fg final reply

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.


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;


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;


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;


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


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


7/12

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.


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


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:


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.


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.


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

fg final reply

Documents