fg final reply
Post on 04-Apr-2018
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/29/2019 FG Final reply
1/12
Republic of the Philippines
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMANOmbudsman Bldg., Agham Road, GovernmentCenter
Diliman, Quezon City
FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE,Complainant,
-versus- OMB-C-C-11-0758-LFor: Violation of Sec. 3 (e) of R.A.
3019 (The Anti-Graft and CorruptPractices Act)
RONALDO V. PUNO, ET AL.,Respondents.
x----------------------------------------------------x
REPLYTO THE PROSECUTIONS VERIFIED MANIFESTATION
AND COMPLIANCE
RespondentATTY. JOSE MIGUEL T. ARROYO, by counsel, unto
this Honorable office, and by way ofReply to the Verified Manifestation
and Compliancefiled by the Field Investigation Office, respectfully states,
that:
1. Complainant avers that the issues raised in respondentArroyos (FG, for brevity) Motion for Reconsideration were already
squarely ruled upon in the Investigating Panels Joint Resolution,
dated May 30, 2012 and did not make a comment, nor interpose
any opposition to respondent Arroyos Motion for Reconsideration,
even if it contains the documentary evidence found to be absent
in the Panels Joint Resolution.
-
7/29/2019 FG Final reply
2/12
2
2. Respondent former First Gentleman, Atty. Jose Miguel Arroyo(FG) begs leave for an opportunity to stress the salient points of his
defense for the second and closer look of this Honorable Office.
3. Respondent maintains that he was maliciouslyimplicated in the above-entitled criminal caseon the basis SOLELY
of speculative conclusions that he is the owner of the helicopters
and thathe had a PRESUMED hand in the herein-assailed
transaction between Manila Aerospace Products Trading
(MAPTRA, for brevity) and the Philippine National Police (PNP, for
brevity).
4.
By way of summation, respondent FG cannot be the owner,trustor, or beneficiary of the helicopters sold to the PNP. As early as March
2001, respondent FG already sold and transferred his shares of stocks
inLourdes T. Arroyo, Inc. (LTA, Inc. for brevity) in favor of Mr. Benito R.
Araneta and his divestment of interest was evidenced bythe following
documentary evidence attached to respondent FGs Counter Affidavit, to
wit:
a. Deed of Assignment of Shares of Stock, dated 15 March 200;
b. Certification of Divestment of Interest issued by Regino Q.Ferraren, Jr., LTAs Corporate Secretary;
c. Certificate Authorizing Registration issued by the Bureauof Internal Revenue (BIR) upon payment of the Capital Gainsand Documentary Stamp Taxes for the transfer of 998,980 shares;
-
7/29/2019 FG Final reply
3/12
3
d. General Information Sheetsfor years 2004 and 2009;
e. Stock Journal of the LTA, Inc.
f. Cancelled Stock Certificates of respondent FG.
These documents prove that at the time,
material to this case, respondent FG was neither adirector, nor an officer, nor a stockholder of LTA,
Inc.As such, he could not be a trustor or
beneficiary, as discussed hereunder.
5. Respondent FG reiterates that the helicopterswere never owned by him or even LTA, Inc..Various
documentary evidence including sworn statements
attached to respondents Counter-Affidavit and Rejoinder
show that the helicopters sold to the PNP were imported
by Mr. Po and registered in the name of Mr. Pos Asian
Spirit and LIONAIR, to wit:
a. CAAP records show that Capt. Antonio G. Buendia,President of Asian Spirit, wrote the former Air Transportation
Office(now Civil Aeronautics Authority of the Philippines)
and the Philippine Aerospace Development Corporation
asking for clearance to import the helicopters;
-
7/29/2019 FG Final reply
4/12
4
b. The Applications for Import Permit from Clark DevelopmentCorporation signed by Mr. Joaquin Ernesto L. Po do not only show
the importation made by Mr. Po's company but the
ownership of the helicopters;
c. The Aircraft Invoices issued by RHC on 30 December 2003,which are attached in the Complaint, and which clearly indicate that
the helicopters were sold to LIONAIR with Mr. Po as the
dealer contact;
d. The Applications for Export Certificate of Airworthinessand the Export Certificates for the two (2) R44 Raven 1
Robinson helicoptersissued and authenticated by the Federal
Aviation Administration of the United States of America show
that the purchaser of the two (2) helicopters with Serial Nos.
1372 and 1374 was LIONAIR;
e. The Registration Certificates of the helicopters issued byPhilippine authorities indicate Mr. Pos companies, Asian
Spirit and LIONAIR, as registered owner;
f. Mr. Austria and Mr. Sia declared under oath in the Application forregistration that the owners of the helicopters are Mr. Pos
Asian Spirit and LIONAIR;
g.The Aircraft Lease Agreement between Asian Spirit(Lessor) represented by Mr. Po and LIONAIR (Lessee)
represented by Mr. Sia as its corporate secretary;
-
7/29/2019 FG Final reply
5/12
5
h. Deeds of Absolute Sale for S.N. 1372 and S.N. 1374 datedMarch 23, 2004 and March 30, 2004 between LIONAIR
(Vendor) and Asian Spirit (Vendee) were filed and registered
in the CAAP, where Mr. Renato Sia signed as Corporate Secretary
for LIONAIR.
