Republic of the Philippines OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN OMBUDSMAN BLDG., AGHAM ROAD, NORTH TRIANGLE, DILIMAN, QUEZON CITY
NATIONAL BUREAU OF OMB-C-C-13-0318 INVESTIGATION (NBI) FOR: VIOLATION OF RA 7080 REP. BY: Asst. Dir. MEDARDO (PLUNDER) DE LEMOS (Criminal Case)
ATTY. LEVITO D. BALIGOD Complainants,
- versus -
JUAN PONCE ENRILE Senator Senate of the Philippines
JESSICA LUCILA GONZALES REYES Former Chief of Staff Office of Senator Enrile
JOSE ANTONIO EVANGELISTA II Deputy Chief of Staff Office of Senator Enrile
ALAN A. JAVELLANA President National Agribusiness Corporation
GONDELINA G. AMATA President National Livelihood Development Corporation
ANTONIO Y. ORTIZ Director General Technology Resource Center
DENNIS LACSON CUNANAN Deputy Director General Technology Resource Center
VICTOR ROMAN COJAMCO CACAL Paralegal National Agribusiness Corporation
ROMULO M. RELEVO General Services Unit Head National Agribusiness Corporation
MARIA NINEZ P. GUAÑIZO Bookkeeper/OIC-Accouting Division National Agribusiness Corporation
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======2
MA. JULIE A. VILLARALVO-JOHNSON Former Chief Accountant National Agribusiness Corporation
RHODORA BULATAD MENDOZA Former Director for Financial Management Services/ Former Vice President for Administration and Finance National Agribusiness Corporation
GREGORIA G. BUENAVENTURA Division Chief, Asset Management Division National Livelihood Development Corporation
EMMANUEL ALEXIS G. SEVIDAL Director IV National Livelihood Development Corporation
SOFIA D. CRUZ Chief Financial Specialist/Project Management Assistant IV National Livelihood Development Corporation
CHITA C. JALANDONI Department Manager III National Livelihood Development Corporation
FRANCISCO B. FIGURA MARIVIC V. JOVER Both of the Technology Resource Center
MARIO L. RELAMPAGOS Undersecretary for Operations Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
LEAH LALAINE MALOU1 Office of the Undersecretary for Operations All of the Department of Budget and Management
JANET LIM NAPOLES RUBY TUASON JOCELYN DITCHON PIORATO MYLENE T. ENCARNACION JOHN RAYMOND (RAYMUND) DE ASIS EVELYN D. DE LEON JOHN/JANE DOES Private Respondents Respondents. x ------x
FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE OMB-C-C-13-0396
1 See note 116.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======3
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR: VIOLATION OF SEC. 3 (e) Complainant, RA 3019, RA 7080 (PLUNDER) (Criminal Case) - versus -
JUAN PONCE ENRILE Senator Senate of the Philippines
JESSICA LUCILA GONZALES REYES Former Chief of Staff JOSE ANTONIO VALERA EVANGELISTA II Former Director IV/ Deputy Chief of Staff Both of the Office of Senator Enrile
ALAN ALUNAN JAVELLANA President RHODORA BULATAD MENDOZA Former Director for Financial Management Service/ Former Vice President for Administration and Finance VICTOR ROMAN COJAMCO CACAL Paralegal MARIA NINEZ PAREDES GUAÑIZO Bookkeeper/OIC-Accouting Division ENCARNITA CRISTINA POTIAN MUNSOD Former Human Resources Supervisor/Manager MA. JULIE ASOR VILLARALVO-JOHNSON Former Chief Accountant SHYR ANN MONTUYA Accounting Staff/Assistant All of the National Agribusiness Corporation
GONDELINA GUADALUPE AMATA President (Non-elective) CHITA CHUA JALANDONI Department Manager III EMMANUEL ALEXIS SEVIDAL Director IV OFELIA ELENTO ORDOÑEZ Cashier IV FILIPINA TOLENTINO RODRIGUEZ Budget Officer IV SOFIA DAING CRUZ Project Development Assistant IV All of the the National Livelihood Development Corporation
ANTONIO YRIGON ORTIZ Former Director General DENNIS LACSON CUNANAN Director General
MARIA ROSALINDA MASONGSONG LACSAMANA Former Group Manager
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======4
CONSUELO LILIAN REYES ESPIRITU Budget Officer IV FRANCISCO BALDOZA FIGURA Department Manager III MARIVIC VILLALUZ JOVER Chief Accountant All of the Technology Resource Center
JANET LIM NAPOLES RUBY TUASON/TUAZON JO CHRISTINE LIM NAPOLES JAMES CHRISTOPHER LIM NAPOLES EULOGIO DIMAILIG RODRIGUEZ EVELYN DITCHON DE LEON RONALD JOHN LIM FERNANDO RAMIREZ NITZ CABILAO MARK S. OLIVEROS EDITHA P. TALABOC DELFIN AGCAOILI, JR. DANIEL BALANOBA LUCILA M. LAWAS-YUTOK ANTONIO M. SANTOS SUSAN R. VICTORINO LUCITA SOLOMON WILBERTO P. DE GUZMAN (Deceased) JOHN DOE JOHN (MMRC TRADING) DOE MYLA OGERIO MARGARITA E. GUADINEZ JOCELYN DITCHON PIORATO DORILYN AGBAY FABIAN HERNANI DITCHON RODRIGO B. GALAY LAARNI A. UY AMPARO L. FERNANDO AILEEN PALALON PALAMA JOHN RAYMOND (RAYMUND) DE ASIS MYLENE TAGAYON ENCARNACION RENATO SOSON ORNOPIA JESUS BARGOLA CASTILLO NOEL V. MACHA Private Respondents
Respondents. x ------x
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======5
JOINT RESOLUTION
For resolution by the Special Panel of Investigators2
constituted on 20 September 2013 by the Ombudsman to
conduct preliminary investigation on: 1) the complaint filed on
September 16, 2013 with this Office by the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI) and Atty. Levito Baligod (The NBI
Complaint), for violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 7080 (An Act
Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder), and 2) the
complaint filed on November 18, 2013 by the Field
Investigation Office (FIO), Office of the Ombudsman, for
violations of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (The Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) and Plunder, in connection with the
alleged anomalous utilization of the Priority Development
Assistance Fund (PDAF) of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile (Senator
Enrile) from 2004 to 2010.
The NBI Complaint for Plunder, docketed as OMB-C-C-
13-0318, charges the following respondents:
Name Position/Agency Juan Ponce Enrile (Enrile) Senator Jessica Lucila Gonzales Reyes (Reyes) Chief of Staff /Office of Senator Enrile Former Director V/Deputy Chief of Jose Antonio Valera Evangelista II Staff / (Evangelista) Office of Senator Enrile Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles) Private respondent
2 Per Office Order No. 349, Series of 2013.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======6
Ruby Tuason (Tuason) Private respondent Former President Alan A. Javellana (Javellana) National Agribusiness Corporation President Gondelina Guadalupe Amata (Amata) Nat’l Livelihood Development Corp. Director General Antonio Yrigon Ortiz (Ortiz) Technology Resource Center Agricultura Para Sa Magbubukid Jocelyn Ditchon Piorato (Piorato) Foundation, Inc. (APMFI) Nemesio Pablo, Jr. (Pablo) Private respondent Mylene Tagayon Encarnacion (Encarnacion) Private respondent Countrywide Agri and Rural Economic John Raymond Sales De Asis (De Asis) Development Foundation, Inc. Evelyn Ditchon De Leon (De Leon) Private respondent Deputy Director General Dennis Lacson Cunanan (Cunanan) Technology Resource Center Paralegal Victor Roman Cacal (Cacal) National Agribusiness Corporation Romulo M. Relevo (Relevo) National Agribusiness Corporation Bookkeeper/OIC Accounting Division Maria Ninez Guañizo (Guañizo) National Agribusiness Corporation Former Chief Accountant/National Ma. Julie Asor Villaralvo-Johnson (Johnson) Agribusiness Corporation Former Director for Financial Management Services and Former Vice Rhodora Bulatad Mendoza (Mendoza) President for Administration and Finance/National Agribusines Corporation National Livelihood Development Gregoria G. Buenaventura (Buenaventura) Corporation Director IV Emmanuel Alexis Gagni Sevidal (Sevidal) National Livelihood Development Corporation Chief Financial Specialist/Project Sofia Daing Cruz (Cruz) Development Assistant IV/National Livelihood Development Corporation Department Manager III Chita Chua Jalandoni (Jalandoni) National Livelihood Development Corporation Department Manager III Technology Francisco Baldoza Figura (Figura) Resource Center Chief Accountant/ Technology Marivic Villaluz Jover (Jover) Resource Center Undersecretary for Mario L. Relampagos (Relampagos) Operations/Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Office of the Undersecretary for Leah3 Operations/Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Office of the Undersecretary for Lalaine4 Operations/Department of Budget and
3 See note 116 which identifies her as Rosario Nuñez. 4 See note 116 which identifies her as Lalaine Paule.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======7
Management (DBM) Office of the Undersecretary for Malou5 Operations/Department of Budget and Management (DBM) JOHN and JANE DOES
The FIO complaint,6 on the other hand, docketed as
OMB-C-C-13-0396, charges the following individuals with
Plunder and violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act:
Name Position/Agency Juan Ponce Enrile (Enrile) Senator Jessica Lucila Gonzales Reyes (Reyes) Chief of Staff /Office of Senator Enrile Jose Antonio Valera Evangelista II (Evangelista) Former Director V/Deputy Chief of Staff Office of Senator Enrile Former President Alan Alunan Javellana (Javellana) National Agribusiness Corporation Former Director for Financial Management Services and Former Vice Rhodora Bulatad Mendoza (Mendoza) President for Administration and Finance National Agribusiness Corporation Paralegal Victor Roman Cacal (Cacal) National Agribusiness Corporation Bookkeeper/OIC Accounting Division Maria Ninez Paredes Guañizo (Guañizo) National Agribusiness Corporation Former Manager of Human Resources Encarnita Cristina Potian Munsod (Munsod) Administrative Service Division National Agribusiness Corporation Former Chief Accountant Ma. Julie Asor Villaralvo-Johnson (Johnson) National Agribusiness Corporation Accounting Assistant Shyr Ann Montuya (Montuya) National Agribusiness Corporation President Gondelina Guadalupe Amata (Amata) National Livelihood Development Corporation Department Manager III Chita Chua Jalandoni (Jalandoni) National Livelihood Development Corporation Director IV Emmanuel Alexis Gagni Sevidal (Sevidal) National Livelihood Development Corporation Ofelia Olento Ordoñez (Ordoñez) Cashier IV
5 See note 116 which identifies her as Marilou Bare. 6 Records, pp. 5-157, Blue Folder, OMB-C-C-13-0396.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======8
