DECISION
From a source, PEP.ph (Philippine Entertainment Portal) obtained a copy of the Makati Prosecutor’s Office’s decision this morning, Friday, February 22.

Here, the prosecutor detailed his decision to dismiss Kris’ complaint against Nicko.

It states: “After a careful examination of the records of the case, this Office is inclined to dismiss the complaints as there is no sufficient evidence to engender a well-founded belief that Falcis committed the crimes charged.

“Aquino asserts that by using the KCAP card to purchase the goods and services for his personal benefit, in violation of the trust that she has given, Falcis committed the crime of qualified theft.

“The office begs to disagree.

“At the onset, it is important to note that no evidence was presented with regard to any agreement between Aquino and Falcis as regards the use of the subject credit card.

“Accordingly, the basic rules are that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.

“In preliminary investigation, the complainant bears the onus of establishing, through evidence, that more likely than not a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.

“The complainant cannot rely on mere conjectures and suppositions.

“If the complainant fails to substantiate her allegations, her complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.” THE CREDIT CARD
According to the decision, Nicko is not responsible to Kris, but to the bank that owns the said credit card.

“In addition, careful reading of the evidence on record reveals that the subject KCAP card is a BDO Visa Gold Corporate Card.

“It is the sole property of the issuer thereof, BDO.

“It is not disputed that Falcis is the cardholder in whose name the KCAP card was issued.

“As such he can use the same card subject to the terms and conditions imposed by BDO for the issuance of the said card.

“As a cardholder, Falcis is personally liable to BDO for any and all amounts charged to the card.

“It is for this reason that Falcis’ name appears in the credit cards statement of account.

“Thus, should Falcis not pay his credit card bill, BDO can directly initiate legal actions against him to compel him to pay.

“Given the foregoing, Falcis’ use of the KCAP card for his personal expenditures would not make him liable for theft.

“He is only liable to BDO for card transactions that he had made using the card.”

NO PROBABLE CAUSE
The fact that Kris pays Nicko’s card also has no value in the complaint.

“The fact that Aquino paid Falcis’ credit card bill is no moment.

“This will only make the latter civilly liable to the former as she is entitled to reimbursement for the amount that she has paid.

“Anent the charge of violation of REPUBLIC ACT 8484, this Office finds no probable cause to charge Falcis with the same.

“As discussed above, the KCAP card was issued in the name of Falcis.

“As the cardholder he can use the card for his purchases subject to the terms and conditions of BDO.

“In addition, no proof was presented that he used the card with intent to gain or intent to defraud.

“Accordingly, he is, at most, only liable to pay his card bill that has become due.

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaints for qualified theft under art. 310 of THE REVISED PENAL CODE and violation of REPUBLIC ACT 8484 against Nicanor M. Falcis II are respectfully recommended to be dismissed, as upon approval, are hereby dismissed for lack of probable cause.”