These official documents issued here and abroad,
readily show Mr. Pos Lionair or Asian Spirit as the true
and legal owner(s) of the helicopters, from the
importation up to the sale to MAPTRA, which
subsequently sold the helicopters to the PNP.
6. Despite the above indubitable pieces ofevidence, the Investigating Panel maintains its position
that respondent FG is the true owner of the helicopters,
which were registered in Mr. Pos companies under an
Implied Trust. Granting without admitting and only for
the sake of argument that this theory espoused by
thePanel is correct, it is respectfully submitted that
respondent FG should still be exonerated for lack of
probable cause.
7. First, even if we consider the view advanced bythis Office to the effect that an implied trust existed over
the helicopters, it is very clear that respondent FG could
-
7/29/2019 FG Final reply
6/12
6
not be the trustor or beneficiary of the implied trust
because the money used to pay the price of the
helicopters, when acquired from Robinson Helicopter
Corporation, was not the money of respondent FG but
that of LTA, Inc., which is a corporation, a juridical entity,
with a distinct legal personality of its own. Hence, even
assuming, as found by this Honorable Office, that there is
an implied trust over the helicopters, the trustor or
beneficiary could not be respondent FG but LTA,
Incorporated.
8. Second, even assuming again, withoutadmitting, and just for the sake of argument,thatit isrespondent FG himself who owns the helicopters, there
would still be no basis to include him in the instant
criminal indictment,because he had no part in the
transaction between MAPTRA and the PNP. It must be
noted that it was MAPTRA, an entirelyindependent and
separate entity,which entered into a supply agreement
with the PNP. It was not Lionair, as the owner or alleged
trustee of respondent FG, which sold the helicopters to
the PNP but Mr. de Veras MAPTRA.The position of the
investigating panel that if respondent FG did not sell his
helicopters to MAPTRA, the transaction with the PNP could not
have transpired, is untenable, to say the least. It is just like
saying, that if a Filipino was accidentally ran over by a car in
-
7/29/2019 FG Final reply
7/12
7
Saudi Arabia, this incident could not have happened, had the
Filipino did not go to Saudi Arabia.Suffice it to state, that if
a person buys from a supplier an item at areasonable price, then, sells it to the government
at an overprice, it does not make sense to blame
the supplier (the original owner). Moreover, it
needs emphasis that MAPTRA was not an agent of
Lionairin the sale of the two (2) helicopters to the
PNP, but a complete stranger.The finding that MAPTRA
turned over to Lionair the amount of P36,800,000.00 as full payment
of the purchase price of the two helicopters only shows that
MAPTRA did not act as agent of Lionair. Otherwise, the sale
should have been in thename of the principal and the entire
proceeds of the saleshould have been remitted to the principal.
9. In fact, the Bureau ofInternal Revenue (BIR) on 5 July2012 filed tax evasion complaints before the Department of
Justice against MAPTRA and Mr. De Vera for violating several
provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code since
based on the
supply contract, supplemental supply contract, disbursement vouchers and
official receipts secured by the BIR from the Commission on Audit (COA)-
PNP, wherein investigators showed that MAPTRA received from the PNP,
net of taxes for the herein-assailed sale of the helicopters. Despite having
earned said income, however, MAPTRA failed to declare income payments
received from PNP in its Income Tax Returns and to pay the corresponding
taxes thereon.
-
7/29/2019 FG Final reply
8/12
8
10. Again, this Honorable Office in its finding offactsacknowledged that it was Mr. De Vera of MAPTRA who
approached Mr. Po and Sia looking for helicopters, to wit:
18. On 18 March 2009, respondent De Vera of ManilaAerospace Products Trading (MAPTRA Sole Propritorship)approached Archibald Po and Renato M. Sia about apossible buyer of Robinson Helicopters and inquired ifthere were units immediately available, to which Mssrs,Po and Sia responded that the units immediately availablewere four (4) R44 Raven 1 Helicopters owned by
respondent FG. Respondent de Vera was given theproposal.
19. On March 25, 2009, respondent de Vera went back toLionair and asked for a second proposal for three (3) pre-owned helicopters instead of four (4). De Vera then toldSia and Po that the three (3) helicopters would beincluded in his bid to the PNP. On the same day, Po calledup respondent FG and informed him that MAPTRA was
requesting for three (3) helicopters which MAPTRA wouldinclude in its bid with the PNP. Respondent FG told Po toproceed.