National Livelihood Development Corporation Budget Officer IV Filipina Tolentino Rodriguez (Rodriguez) National Livelihood Development Corporation Chief Financial Specialist/Project Development Assistant IV Sofia Daing Cruz (Cruz) National Livelihood Development Corporation Director General Antonio Yrigon Ortiz (Ortiz) Technology Resource Center Deputy Director General Dennis Lacson Cunanan (Cunanan) Technology Resource Center Maria Rosalinda Masongsong Lacsamana Former Group Manager (Lacsamana) Technology Resource Center Budget Officer IV Consuelo Lilian Reyes Espiritu (Espiritu) Technology Resource Center Department Manager III Francisco Baldoza Figura (Figura) Technology Resource Center Chief Accountant Marivic Villaluz Jover (Jover) Technology Resource Center Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles) Private respondent Ruby Tuason/Ruby Tuazon (Tuason) Private respondent Jo Christine Lim Napoles (Jo Christine) Private respondent James Christopher Lim Napoles (James Private respondent Christopher) Eulogio Dimailig Rodriguez (Rodriquez) Private respondent Evelyn Ditchon De Leon (De Leon) Private respondent Ronald John Lim (Lim) Private respondent Fernando Ramirez (Ramirez) Private respondent Nitz Cabilao (Cabilao) Private respondent Atty. Mark S. Oliveros (Oliveros) Notary Public Atty. Editha P. Talaboc (Talaboc) Notary Public Atty. Delfin Agcaoili, Jr. (Agcaoili) Notary Public Atty Daniel Balanoba (Balanoba) Notary Public Atty. Lucila M. Lawas-Yutoc (Yutoc) Notary Public Atty. Antonio M. Santos (Santos) Notary Public Susan R. Victorino (Victorino) Certified Public Accountant Lucita P. Solomon (Solomon) Certified Public Accountant Wilberto P. De Guzman (De Guzman) Certified Public Accountant John Doe Proprietor of Nutrigrowth Philippines John Doe Proprietor of MMRC Trading Myla Ogerio (Ogerio) Agri and Economic Program for Farmers Foundation, Inc. Margarita A. Guadinez (Guadinez) Agri and Economic Program for Farmers Foundation, Inc. Jocelyn Ditchon Piorato (Piorato) Agricultura Para Sa Magbubukid Foundation, Inc. Dorilyn Agbay Fabian (Fabian) Agricultura Para Sa Magbubukid Foundation, Inc. Hernani Ditchon (Ditchon) Agricultura Para Sa Magbubukid Inc. Rodrigo B. Galay (Galay) Employee/Agricultura Para sa Magbubukid Foundation, Inc.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======9
Laarni A. Uy (Uy) Employee/Agricultura Para sa Magbubukid Foundation, Inc. Amparo L. Fernando (Fernando) Countrywide Agri and Rural Economic Development Foundation, Inc.
Aileen Palalon Palama (Palama) Countrywide Agri and Rural Economic Development Foundation, Inc. John Raymond Sales De Asis (De Asis) Countrywide Agri and Rural Economic Development Foundation, Inc. Mylene Tagayon Encarnacion (Encarnacion) Countrywide Agri and Rural Economic Development Foundation, Inc. Renato Soson Ornopia (Ornopia) Masaganang Ani Para Sa Magsasaka Foundation, Inc. Jesus Bargola Castillo (Castillo) People’s Organization for Progress and Development Foundation, Inc. Noel V. Macha (Macha) Employee/Social Development Program for Farmers Foundation, Inc.
Having arisen from the same or similar facts and
transactions, these cases are resolved jointly.
I. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On March 22, 2013, agents of the NBI, acting on a
complaint from the parents of Benhur Luy (Luy) that Luy had
been illegally detained, swooped down on the South Wing
Gardens of the Pacific Plaza Tower in Bonifacio Global City,
Taguig City and rescued Luy. A criminal case for Serious
Illegal Detention was soon after filed against Reynald Lim7 and
his sister, Janet Lim Napoles8 (Napoles), before the Regional
Trial Court of Makati City where it remains pending.
7 Still at large. 8 Presently detained at Fort Sto. Domingo, Sta. Rosa, Laguna.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======10
Before the NBI, Luy claimed that he was detained in connection with the discharge of his responsibilities as the
“lead employee” of the JANET LIM NAPOLES Corporation (JLN) which, by his account, had been involved in overseeing anomalous implementation of several government-funded projects sourced from, among others, the Priority Development
Assistance Fund (PDAF) of several congressmen and senators of the Republic. The NBI thus focused on what appeared to be misuse and irregularities attending the utilization and implementation of the PDAF of certain lawmakers, in connivance with other government employees, private individuals and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which had been set up by JLN employees, upon the instructions of
Napoles.
In the course of the NBI investigation which included conduct of interviews and taking of sworn statements of Luy along with several other JLN employees including Marina Sula
(Sula) and Merlina Suñas (Suñas)9 (the whistleblowers), the
NBI uncovered the “scheme” employed in what has now been commonly referred to as the PDAF or Pork Barrel Scam, outlined in general as follows:
9 Luy, Sula and Suñas have been admitted into the Department of Justice’s Witness Protection Program.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======11
1. Either the lawmaker or Napoles would commence
negotiations on the utilization of the lawmaker’s PDAF;
2. The lawmaker and Napoles then discuss, and later
approve, the list of projects chosen by the lawmaker,
the corresponding Implementing Agency (IA), namely
the National Agribusiness Corporation (NABCOR), the
National Livelihood Development Corporation (NLDC),
and the Technology Resource Center (TRC [formerly
Technology and Livelihood Resource Center]), through
which the projects would be coursed, and the project
cost, as well as the lawmaker’s “commission” which
would range between 40%-60% of either the project
cost or the amount stated in the Special Allotment
Release Order (SARO);
3. After the negotiations and upon instructions from
Napoles, Luy prepares the so-called “listing” which
contains the list of projects allocated by the lawmaker
to Napoles and her NGOs, the name of the IA, and the
project cost;
4. The lawmaker would then adopt the “listing” and write
to the Senate President and the Finance Committee
Chairperson, in the case of a Senator, and to the
House Speaker and Chair of the Appropriations
Committee, in the case of a Congressman, requesting
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======12
the immediate release of his allocation, which letter-
request the Senate President or the Speaker, as the
case may be, would then endorse to the Department of
Budget and Management (DBM);
5. The DBM soon issues a SARO addressed to the chosen
IA indicating the amount deducted from the
lawmaker’s PDAF allocation, and later issues a Notice
of Cash Allocation (NCA) to the IA which would
thereafter issue a check to the Napoles-controlled NGO
listed in the lawmaker’s endorsement;
6. Napoles, who recommends to the lawmaker the NGO
which would implement the project, directs her
employee to prepare a letter for the lawmaker’s
signature endorsing the selected NGO to the IA. The IA
later prepares a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
covering the project to be executed by the lawmaker or
his/her authorized staff member, the IA and the
chosen NGO;
7. The Head of the IA, in exchange for a 10% share in the
project cost, subsequently releases the check/s to the
Napoles-controlled NGO from whose bank accounts
Napoles withdraws the proceeds thereof;
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======13
8. Succeeding tranche payments are released by the IA
upon compliance and submission by the NGO of the
required documents.
From 2004 to 2010, Senator Enrile, then and presently a senator of the Republic of the Philippines,10 continuously indorsed the implementation of his PDAF-funded livelihood and agricultural production projects in different parts of the country to NGOs associated with, or controlled by, private respondent Napoles.
From 2007 to 2009, a total of Php345,000,000.00 covered by nine (9) SAROs was taken from his PDAF, to wit:
1. ROCS-07-04618 dated 06 March 2007;11
2. ROCS-08-01347 dated 31 January 2008;12
3. ROCS-08-05216 dated 11 June 2008;13
4. ROCS-08-07211 dated 3 October 2008;14
5. ROCS-09-00804 dated 13 February 2009;15
6. ROCS-09-00847 dated 12 February 2009;16
7. ROCS-09-04952 dated 09 July 2009;17
8. ROCS-09-04996 dated 10 July 2009;18
10 Records, pp. 165-167, Folder 1, OMB-C-C-13-0396. 11 Records, p. 547, Folder 3, OMB-C-C-13-0396 (Annex W-10). 12 Id. at 581. 13 Id. at 597. 14 Id. at 600. 15 Id. at 702. 16 Id. at 706. 17 Id. at 627.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======14
9. G-09-07112 dated 25 September 2009.19
After the SAROs were released by the DBM, Senator
Enrile, through his Chief of Staff respondent Reyes,20 identified the following Government-Owned and-Controlled Corporations
(GOCCs) as the IAs of the projects to be funded by his PDAF: a) NABCOR, b) NLDC, and c) the TRC.
Senator Enrile, through Reyes, authorized respondent
Evangelista to act for him, deal with the parties involved in the process, and sign documents necessary for the immediate and timely implementation of his PDAF-funded projects.
Through Evangelista, the Senator also designated21 the following NGOs as “project partners” in the implementation of the livelihood projects financed by his PDAF, viz:
a. Agri and Economic Program for Farmers Foundation, Inc. (AEPFFI) of which respondent Nemesio C. Pablo, Jr. was President;
b. Agricultura Para sa Magbubukid Foundation, Inc. (APMFI) of which respondent Jocelyn D. Piorato was President;
c. Countrywide Agri and Rural Economic Development Foundation, Inc. (CARED) of which Simonette Briones was President;
d. Masaganang Ani Para sa Magsasaka Foundation, Inc. (MAMFI) of which witness Marina Sula was President;
e. People’s Organization for Progress and Development Foundation, Inc., (POPDFI) of which witness Merlina Suñas was President; and
18 Id. at 643. 19 Id. at 665. 20 Records, pp. 717,739, 764, 784, 806, 888, Folder 4, OMB-C-C-13-0396. 21 Records, pp.740, 757-758, 765-766, 785, 805, 818, 874, 887, Folder 4, OMB-C-C-13-0396.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======15
f. Social Development Program for Farmer’s Foundation, Inc. (SDPFFI) of which witness Benhur Luy was President.
The following table discloses the details of Senator Enrile’s utilization of his Php345,000,000.00 PDAF: SARO NO. & Projects/ Total Pojects/ Implementing Project Beneficiaries/ Amount Activities Activities Costs Agency Partners LGUs (in Php) (in PHP) /NGOs 1. ROCS-07- Financial 04618 Assistance Bacuag, Surigao del 4,800,000.00 for Grants/Subsidies Norte each municipalithy Php20,000,000 for Tools and Implements Guigaguit, Surigao Technical del Norte Assistance TRC/TLRC CARED Technology San Benito, Surigao Transfer through del Norte 50,000.00 for each Video courses municipality (VCDs) and San Agustin, Printed Materials Surigao del Norte provided by TLRC Service Fee (3%) 150,000.00 for each by TLRC municipality 2. ROCS-08- Vegetable Seeds, Passi City, Iloilo 01347 Hand Tools, Sta. Maria, Bulacan Gloves, Masks, Doña Remedios 5,000,000 for each Php25,000,000 Vest, Cap, Trinidad, Bulacan municipality NABCOR POPFDI Garden, Tools, Mabuhay, and Knapsack Zamboanga Sibugay Sprayer Dinas, Zamboanga del Sur 3. ROCS-08- Don Marcelino, 05216 Davao del Sur Banaybanay, Davao Php50,000,000 Oriental 20,000,000 NABCOR MAMFI Manukan, 1,294 sets of Zamboanga del Norte Fertilizer, Magpet, North Gardening Cotabato Packages, and General Tinio, Nueva Knapsack sprayer Ecija Tuamuini, Isabela 30,000,000 NABCOR SDPFFI La Trinidad, Benguet San Juan, Batangas Boac, Marinduque 4. ROCS-08- Agricultural Kibungan, Benguet 07211 Production San Gabriel, La Package Union Php50,000,000 (knapsack Luna, La Union 25,000,000 NABCOR MAMFI sprayer, fertilizer, Natividad, and gardening Pangasinan tools) Passi City, Iloilo Glan, Saranggani Maitum Saranggani Cagwait, Surigao del 25,000,000 NABCOR SDPFFI Sur Carrasacal, Surigao del Sur
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======16
5. ROCS-09- Lagangilang, Abra 00804 Agricultural Tuba, Benguet 15,000,000 NABCOR MAMFI Production Bacnotan, La Union Php25,000,000 Packages Malungan, Sarangani (farm inputs) Marihatag, Surigao 10,000,000 NABCOR SDPFFI del Sur 6. ROCS-09- Agricultural Umingan, 00847 Livelihood Pangasinan Assistance Rosales, Pangasinan Packages San Agustin, Surigao Php25,000,000 (vegetable seeds, del Sur production tools San Luis, Surigao del and accessories Sur 25,000,000 TLRC/TRC APMFI like planting San Juan, La Union materials, various tools for backyard gardening, sprayers, and agricultural chemicals) 7. ROCS-09- 604 Agricultural Hingyon, Ifugao 04952 Improvement Divilacan, Isabela Livelihood Umingan, Php50,000,000 Packages Pangasinan 25,000,000 NLDC AEPFFI (sprayers, bottles Doña Remedios of fertilizers, rake Trinidad, Bulacan and pick Oas, Albay mattock) Alubijid, Misamis Oriental Llorente, Eastern Samar Bansalan, Davao del 25,000,000 NLDC APMFI Sur Montevista, Compostela Valley Tupi, South Cotabato 8. ROCS-09- Balaoan, La Union 04996 Sta. Maria, 1,159 sets of Pangasinan Small Scale Agri 40,000,000 NLDC CARED Php60,000,000 Boac, Marinduque Package Pantukan, Compostela Valley Sablan, Benguet & 20,000,000 NLDC MAMFI Sta. Maria, Bulacan 9. G-09- Bacnotan, La Union 07112 Supiden, La Union San Juan, La Union 40,000,000 NLDC CARED San Gabriel, La Php40,000,000 Union
The funds representing the activities’ costs were
transferred from the IAs to the NGOs/project partners
pursuant to several MOAs signed by the following individuals:
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======17
Signatories to the MOA Notary SARO No. & No. of MOAs Office of Implementing NGO/Project Public Senator Enrile Agencies Partner 1. ROCS-07-04618 4 MOAs22 Evangelista TRC-Ortiz CARED-Encarnacion Atty. Talaboc 2.ROCS- 08-01347 NABCOR- Atty. 1 MOA23 POPDFI-Suñas Javellana Balanoba
NABCOR- MAMFI-Sula 3.ROCS-08-05216 Javellana Atty. Lawas- 24 2 MOAs NABCOR- Yutoc SDPFFI-Luy Javellana 4.ROCS-08-07211 NABCOR- MAMFI-Sula Evangelista Javellana 25 Atty. Agcaoili 2 MOAs NABCOR- SDPFFI-Luy Javellana 5. ROCS-09-00804 NABCOR- MAMFI-Sula Javellana 26 Evangelista Atty. Agcaoili 2MOAs NABCOR- SDPFFI- Luy Javellana 6. ROCS-09-00847 27 5 MOAs Evangelista TRC-Ortiz APMFI-Piorato Atty. Talaboc 7. ROCS-09-04952 NLDC-Amata AEPFFI- Pablo. Jr. 28 Evangelista Atty. Santos 2 MOAs NLDC-Amata APMFI- Piorato 8. ROCS-09-04996 NLDC-Amata CARED-Briones 29 2 MOAs Evangelista Atty. Santos NLDC-Amata MAMFI-Sula
9. G-09-07112 Atty. Santos 30 Evangelista NLDC-Amata CARED-Briones 1 MOA
After the execution of the MOAs, the agricultural and
livelihood assistance kits/packages were supposed to be
delivered by the NGOs to identified
beneficiaries/municipalities in different parts of the country,
but, as will be stated later, no deliveries were made.
The NGOs/project partners were later paid in full by the
IAs upon the NGOs’ submission of Disbursement, Progress,
22 Records, pp. 1964-1967, 1971-1974, 1978-1981, 1985-1988, Folder 11, OMB-C-C-13-0396. 23 Id. at 2064-2066. 24 Records, pp.2118-219 & 2213-2214, Folder 12, OMB-C-C-13-0396. 25 Id. at 2482-2486 & 2541-2545. 26 Records, pp.2696-2701 & 2780-2784, Folder 14, OMB-C-C-13-0396. 27 Records, pp. 2862-2886, Folder 15, OMB-C-C-13-0396. 28 Records, pp.2935-2940 & 3046-3051, Folder 16, OMB-C-C-13-0396. 29 Records, pp. 3325-3330 & 3461-3466, Folder 17, OMB-C-C-13-0396. 30 Records, pp. 3577-3582, Folder 18, OMB-C-C-13-0396.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======18
Accomplishment, Fund Utilization, Inspection, and Delivery
Reports, as well as the Certificates of Acceptance. The details
of payments to the NGOs/project partners are reflected in the
table below:
Paying Disbursement Amount of DV SARO No. Date of DV Agency/ Voucher (DV) No. (PhP) Check No. Claimant or Payee
ROCS-07-04618 01-2007-040671 Undated 5,000,000 850457 (LBP) TRC-CARED 01-2007 -040672 Undated 5,000,000 860458 (LBP) TRC-CARED 01-2007 -040669 Undated 5,000,000 850460 (LBP) TRC-CARED 01-2007-040670 Undated 5,000,000 850462 (LBP) TRC-CARED ROCS-08-01347 08-04-01201 11-Apr-08 21,825,000 0000416657 (UCPB) NABCOR- POPDFI
08-07 -02312 09-Jul-08 2,425,000 0000417294 (UCPB) NABCOR-POPDFI
ROCS-08-05216 08-09-03575 23-Sep-08 17,460,000 437227 (UCPB) NABCOR-MAMFI
09-04-1622 19-May-09 1,940,000 46937 (UCPB) NABCOR- MAMFI ~ ROCS-08-05216 08-09-03572 23-Sep-08 26,190,000 437226 (UCPB) NABCOR- SDPFFI
09-05-1751 25-May-09 2,910,000 455997 (UCPB) NABCOR- SDPFFI
ROCS-08-07211 09-05-1773 27-May-09 3,637,500 462921 (UCPB) NABCOR- MAMFI
09-06-2025 15-Jun-09 20,612,500 462940 (UCPB) NABCOR- MAMFI ROCS-08-07211 09-05-1774 27-May-09 3,637,500 462922 (UCPB) NABCOR- SDPFFI
09-06-2022 15-Jun-09 20,612,500 462938 (UCPB) NABCOR- SDPFFI
ROCS-09-00804 09-05-1767 27-May-09 2,182,500 462919 (UCPB) NABCOR- MAMFI
09-06-2028 15–Jun-09 12,367,500 462939 (UCPB) NABCOR- MAMFI
ROCS-09- 00804 09-06- 1825 01-Jun- 09 1,455,000 462926 (UCPB) NABCOR- SDPFFI 09-06-2027 15-Jun-09 8,245,000 462939 (UCPB) NABCOR- SDPFFI
ROCS-09- 00847 01-2009-040929 Undated 20,000,000 890099 (LBP) TLRC-APMFI 01-2009-051300 04-Jun-09 2,500,000 917019 (BP) TLRC-APMFI 90-09-0359 62 -tcO-90 009990999 244589 (LBP) NERAL-CDLN
ROCS-09-04996 90-90-0533 65-tpeO-90 209990999 244554 (LBP) MEMAM-CDLN 90-09-0445 06-tcO-90 0909990999 244570 (LBP) MEMAM-CDLN 90-09-0354 26-Oct-09 409990999 244585 (LBP) MEMAM-CDLN G-09-07112 90-06-0054 02-Lpc -90 0609990999 244622 (LBP) NERAL-CDLN
09-90-9994 90-naJ-09 6909990999 244632 (LBP) NERAL-CDLN 09-90-9000 63-naJ-09 009990999 244649 (LBP) NERAL-CDLN 09-93-9040 92-MaM-09 409990999 260944 ((LBP) NERAL-CDLN
ROCS-09-04952 09-09-1353 18 -Sep-09 7,500,000 244552 (LBP) NLDC-AEPFFI 09-10-1444 12-0ct-09 12,500,000 244571 (LBP) NLDC-AEPFFI 09-10-1540 26-0ct-09 5,000,000 244590 (LBP) NLDC-AEPFFI ROCS-09-04952 09-09-1358 23-Sep-09 7,500,000 244557 (LBP) NLDC-APMFI 09-10-1449 12-0ct-09 12,500,000 244576 (LBP) NLDC-APMFI 09-10-1535 26-0ct-09 5,000,000 244592 (LBP) NLDC-APMFI ROCS-09-04996 09-09-1354 23-Sep-09 12,000,000 244553 (LBP) NLDC-CARED
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======19
09-10-1447 23-Sep-09 20,000,000 244574 (LBP) NLDC-CARED
Signatories to all the Disbursement Vouchers (DVs)
covering payment by the IAs for the agricultural and livelihood
projects, who are respondents herein, are indicated in the
table below:
Signatories of the DV BOX A BOX B (Expenses/Advances Supporting Documents Certified Disbursement BOX C SARO necessary, lawful, and Complete and by/supporting Voucher No. Proper/Budget (Approved incurred under my documents Utilization/Verification for Payment) direct supervision /Certification attached as to Cash/Fund Availability
ROCS-07- 31 01-2007-040571 Figura Allen T. Baysa Jover Ortiz 04618
01-2007-04067232 Figura Allen T. Baysa Jover Ortiz
01-2007-04066933 Figura Allen T. Baysa Jover Ortiz
01-2007-04067034 Figura Allen T. Baysa Jover Ortiz
ROCS-08- 35 08-04-01201 Munsod Johnson Javellana 01347
08-07-0231236 Relevo Johnson Javellana
ROCS-08- 37 08-09-03575 Cacal Guañizo Javellana 05216 09-04-162238 Cacal Guañizo Javellana
08-09-0357239 Cacal Guañizo Javellana
09-05-175140 Cacal Guañizo Javellana
ROCS-08- 41 09-05-1773 Cacal Guañizo Javellana 07211 09-06-202542 Cacal Javellana
31 Records, p. 1935, Folder 11, OMB-C-C-13-0396. 32 Id. at 1938. 33 Id. at 1941. 34 Id. at 1944. 35 Id. at 2006. 36 Id. at 2008. 37 Records, p. 2111, Folder 12, OMB-C-C-13-0396. 38 Id. at 2116. 39 Id. at 2329. 40 Id. at 2326. 41 Records, p. 2624, Folder 13, OMB-C-C13-0396. 42 Id. at 2631.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======20
Guañizo
09-05-177343 Cacal Guañizo Javellana ROCS-08- 07211 09-06-2022 Cacal Guañizo Javellana
ROCS-09- 44 09-05-1767 Cacal Guañizo Javellana 00804 09-06-202845 Cacal Guañizo Javellana 09-06-182546 Cacal Guañizo Javellana
09-06-202747 Cacal Guañizo Javellana
ROCS-09- 48 01-2009-040929 Cunanan Consuelo Lilian Espiritu Jover Ortiz 00847
01-2009-05130049 Cunanan Consuelo Lilian Espiritu Jover Ortiz
ROCS-09- 09-09-135350 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata 04952 09-10-144451 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata 09-10-154052 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata
53 ROCS-09- 09-09-1358 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata 04952 54 09-10-1449 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata
09-10-153555 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata 09-09-135456 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata
57 ROCS-09- 09-101447 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata 04996 09-10153058 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata 59 09-09-1355 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata 09-10-144360 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata 09-10-153461 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata
G-09- 09-12-183462 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata 07112 63 10-01-0004 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata
43 Id. at 2624. 44 Id. at 2694. 45 Id. at 2707. 46 Id.at 2775. 47 Id. at 2707. 48 Records, p. 2825, Folder 15, OMB-C-C-13-0396. 49 Id. at 2831. 50 Records, p. 2933, Folder 16, OMB-C-C-13-0396 51 Id. at 2950. 52 Id. at 2955. 53 Id. at 3044. 54 Id. at 3062. 55 Id. at 3070. 56 Records, p. 3323, Folder 17, OMB-C- C- 13-0397. 57 Id. at 3336. 58 Id. at 3350. 59 Id. at 3459. 60 Id. at 3478. 61 Id. at 3486. 62 Records, p. 3576, Folder 18, OMB-C-C-13-0397. 63 Id. at 3594.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======21
10-01-011864 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata
10-05-074765 Sevidal Rodriguez Cruz Amata
Details of the checks issued by the IAs in payment of the
projects, and the signatories thereto are indicated in the
following table:
SARO No. Disbursement Net Amount Implementing Official Received Voucher No. Check No. (Php) Agency/ies & Receipt Payment (After Signatories of Issued (see DV) deducting 3% the Check management fee) TLRC/TRC ROCS-07- 01-2007-040671 LBP 4,800,000 Figura and CARED Encarnacion 66 04618 850457 Ortiz OR 023 TLRC/TRC LBP CARED 01-2007-040672 67 4,800,000 Figura and Encarnacion 850458 OR 022 Ortiz TLRC/TRC LBP CARED 01-2007-040669 68 4,800,000 Figura and Encarnacion 850460 OR 025 Ortiz TLRC/TRC LBP CARED 01-2007-040670 69 4,800,000 Figura and Encarnacion 850462 OR 021 Ortiz
ROCS-08- UCPB NABCOR POPDFI Suñas 08-04-01201 70 21,825,000 Mendoza and OR 01347 0000416657 Javellana 001426
UCPB NABCOR POPDFI 08-07-02312 71 2,425,000 Mendoza and OR Suñas 0000417294 Javellana 3765 NABCOR MAMFI ROCS-08- 08-09-03575 UCPB 17,460,000 Mendoza and OR Sula 72 05216 437227 Javellana 3615 UCPB NABCOR MAMFI 73 09-04-1622 455913 1,940,000 Mendoza and OR Rodriguez Javellana 3625 NABCOR UCPB ROCS-08- 08-09-03572 74 26,190,000 Mendoza and SDPFFI Luy 05216 437226 Javellana OR 214
64 Id. at 3602. 65 Id. at 3612. 66 Records, p. 1933, Folder 11, OMB-C-C-13-0396. 67 Id. at 1936. 68 Id. at 1939. 69 Id. at 1942. 70 Id. at 2007. 71 Id. at 2009. 72 Records, p. 2112, Folder 12, OMB-C-C-13-0396. 73 Id. at 2115. 74 Id. at 2330.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======22
NABCOR 09-05-1751 UCPB 2,910,000 Mendoza and SDPFFI Rodriguez 75 455997 Javellana OR 269 UCPB NABCOR MAMFI 76 09-05-1773 462921 3,637,500 Mendoza and OR Sula ROCS- 08- Javellana 3628 07211 UCPB NABCOR OR 77 09-06-2025 462940 20,612,500 Mendoza and 3574 de Asis Javellana
UCPB 09-05-1774 78 3,637,500.00 SDPFFI de Asis ROCS-08- 462922 OR 267 07211 UCPB 09-06-2022 79 20,612,500 SDPFFI Luy 462938 OR 301 UCPB ROCS-09- 09-05-1767 80 2,182,500 MAMFI Sula 462919 00804 OR 3627 NABCOR 09-06-2028 UCPB 12,367,500 Mendoza and OR de Asis 462937 Javellana 3573
NABCOR ROCS-09- 09-06-1825 UCPB 1,455,000 Mendoza and OR 273 Luy 81 00804 462926 Javellana
UCPB NABCOR 09-06-2027 82 8,245,000 Mendoza and OR 303 Luy 462939 Javellana TLRC/TRC ROCS-09- 01-2009-040929 LBP 20,000,000 Ortiz and OR 204 Rodrigo B. 83 00847 890099 Figura Calay TLRC/TRC 01-2009-051300 LBP 2,500,000 Ortiz and OR Rodrigo B. 84 917019 Figura Calay NLDC AEPFFI 09-09-1353 LBP 6,750,000 Jalandoni and OR Suñas 85 0000244552 Amata 0255 NLDC AEPFFI ROCS-09- 09-10-1444 LBP 12,500,000 Jalandoni and OR Suñas 86 04952 244571 Amata 0256 NLDC 09-10-1540 LBP 5,000,000 Jalandoni and AEPFFI Suñas 87 244590 Amata OR 0257 NLDC ROCS-09- 09-09-1358 LBP 6,750,000 Jalandoni and APMFI Laarni A. Uy 04952 88 244557 Amata OR 411
75 Id. at 2327. 76 Records, p. 2625, Folder 13, OMB-C-C-13-0396. 77 Id. at 2632. 78 Id. at 2535. 79 Id. at 2547. 80 Records, p. 2694, Folder 14, OMB-C-C13-0396. 81 Id. at 2776. 82 Id. at 2788. 83 Records, p. 2823, Folder 15, OMB-C-C-13-0396. 84 Records, p. 2830, Folder 15, OMB-C-C-13-0396. 85 Records, p. 2932, Folder 16, OMB-C-C-13-0396. 86 Id. at 2949. 87 Id. at 2954. 88 Id. at 3043.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======23
NLDC 09-10-1449 LBP 12,500,000 Jalandoni and APMFI Laarni A. Uy 89 244576 Amata OR 412 NLDC 09-10-1535 LBP 5,000,000 Jalandoni and APMFI Laarni A. Uy 90 244592 Amata OR 415 NLDC ROCS-09- 09-09-1354 LBP 10,800,000 Jalandoni and CARED de Asis 91 04996 244553 Amata OR 147 NLDC 09-101447 LBP 20,000,000 Jalandoni and CARED de Asis 92 244574 Amata OR 149 NLDC 09-101530 LBP 8,000,000 Jalandoni and CARED de Asis 93 244589 Amata OR 153 NLDC ROCS-09- 09-09-1355 LBP 5,400,000 Jalandoni and MAMFI Rodriguez 94 04996 244554 Amata OR 3596 LBP NLDC MAMFI 95 09-10-1443 244570 10,000,000 Jalandoni and OR . Rodriguez Amata 3598 NLDC MAMFI 09-10-1534 LBP 4,000,000 Jalandoni and OR Rodriguez 96 244585 Amata 3652 NLDC 09-12-1834 LBP 10,800,000 Jalandoni and CARED de Asis 97 244622 Amata OR 155 NLDC 10-01-0004 LBP 20,000,000 Jalandoni and CARED de Asis 98 G-09- 244632 Amata OR 156 07112 NLDC 10-01-0118 LBP 4,000,000 Jalandoni and CARED de Asis 99 244649 Amata OR 157 NLDC 10-05-0747 LBP 4,000,000 Jalandoni and de Asis 100 260944 Amata
Field verifications conducted by complainant FIO
revealed that the Php345,000,000.00 PDAF of Senator Enrile
was never used for the intended projects. It appears that the
documents submitted by the NGOs/project partners to the IAs
89 Id. at 3061. 90 Id. at 3069. 91 Records, p. 3322, Folder 17, OMB-C-C13-0396. 92 Id. at 3335. 93 Id. at 3349. 94 Id. at 3458. 95 Id. at 3477. 96 Id. at 3485. 97 Records, p. 3574, Folder 18, OMB-C-C-13-0369. 98 Id. at 3593. 99 Id. at 3601. 100 Id. at 3611.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======24 such as Disbursement, Progress, Accomplishment, Fund
Utilization, Inspection, and Delivery Reports, as well as
Certificates of Acceptance, were all fabricated.