11. Thus, even if respondent FG was indeed theowner of the helicopters, FG did not sell the
helicopters to the PNP but to MAPTRA.It was
MAPTRA whichacquired the pre-owned helicopters
from LIONAIRby virtue of an independent and
separate sale transaction. Thereafter, MAPTRA sold
the helicopters to the PNP, pursuant to a
Negotiated Supply Contract. Thus, if there is any
overprice or irregularity in the sale of the
helicopters to the PNP, ONLY MAPTRA (being the
-
7/29/2019 FG Final reply
9/12
9
new owner/seller) and the PNP(the new buyer)
were involved in the assailed sale.
12. Respondent FG had no participation, evenindirectly, in the negotiation with the PNP;
theapproval of the Contract of Sale with
MAPTRA;the determination of the terms andconditions including the price;the alleged
misrepresentation by MAPTRA that the helicopters
were brand new; and the acceptance of the
second-hand units by the PNP. Nobody from the
PNP ever said that FG talked to them, or influenced
them, or persuaded them,to buy the helicopters
from MAPTRA. There is therefore nothing to
support a conclusion of conspiracy.To repeat,
respondent FG was a complete stranger to MAPTRA
(the buyer of Lionair), which was the new owner
and Seller of the helicopters, SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD
to the PNP. Mr. de Vera even categorically denied
having met or even knowing respondent FG. At the
Senate investigation, Mr. de Vera admitted that hedoes not know respondent FG. He testified
involving respondent FG:
-
7/29/2019 FG Final reply
10/12
10
SEN. EJERCITO ESTRADA. Okay. Let meask- before I get back to you- Mr. de Vera,
kilala mo ba si First Gentleman?
MR. DE VERA. Not personally, YourHonor.1
(bold supplied for emphasis)
13. Even the statements of Mr. de Vera quotingMr. Po to have mentioned respondent FG in their
conversations were repeatedly denied by Mr. Po,
himself. At the 2 August Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee hearing, the following exchanges were
made:
SENATOR RECTO:In that way, ano. Okay. Sinabi mo rinsa pahayag mo kanina, base sa conversations ninyo niMr. Po, sinabi mo on Page 5, May instruction na ako
galing kay sinasabi mo sabi sayo ni Mr. Po, Mayinstruction na ako galing kay FG, yan dawang ibebenta mo at ide-deliver sa PNP. Yun
and sabi sa akin ni FG na gusto nyamaitulak ang tatlong helicopters nya.Meronkayong pahayag na sinasabi sa inyo ni Archie Po itongbagay na ito.
MR. DE VERA: Yes, Your Honor.
SENATOR RECTO: Totoo ba to, Archie?
MR. PO: Hindi po, eh
1TSN, Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing, BRHGonzales XV-I, August 2, 2011, 11:42 a.m., 1, page126.
-
7/29/2019 FG Final reply
11/12
11
SENATOR RECTO: So nagko-kontra ngayonkayo dito sa sinumpaang salaysay. Walakang sinasabing ganoon?
MR. PO:Wala po.
SENATOR RECTO: wala kang sinasabi naganoon sa kanya?
MR. PO: Wala po.2
14. Mr. Po was consistent in denying the alleged conversation. In
all his sworn statements submitted to this Honorable Office, he denied the
alleged conversation with Mr. de Vera. This Honorable Office could
not be selective in evaluating the statements of Mr. Po. It
could not consider some factual allegations incredible yet,
accept the others as truthful. For purposes of criminal
prosecution, statements that are false in one part could
not be truthful in another part.
P R A Y E R
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully
prayed that the Resolution, dated 30 May 2012, be reconsidered, reversed
and set aside and that the charge against respondent Jose Miguel
Arroyo for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, be dismissed FOR
UTTER LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE.
Such other relief,just and equitable in the premises, are likewise
prayed for.
2 TSN, Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing, MelNovero VII-2, August 2, 2011, 12:52 p.m., 4, page196.
-
7/29/2019 FG Final reply
12/12
12
Quezon City; 03 December2012.
HERRERA BATACAN & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM(Counsel for Accused Atty. Jose Miguel T. Arroyo)
Suite 301 Crispina Building,1589 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City
By:
ATTY. EDNA HERRERA-BATACAN
ROLL No. 30649 May 13, 1980PTR No. 6121498; 01/12/2012IBP No. 826755; 01/12/2012MCLE No. I 002710; 09/26/2007MCLE No. II 001873; 09/26/2007MCLE No. III 001052; 04/07/2010
-AND-
ATTY. MARK ANTHONY BAYQUENROLL No. 54076 April 25, 2007IBP No. 869224/11-18-11/PPLMPTR No. 47593/01-09-12/MakatiMCLE Compliance No. III-0013287
COPY FURNISHED:
HON. SANDIGANBAYAN -2nd Division(Pursuant to SB Res. No. 12-CRM-0164)Centennial Building Commonwealth AvenueCorner Batasan Road, Quezon City
FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICEOffice of the OmbudsmanAgham Road, Quezon City
top related