The livelihood and agricultural production kits/packages never reached the intended beneficiaries, i.e., either there were no projects or goods were never delivered. The mayors and the municipal agriculturists, who had reportedly received the livelihood assistance kits/packages for their respective municipalities, never received anything from the Office of
Senator Enrile, the IA, or any of the project partners. None of the mayors or municipal agriculturists were even aware of the projects.
As reflected above, the signatures on the Certificates of
Acceptance or Delivery Reports were forged, and the farmer- recipients enumerated on the lists of purported beneficiaries denied having received any livelihood assistance kits/packages. In fact, many of the names appearing on the lists as farmer-recipients were neither residents nor registered voters of the place where they were listed as beneficiaries, were fictitious, or had jumbled surnames while others were already deceased. In other words, these livelihood projects were “ghost projects.”
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======25
The Commission on Audit (COA), through its Special
Audits Office, conducted an audit of the PDAF allocations and disbursements covering the period 2007-2009 subject of these complaints, its findings of which are found in the COA Special
Audits Office Report101 (the “2007-2009 COA Report”).
Among the observations of the COA were: (a) the implementing agencies, including NABCOR, NLDC and TRC, did not actually implement the PDAF-funded projects; instead, the agencies released the funds to the NGOs, albeit charging a
"management fee" therefor; (b) the direct releases of PDAF disbursements to NGOs contravened the DBM's regulations considering that the same were not preceded by endorsements from the executive departments exercising supervisory powers over the IAs; (c) worse, the releases were made essentially at the behest of the sponsoring legislator; (d) almost all of the NGOs that received PDAF releases did not have a track record on the implementation of government projects, and their addresses were dubious; (e) the selection of the NGOs, as well as the procurement of the goods for distribution to the beneficiaries, did not undergo public bidding; and (f) some of the suppliers who allegedly provided the goods to the NGOs
101 SAOR No. 2012-03
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======26 denied ever having dealt with these NGOs, contrary to the
NGOs’ claims.
The COA also found that the selections of the NGO were not compliant with the provisions of COA Circular No. 2007-
001 and GPPB Resolution No. 12-2007; the suppliers and reported beneficiaries were unknown or cannot be located at their given address; the NGOs had provided non-existent addresses or their addresses were traced to mere shanties or high-end residential units without any signage; and the NGOs submitted questionable documents, or failed to liquidate or fully document the ultilization of funds.
Verily, the findings in the 2007-2009 COA Report jibe with the whistleblowers’ testimonies and are validated by the results of the FIO’s on-site field verification.
IN FINE, the PDAF-funded projects of Senator Enrile were
“ghost” or inexistent.
Complainants contend that the amount of
Php345,000,000.00 allotted for livelihood and agricultural production projects was instead misappropriated and
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======27 converted to the personal use and benefit of Senator Enrile in conspiracy with Napoles and the rest of respondents.
Witnesses Luy, Sula, and Suñas claim that the six foundation-NGOs endorsed by Senator Enrile were all dummies of Napoles, who operated them from her JLN office at
Unit 2502, Discovery Center Suites, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, and were created for the purpose of funnelling the PDAF through NABCOR, NLDC, and TRC/TLRC; the majority of the incorporators, officers, and members of these NGOs are household helpers, relatives, employees and friends of
Napoles; some incorporators/corporators of the NGOs were aware of their involvement in the creation thereof while others were not; and the signatures in the Articles of Incorporation of the NGOs of those unaware of their involvement were forged.
Luy, Sula and Suñas add that the pre-selected President of each of the pre-selected NGOs, in addition to being required to furnish the names of at least 5 persons to complete the list of incorporators, were obliged to sign an application for opening bank accounts in the name of the NGO, and to pre- sign blank withdrawal slips; these NGOs maintained bank accounts with either METROBANK Magdalena Branch or
LANDBANK EDSA-Greenhills Branch, from which Napoles
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======28 would withdraw and/or cause the withdrawal of the proceeds of checks paid by the IAs to the NGOs involved.
Per Luy’s records, Senator Enrile received, through respondents Reyes and Tuason, total commissions, rebates, or kickbacks amounting to at least Php172,834,500.00 from his
PDAF-funded projects from 2004 to 2010: Php1,500,000.00 for 2004; Php14,622,000.00 for 2005; Php13,300,000.00 for
2006; Php27,112,500.00 for 2007; Php62,550,000.00 for
2008; Php23,750,000.00 for 2009; and Php30,000,000.00 for
2010. The “payoffs” usually took place at the JLN office in
Ortigas. In fact, Luy, Sula and Suñas often heard Napoles refer to Senator Enrile by his code name “Tanda” and saw
Napoles hand over the money meant for the Senator to Tuason at the premises of JLN. The cash would come either from Luy’s vault or from Napoles herself.
On the other hand, Napoles’ share of the money from
Senator Enrile’s PDAF was by the claim of witnesses Luy,
Sula, Suñas, delivered in cash by them, along with respondents Encarnacion and De Asis, either at the JLN office or at Napoles’ residence at 18B, 18th Floor, North Wing Pacific
Plaza Tower Condominium, Taguig City. In the event of space constraints at her residence, Napoles would deposit some of
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======29 the cash to the bank accounts of the following companies which she owned:
Registered Owner Bank Account Number of the Account JO-CHRIS Trading Metrobank 7255-50955-8 JO-CHRIS Trading Metrobank 007-026-51152-2 (Checking Account) JO-CHRIS Trading Metrobank 3600024885
JLN Corporation Metrobank 073-3-07352390-8 JLN Corporation Metrobank 007-073-50928-5 (Checking Account) JCLN Global Metrobank 007-035-52543-9 Properties Development Corporation
II. THE CHARGES
The NBI thus charges Senator Enrile with PLUNDER for acquiring/receiving on various occasions, in conspiracy with his co-respondents, commissions, kickbacks, or rebates, in the total amount of at least Php172,834,500.00 from the
“projects” financed by his PDAF from 2004 to 2010.
The FIO, on the other hand, charges Senator Enrile and the rest of respondents with violating SECTION 3(E) of RA
3019 as amended, for giving unwarranted benefits to private respondent Napoles and SDFFI, APMFI, CARED, MAMFI,
POPFDI and APMFI in the implementation of his PDAF-funded
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======30
“projects,” thus, causing undue injury to the government in the amount of Php345,000,000.00.
By Orders dated 19 and 29 November 2013, this Office directed respondents to file their respective counter-affidavits in these cases. Despite receipt of said Orders, respondents
Ortiz, Jalandoni, De Leon, Piorato, Ornopia, Lim, Ramirez,
Rodriguez, Napoles, Lawas-Yutok, Guadinez, and Cabilao failed to file any counter-affidavits, prompting this Office to consider them having waived their right to file the same.
Despite earnest efforts, copies of the same Orders could not be served on respondents Lacsamana and Santos,
Proprietors of Nutrigrowth Philippines and MMRC Trading, respectively, Hernani Ditchon, Uy, Galay, Macha, Talaboc,
Castillo, Balanoba, Oliveros, Ogerio, Fabian, and Fernando, they being said to be unknown at their last or given addresses, or had moved out and left no forwarding address, or were non- existent.
II. RESPONDENTS’ COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS
In his Counter-Affidavit dated 20 December 2013,102
SENATOR ENRILE decries the accusations against him,
102 Records, pp. 40-109, Folder 21, OMB-C-C-13-0396.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======31 alleging that it was unfortunate that, “in the twilight years of
(his) government service, … (he) stand(s) accused of trumped up charges of corruption” as he has never been charged with any administrative or criminal offense in his more than 40 years in the civil service; at the time material to the charges, the PDAF was a legitimate source of funds for projects sponsored by legislators; the implementation of PDAF-related projects “is the exclusive function and responsibility of the executive department” such that the IAs and the DBM should have strictly complied with laws and rules on government expenditures to prevent possible misuse or irregularities; IAs were responsible for ensuring that the NGOs tasked to implement the projects were legitimate; and his only involvement in the utilization of the PDAF was to endorse specific projects for local government units.
He maintains that he did not persuade, influence or induce any official or employee of the IAs concerned to violate existing procurement or audit laws and rules; as a member of the legislative branch, he has no power of control or supervision over IAs, which are part of the executive branch; he did not endorse any NGO as conduit for the implementation of the PDAF projects; it was Napoles and her cohorts “who persuaded and influenced the implementing agencies to violate their duties and functions;” complainants’ witnesses never
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======32 categorically identified him as one of those who received kickbacks arising from PDAF transactions and neither was he mentioned as among those public officers who visited Napoles’ offices; he never authorized anyone to transact with, much less receive commissions, kickbacks or rebates “from the
Napoles group;” he never had personal dealings related to the
PDAF with Tuason; all authorizations he issued to Reyes and
Evangelista were limited to lawful acts; and evidence allegedly showing that he personally benefitted from the PDAF anomaly is hearsay.
For her part, REYES alleges in her Consolidated Counter-
Affidavit dated 26 December 2013,103 that the averments in the complaints are hearsay as they are not based on personal knowledge of complainants’ agents or their witnesses; their statements are inadmissible based on the res inter alios acta rule; she did not commit any illegal or prohibited act in relation to the PDAF projects; and her signatures in eight letters and two liquidation reports pertaining to the PDAF transactions, and which contain the names of the IAs and
NGOs allegedly tasked to implement the projects, were forgeries; she did not receive any amount from the PDAF nor connive with any of her co-respondents to acquire, amass or
103 Records, pp. 276-383, Folder 21, OMB-C-C-13-0396.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======33 accumulate ill-gotten wealth; and none of the “overt or criminal acts” constitutive of Plunder has been shown to be present.
EVANGELISTA, in his Joint Counter-Affidavit dated 20
December 2013, asserts that the complaints failed to specify the acts or omissions committed by him which constitute the offense/s charged and that most, if not all, statements of complainants’ witnesses are hearsay; he was impleaded because of his association with Senator Enrile, his former superior; during his tenure of office, “all that the office of
Senator Enrile has done, or may do, was to identify, endorse or recommend particular projects;” it was the DBM and the IAs which handled the actual release of the PDAF; and Senator
Enrile’s office “did not have any say in the actual implementation of any project.” He insists that his signatures in letters addressed to the IAs as well as in MOAs pertaining to
PDAF projects were “immaterial – funds would still have been released, the projects implemented, and the PDAF diverted, whether or not (he) signed those documents;” some of the signatures appearing in the PDAF documents are forgeries; he was not among those identified by witnesses Luy and Suñas as a recipient of PDAF-related kickbacks; and he did not
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======34 personally know Tuason or Napoles and neither has he met with them.
In her Counter-Affidavit dated 21 February 2014,104
TUASON admits personally knowing Napoles, having met her in 2004. She claims that because of her (Tuason) association with former President Joseph E. Estrada, she was requested by Napoles to refer her (Napoles) to politicians; and to accommodate Napoles, she (Tuason) approached and informed
Reyes that Napoles wished to transact with Senator Enrile in relation to the latter’s PDAF, to which request Reyes agreed.
She “believed that Atty. Gigi Reyes had the full authority to act for and on behalf of Senator Enrile with respect to his PDAF allocations;” she (Tuason) acted as the “go-between” of Napoles and Senator Enrile’s PDAF-related arrangements; after Reyes or Evangelista informed her (Tuason) that a budget from the
PDAF was available, she would relay the information to
Napoles or Luy who would then prepare a listing of projects available, indicating the IAs, which would be sent to Reyes;
Reyes would, thereafter, endorse said list to the DBM, and after the listing was released by Senator Enrile’s office to the
DBM, Napoles would give her (Tuason) a partial payment of the commission due her, which was usually delivered by Luy
104 Records, pp. 1296-1306, Folder 21, OMB-C-C-13-0396.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======35 or other Napoles employees; and she relied on records kept by
Luy on the amounts received because she did not keep her own records.
She admits having received amounts corresponding to
Senator Enrile’s kickbacks from the PDAF projects which she personally delivered to Reyes. To her knowledge, her commissions represented 5% of the transaction/project amount involved, while Senator Enrile’s share was 40%. She adds that there were times when Napoles would withhold the release of her (Tuason) commissions, without clear justification.
NATIONAL LIVELIHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (NLDC) RESPONDENTS
Denying any involvement in the misuse of the PDAF or of having profited from it, AMATA, NLDC’s President, avers in her 20 January 2014 Counter-Affidavit105 that, cognizant of the possibility of political pressure, she had at the outset
“manifested…her discomfort from (sic) the designation of NLDC as one of the Implementing Agencies for PDAF” and “did not want to be involved in the distribution of PDAF,” “kept a distance from the solons and the NGOs” involved in PDAF- related transactions, and had repeatedly requested in writing
105 Records, pp. 448-520, Folder 21, OMB-C-C-13-396.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======36 the DBM to exclude her agency from those authorized to implement PDAF-related projects; save for these instant complaints, she has not been formally charged with any administrative or criminal case in her more than 25 years in the civil service; and to ensure transparency, she “caused the preparation of standard Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for
PDAF transactions providing the safety nets for NLDC, as well as a Process Flow Chart to clearly identify the responsibilities and accountabilities of the [s]olons, the NGOs and the NLDC
PDAF internal processors for easy tracking of liabilities and irregularities that may be committed.”
BUENAVENTURA, then a regular employee of the NLDC, avers in her Counter-Affidavit dated 20 January 2014106 that in her processing of documents relating to PDAF projects, she
“did not do anything illegal or violate the instructions of (her) immediate superior”; in accordance with her functions, she
“checked and verified the endorsement letters of Senator Enrile, which designated the NGOs that would implement his PDAF projects and found them to be valid and authentic”; and she also confirmed the authenticity of the authorization given by
Senator Enrile to his subordinates regarding the monitoring, supervision and implementation of PDAF projects.
106 In OMB-C-C-13-0318.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======37
Denying any participation in the implementation of PDAF projects or having received any personal benefit in relation to
PDAF projects, she maintains that her evaluation and verification reports were accurate, and she was never a party to the purported anomalies arising from PDAF-related transactions.
In her Counter-Affidavit dated 27 January 2014,107
ORDOÑEZ, NLDC Cashier IV, argues that her participation in the PDAF projects implemented by her office was limited to having certified that “budgets and funds were available” in the corresponding Disbursement Vouchers; the filing of the complaints “may be premature because of failure to observe provisions of the 2009 COA Rules of Procedure,” considering that the COA has not yet disallowed the PDAF-related expenditures; and she never misappropriated, converted, misused, or malversed public funds drawn from the PDAF nor did she take advantage of her position to process the release of
PDAF sums, let alone personally benefit from these releases.
Claiming to have never met respondents Napoles or Enrile let alone conspire with them, Ordoñez claims that as far as she is concerned, “the PDAF transaction was known to the
NLDC Board of Trustees and top management;” she and her co-
107 Records, pp. 727-760, Folder 21, OMB-C-C-13-0396.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======38 respondents, “lowly Government employees who were dictated upon,” were mere victims “bullied into submission by the lawmakers;” despite their pleas, the DBM refused to help in getting the NLDC removed from the list of agencies authorized to implement PDAF projects; and she performed her duties in good faith and was “not in a position to negate or defy these actions of the Lawmakers, DBM and the NLDC Board of
Trustees.”
In his Counter-Affidavits dated 15 and 24108 February
2014, SEVIDAL, NLDC Director IV, denies having committed the offenses charged. He alleges that complainant FIO submitted a false certificate of non-forum shopping, the NBI having already filed an earlier criminal complaint against him arising from the same set of facts averred in the FIO’s criminal complaint; the filing of the criminal charges was premature because the disallowances issued by the COA are not yet final and executory; he was not among those NLDC employees identified by complainants’ witnesses who supposedly planned and implemented PDAF-funded projects and points to Senator
Enrile and Napoles, not NLDC employees, as the parties responsible for the misuse of the PDAF. He insists that
Senator Enrile, through Reyes and Evangelista, were
108 Records, pp. 845-1042, Folder 21, OMB-C-C-13-0396.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======39 responsible for “identifying the projects, determining the project costs and choosing the NGOs” which was “manifested in the letters of Senator ENRILE”; he and other NLDC employees were merely victims of the “political climate” and “bullied into submission by the lawmakers; and he never derived any personal benefit from the purported misuse of the PDAF.
NATIONAL AGRIBUSINESS CORPORATION (NABCOR) RESPONDENTS
Denying the charges against him in his Counter-Affidavit dated 6 February 2014,109 JAVELLANA, NABCOR President, states in essence that he did not personally prepare the checks, vouchers, memoranda of agreement and other similar documents pertaining to NABCOR-implemented projects funded by PDAF as he merely signed and approved the PDAF documents in good faith, after his subordinates had signed the same and recommended their approval to him; and he did not conspire with anyone to defraud the government.
MENDOZA, in her Counter-Affidavit dated 6 March 2014, alleges that being a mere employee of NABCOR, she “acted only upon stern instructions and undue pressure exerted upon us by our agency heads;” she signed checks relating to PDAF
109 Records, pp.780-825, Folder 21, OMB-C-C-13-0396.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======40 disbursements, specifically those covered by SARO Nos. ROCS
08-01347, 08-05216, 08-07211, 09-00804, because she was
“designated and authorized to sign” by respondent Javellana, and these checks “were already signed by NABCOR
President…JAVELLANA prior to the signing of the herein
Respondent …. and checks were released upon the instruction of…JAVELLANA;” she “was given instruction to process payments to suppliers and NGOs, without proper bidding and without complete documentary requirements;” sometime in
2011, Javellana terminated her services from NABCOR “due to her knowledge of irregularities in NABCOR;” and she denies having obtained any personal benefit from the alleged misuse of the PDAF.
In his Counter-Affidavit110 and Supplemental Counter-
Affidavit dated 11 December 2013 and 22 January 2014, respectively, CACAL, NABCOR Paralegal, refutes the charges against him, which to him are unsupported by the evidence.
He claims that he signed Box “A” of the DVs relating to SARO
Nos. ROCS-08-01347, ROCS-08-05216, ROCS-08-07211 and
ROCS-09-00804 in compliance with his official functions and pursuant to the stern directives of his superiors, namely,
Javellana and Mendoza; by the time the vouchers are
110 Records, pp. 685-689, Folder 21, OMB-C-C-13-0396.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======41 presented to him for signature, Javellana and Mendoza have already signed Boxes “B” and “C” therein and they have
“already prepared and signed” the corresponding checks drawn from PDAF funds, which is “indicative of their interest to fast track the transaction;” he never met with either the legislators or Napoles, his interaction in relation to PDAF- related projects having been limited to Luy; he always examined the voucher’s supporting documents before issuing the aforementioned certification; he previously recommended to his superiors that the agency observe COA Memorandum
Circular No. 2007-001 and revise the draft MOA used in
PDAF-related transactions but was yelled at and berated by
Javellana whenever he would question some of the apparent irregularities in the PDAF documents. He maintains that he did not personally benefit from the implementation of PDAF projects.
In her 02 January 2014 Counter-Affidavit,111 CRUZ, NLDC
Chief Financial Specialist/Project Management Assistant IV, denies the charges, claiming that she only certified the existence, not the authenticity of PDAF documents in the exercise of her duties; she did not conspire with anyone to commit the offenses charged nor did she receive anything in
111 Id. at 180-269.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======42 relation to the PDAF projects implemented by her office; and she is unaware whether the PDAF was abused by any or all of her co-respondents.
In her March 14, 2014 Counter-Affidavit,112 JOHNSON,
NABCOR former Chief Accountant, points out that there is nothing in the complaint “that would show, or even minutely imply that (she) was part of an express conspiracy” to commit the offenses charged; the complaints do not specifically allege the wrongful acts or omissions she committed as her participation in the PDAF transactions was merely ministerial in nature, limited to a verification of “whether or not the documents enumerated on the face of the disbursement voucher were attached to that disbursement voucher;” and that her job did not include examining the authenticity of the vouchers or the signatures thereon.
MUNSOD, former Human Resources Supervisor/Manager, in her Counter-Affidavit dated 27 December 2013,113 contends that she was impleaded for having signed DV No. 08-04-0129 in 2008 pertaining to a PDAF-related project implemented by
POPDFI; her certification therein that the expense was necessary and lawful was a purely ministerial function, and
112 Id. at 1278-1294. 113 Records, pp. 177-181, Folder 21, OMB-C-C-13-0396.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======43 was issued only after examining the voucher and the supporting documents because she “did NOT find any irregularity on the face thereof that would create in my mind any doubt as to the legality and integrity of the said Voucher;” and she had no knowledge of “any agreement or arrangement on the disbursement of the funds mentioned in the Voucher.”
Claiming to have been unfairly used or exploited by those involved in the misuse of the PDAF, MONTUYA, NABCOR
Accounting Staff Assistant, avers in her Counter-Affidavit dated 18 February 2014,114 that she was impleaded in relation to the inspection reports she signed in relation to the project covered by SARO No. ROCS-08-07211 and 09-08804; she was under the direct supervision of respondent Mendoza and part of her duties was to comply with directives issued by Mendoza, including the processing of the release of sums drawn from
Enrile’s PDAF; and the inspection reports relating to PDAF- related projects were merely pro-forma and stored in NABCOR computers. Montuya relates that she once accompanied
Mendoza in inspecting fertilizers stored in a warehouse in
Pandi, Bulacan and even took pictures of these kits; only after the criminal complaints were filed did she find out from witness Sula that these fertilizers were owned by Napoles; she
114 Id. at 826-844.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======44 could have inspected other items for distribution in the PDAF- related projects but Mendoza refused to authorize her and
NABCOR did not offer to defray the expenses for such inspections; she has never met Enrile or Napoles, let alone conspire with them to defraud the government; and did not benefit from any of these projects.
Refuting the charges against her in her Counter-Affidavit filed on 28 January 2014, GUAÑIZO, NABCOR
Bookkeeper/OIC Accounting Division, claims that the complaints did not specify the extent of her participation in the assailed scheme; no substantial evidence exists to support the charges, hence, the lack of probable cause; and she still has remedies within the COA Rules to question the COA report.
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCE CENTER (TRC) RESPONDENTS
In his Counter-Affidavits dated 20 and 24 February
2014,115 CUNANAN, Deputy Director General of the TRC at the time material to the complaints, refutes the accusations against him, stating that to his recollection, TRC began receiving PDAF-related disbursements sometime in 2005; it was his previous superior, then TRC Director General Ortiz,
115 Id. at 1060-1062.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======45
“who directly dealt with and supervised the processing of all
PDAF[-]related projects of the TRC;” Lacsamana, then TRC
Group Manager, assisted Ortiz in the implementation of PDAF projects and “reported directly to Director General Ortiz’s Office in this regard;” he and other colleagues from TRC “assumed
PDAF[-]funded projects to be regular and legitimate projects;” because of measures instituted by Ortiz, he (Cunanan), then
Deputy Director General, “did not participate in the processing of said projects except in the performance of (his) ministerial duty as a co-signatory of vouchers, checks and other financial documents of TRC;” and Ortiz, Lacsamana and Figura, TRC
Department Manager III, were “the ones who actually dealt with the Offices of the Legislators concerned as well as the
NGOs, which supposedly implemented the projects;”
Cunanan further relates that sometime in 2006 or 2007, he met Napoles who “introduced herself as the representative of certain legislators who supposedly picked TRC as a conduit for
PDAF-funded projects;” at the same occasion, Napoles told him that “her principals were then Senate President Juan Ponce
Enrile, Senators Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr., Sen. Jinggoy
Ejercito Estrada;” in the course of his duties, he “often ended up taking and/or making telephone verifications and follow-ups and receiving legislators or their staff members;” during his telephone verifications, he was able to speak with Reyes, who
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======46 was acting in behalf of her superior, Senator Enrile; Reyes confirmed to him that she and Evangelista “were duly authorized by respondent Enrile” to facilitate his PDAF projects and she also affirmed to him that the signatures appearing in communications sent to TRC were, indeed, hers and
Evangelista’s; he occasionally met with Luy, who pressured him to expedite the release of the funds by calling the offices of the legislators; and that after he was appointed as TRC’s
Director General in 2010, he exerted all efforts to have his agency removed from the list of agencies authorized to implement PDAF projects. He maintains he did not benefit from the alleged misuse of the PDAF.
In his Counter-Affidavit dated 8 January 2014,116 FIGURA,
TRC Department Manager III, denies the charges against him, stating that he does not personally know Napoles or the legislators “who had their PDAF’s (sic) coursed through TRC as implementing agency;” he “talked to him (witness Luy) once over the telephone .. and vividly remember [being berated by] him as he was name-dropping people from DBM and
Malacañang just to compel me to release from the Legal
Department the MOA of his foundation which was being reviewed by my office;” when TRC began implementing PDAF
116 Id. at 384-408.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======47 projects in 2007, he and other TRC colleagues welcomed this development because “it would potentially generate income for
TRC which does not receive any subsidy from the National
Government” but the service fee of 1% earned by TRC from implementing PDAF projects “was too negligible;” he was told by TRC’s management that “legislators highly recommended certain NGO’s(sic)/Foundations as conduit implementors and since PDAF’s (sic) are their discretionary funds, they have the prerogative to choose their NGO’s (sic);” TRC’s management also warned him that “if TRC would disregard it (choice of
NGO), they (legislators) would feel insulted and would simply take away their PDAF from TRC, and TRC losses (sic) the chance to earn service fees;” and Cunanan was among those who objected to his (Figura) proposal that TRC increase its service fee from 1% to 10%, claiming that “if we imposed a
10% service fee, we would totally drive away the legislators and their PDAF’s (sic).”
Figura adds that Ortiz issued Office Circular 000P0099, directing him (Figura) to sign checks representing PDAF releases sometime in 2007; Ortiz, however, subsequently issued Office Circular 000P0100, which increased TRC’s service fee to 5% but limited his (Figura) office’s participation in PDAF projects to reviewing MOA; his having signed checks and other PDAF documents were in good faith and in
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======48 compliance with his designated tasks; he did not personally benefit from the TRC’s implementation of PDAF projects; he is uncertain if Cunanan or Ortiz benefitted from the projects but to his recollection, they repeatedly expressed undue interest in the transactions; Cunanan “would frequently personally follow up in my office the review of the MOA or my signature on the checks,” even name-dropping then First Gentleman Jose
Miguel Arroyo whenever “he requested me to fast track processing of the PDAF documents;” as regards Ortiz, “his office would sometimes inquire on the status of a particular PDAF;” he tried his best to resist the pressure exerted on him and did his best to perform his duties faithfully; and he and other low- ranking TRC officials had no power to “simply disregard the wishes of Senator Enrile,” especially on the matter of public bidding for the PDAF projects.
JOVER, TRC Chief Accountant, alleges in her Counter-
Affidavit dated 12 December 2013,117 that she was implicated in the instant complaints for “having certified in the
Disbursement Vouchers for the aforestated project x x x that adequate funds/budgetary allotment of the amount is properly certified, supported by documents;” her issuance of such certification was ministerial in nature, considering other TRC
117 Id. at 15-39.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======49 officials already certified, in the same vouchers, that
“expenses/cash advance is necessary, lawful and incurred under direct supervision” and “expenses/cash advance is within budget” when these documents were referred to her; her duty was limited to verifying if the voucher was supported by the requisite documents; it was “beyond (her) duty to personally have an actual field validation and confirmed (sic) deliveries to beneficiaries or to go on the details of the delivered items or make a rigid inspection of the PDAF project;” she signed the vouchers “for no dishonest purpose, nor being bias and no intent on any negligence;” and she had nothing to do with “non-delivery or under delivery of PDAF project.”
ESPIRITU, TRC Budget Officer IV, in her Counter-Affidavit dated 10 January 2014,118 denies the charges against her and asserts that her participation in the PDAF-related transactions covered by SARO No. ROCS-07-07221, ROCS-08-03024 and
D-0900847 was limited to having certified in the corresponding DVs that “the amount is certified within budget, supported by documents;” she issued the certifications in accordance with her ministerial functions as a budget officer and because the vouchers were, indeed, within the budget provided to her agency and supported by documentation; and
118 Id. at 409-430.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======50 the certification was issued only after her superiors, TRC’s
Director General and Deputy Director General, certified in the same vouchers that the expenses were lawful, necessary and incurred under their direct supervision.
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT (DBM) RESPONDENTS
In their Joint Counter-Affidavit dated 2 December 2013,
Rosario NUÑEZ, Lalaine PAULE, and Marilou BARE,119 admitting that they are the DBM personnel being alluded to as
Leah, Lalaine and Malou, respectively, and named as such in the caption of the NBI and Baligod Complaint, state that their names are not specifically mentioned in the NBI’s complaint as among those who allegedly participated in or abated the misuse of the PDAF; and that no probable cause exists to indict them for the offenses charged.
RELAMPAGOS, DBM Undersecretary for Operations, in his Counter-Affidavit dated 13 December 2013, contends that the complaint “is insufficient in form and substance;” there is neither factual nor legal basis to indict him for Plunder as the complaint and sworn statements of witnesses do not mention
119 Were not originally impleaded in the caption of the complaints as respondents by the NBI and Baligod. In the course of the preliminary investigation, the Panel of Investigators ordered them to submit counter- affidavits in light of the impression that they were the parties to the scheme.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======51 his name as among those who supposedly misused the PDAF; and he performed his duties in good faith.
OTHER RESPONDENTS
In his 15 January 2014 Counter-Affidavit,120 DE ASIS admits having been an employee of the JLN Group of
Companies from 2006-2010 in various capacities as either driver, bodyguard or messenger, and that he received a salary of P10,000/month for serving as the driver and “errand boy” of
Napoles. He alleges that he picked up checks for Napoles- affiliated NGOs but only because he was instructed to do so; he has no knowledge in setting up or managing corporations such as CARED, which he allegedly helped incorporate; and he did not personally benefit from the alleged misuse of the
PDAF.
In her 16 January 2014 Counter-Affidavit,121
ENCARNACION denies the charges imputed against her, insisting that she was an employee (personal assistant) of JLN
Group of Companies from 2004-2008 where she received a salary of P12,000/month for overseeing the schedule and serving as “errand girl” of Napoles; she has no knowledge in
120 Records, pp. 431-447. 121 Id. at 431-438.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======52 setting up or managing corporations; she signed the corporate papers of Napoles-affiliated NGOs because her superiors instructed her to do so; and she derived no personal benefit from the scheme.
Denying any involvement in the irregularities arising from
PDAF-related transactions, SOLOMON asserts in her 27
January 2014 Counter-Affidavit122 that she has never met any of her co-respondents; in 2006, she performed auditing work for a number of clients, she being a certified public accountant; POPDFI, one of the NGOs allegedly affiliated with
Napoles’ group, was not among her clients; the signatures allegedly belonging to her and appearing in the PDAF documents are markedly different from her actual signature; and to clear her name, she is prepared to “submit (herself) willingful[ly] to a forensic examination of (her) signature with the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).”
Denying any involvement in the alleged misuse of the
PDAF, AGCAOILI, a Notary Public, alleges in his 10 December
2013 Counter-Affidavit,123 that he never met the signatories to the MOA, reports of disbursement, board resolutions and other PDAF documents that he allegedly notarized; these
122 Records, pp. 720-726. 123 Id. at 1-14.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======53
PDAF documents were not reflected in the notarial reports he submitted to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City; he cannot attest to the genuineness of these records because “he has not seen them before, nor had prior knowledge about them;” and there are discrepancies between his actual signature and the signature appearing in the PDAF documents that allegedly belong to him.
In their Joint Counter-Affidavit124 dated 21 February 2014,
Jo Christine and James Christopher Napoles, children of
Janet Napoles, cite the FIO complaint‘s insufficiency in form and substance for failing to specify the acts or omissions committed by them which constitute the offenses charged, thereby failing to allege and substantiate the elements of
Plunder and violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019; and the affidavits of complainant’s witnesses contain nothing more than hearsay, self-serving statements which are “not worthy of credence.”
IV. DISCUSSION
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Respondents Relampagos, Bare, Nuñez and Paule were properly impleaded
124 pp. 1043-1059, ibid
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======54
Relampagos, Bare, Nuñez and Paule all insist that they should be dropped from these proceedings because they were never specifically named as respondents in the criminal complaints filed by the NBI and the FIO.
This Office disagrees.
Among the documents attached to and made an integral part of the NBI’s complaint is witness Luy’s Affidavit dated 12
September 2013,125 in which he identified Relampagos, Bare,
Nuñez and Paule as Janet Napoles’ “contacts” within the DBM who helped expedite the release of SAROs and NCAs relating to the PDAF:
82: T: Mapunta naman tayo sa pagproseso ng transaction ni JANET LIM NAPOLES sa mga government projects, gaano naman katagal magpropeso ng mga ito? S: Mabilis lang po kung ikukumpara natin sa normal na transaction sa mga government agencies.
83. T: Alam mo ba kung paano naman ito nagagawang mapabilis ni JANET LIM NAPOLES? S: Opo, may mga contact persons na siya kasi sa DBM. Inuutusan po kami ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES na i- follow up sa kanila iyong mga dokumento para mapabilis ang pagpoproseso nito.
84. T: Kilala mo ba kung sinu-sino naman itong mga contact persons ni JANET LIM NAPOLES sa DBM? S: Sa DBM po ay sa opisina ni Usec MARIO RELAMPAGOS kami pinagpa-follow up ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES. Ang mga tinatawagan po namin ay sina LEA, MALOU at LALAINE na naka-assign sa office ni USEC RELAMPAGOS.
125 Records, p. 382, OMB-C-C-13-0318.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======55
85. T: Bakit doon kayo nagfo-follow up sa office ni USEC RELAMPAGOS? S: Sa pagkaka-alam ko po, doon ginagawa ang SARO. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
In other words, complainants’ witness Luy underscores that Relampagos, Bare, Nuñez and Paule’s participation in the misuse or diversion of the PDAF pertains to their expedited preparation and release of the SAROs covering PDAF projects, albeit due to ministrations of Napoles and her staff. It was for this reason that this Office ordered said public respondents to submit their counter-affidavits so that they may shed light on their supposed involvement in the so-called PDAF scam. After all, preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and it is often the only means of discovering whether a person may be reasonably charged with a crime, and to enable the prosecutor to prepare his complaint or information.126
Notably, respondents Relampagos, Bare, Nuñez and Paule did not categorically deny witness Luy’s claims of follow-ups made with the DBM. Instead, they simply deny, in general terms, having committed the offenses charged.
The FIO did not submit a false certificate of non-forum shopping
Sevidal claims that the FIO submitted a false certificate of non-forum shopping in OMB-C-C-13-0396. According to him,
126 Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101978. April 7, 1993.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======56 the FIO failed to disclose, in said certificate, that the NBI earlier filed a criminal complaint for Plunder against him and his co-respondents, docketed as OMB-C-C-13-0318, and the charges alleged therein arose from the same set of facts set forth in the FIO’s complaint.
His contention fails to persuade.
Rule 7, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, which suppletorily applies to these proceedings,127 requires the complainant’s submission of a valid, duly-accomplished certificate of non- forum shopping:
Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Based on the above provision, the complainant or initiating party is duty-bound only to disclose the existence of an earlier action or claim filed by him or her, and which
127 Rule V, Section 3 of Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1990.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======57 involves the same issues. He or she is not required to disclose the existence of pending suits or complaints previously filed by another party.
In this case, the FIO had no obligation to disclose the existence of OMB-C-C-13-0318 for the simple reason that it was not the initiating party of this complaint. Rather, as
Sevidal himself admits, the NBI, and not the FIO, is the complainant in OMB-C-C-13-0318. The FIO is not even a party to OMB-C-C-13-0318. Thus, this Office fails to see why the FIO should be faulted for not mentioning the existence of this particular complaint.
The filing of the complaints was not premature
Sevidal and Ordoñez proceed to argue that the filing of the criminal charges against them and their co-respondents is premature because the COA had yet to issue notices of disallowances (NDs) on disbursements drawn from the PDAF.
The above contention, however, has been rendered moot by the well-publicized fact that the COA had already issued several NDs covering disbursements relating to PDAF-funded
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======58 projects of respondent Enrile, among other persons, from the period 2007 to 2009.128
They, however, insist that the filing of the complaint remains premature even if the COA did issue NDs. According to them, the NDs are still appealable under the 2009 Revised
Rules of Procedure (the 2009 COA Rules) and no administrative or criminal complaint arising from the NDs may be instituted until and unless the issuances have become final and executory. In other words, Sevidal and Ordoñez assume that the NDs, at the very least, give rise to a prejudicial question warranting the suspension of the instant preliminary investigation.
This argument cannot be sustained.
Under Rule 111, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, a prejudicial question exists when the following elements are present:
The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. (underscoring supplied)
128 TJ Burgonio, “Return pork, 4 solons told,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, electronically published on February 1, 2014 at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/572215/return-pork-4-solons-told and last accessed on March 18, 2014.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======59
As reflected in the above elements, the concept of a prejudicial question involves both a civil and a criminal case.
There can be no prejudicial question to speak of if, technically, no civil case is pending.129
Proceedings under the 2009 COA Rules, including those pertaining to the NDs, are administrative in nature.
Consequently, any appeal or review sought by any of herein respondents with the COA in relation to the NDs will not give rise to a prejudicial question.
Significantly, Reyna and Soria v. Commission on Audit130 teaches that an administrative proceeding pertaining to a COA disallowance is distinct and separate from a preliminary investigation in a criminal case which may have arisen from the same set of facts. Both proceedings may proceed independently of each another. Thus, Reyna and Soria declares:
On a final note, it bears to point out that a cursory reading of the Ombudsman's resolution will show that the complaint against petitioners was dismissed not because of a finding of good faith but because of a finding of lack of sufficient evidence. While the evidence presented before the Ombudsman may not have been sufficient to overcome the burden in criminal cases of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it does not, however, necessarily follow, that the administrative proceedings will suffer the same fate as only substantial evidence is required, or that amount of relevant evidence which a
129 Trinidad v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 166038, December 4, 2007. 130 G.R. No. 167219, February 8, 2011.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======60
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
An absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative prosecution or vice versa. The criminal case filed before the Office of the Ombudsman is distinct and separate from the proceedings on the disallowance before the COA. So also, the dismissal by Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr., Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, of the criminal charges against petitioners does not necessarily foreclose the matter of their possible liability as warranted by the findings of the COA. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Moreover, nothing in existing laws or rules expressly state that a disallowance by the COA is a pre-requisite for the filing of a criminal complaint for Plunder,131 Malversation132 or violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. In fact, an audit disallowance is not even an element of any of these offenses.
Sevidal and Ordoñez’s reference to Rule XIII, Section 6 of the 2009 COA Rules also fails to impress. This provision reads:
Referral to the Ombudsman. - The Auditor shall report to his Director all instances of failure or refusal to comply with the decisions or orders of the Commission contemplated in the preceding sections. The COA Director shall see to it that the report is supported by the sworn statement of the Auditor concerned, identifying among others, the persons liable and describing the participation of each. He shall then refer the matter to the Legal Service Sector who shall refer the matter to the Office of the Ombudsman or other appropriate office for the possible filing of appropriate administrative or criminal action. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
131 As defined and penalized by RA 7080, as amended. 132 As defined and penalized by Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======61
Evidently, this immediately-quoted COA Rule pertains to the possible filing of administrative or criminal action in relation to audit disallowance. Note that the tenor of the provision is permissive, not mandatory. As such, an audit disallowance may not necessarily result in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions or criminal prosecution of the responsible persons. Conversely, therefore, an administrative or criminal case may prosper even without an audit disallowance. Verily, Rule XIII, Section 6 is consistent with the ruling in Reyna and Soria that a proceeding involving an audit disallowance is distinct and separate from a preliminary investigation or a disciplinary complaint.
AT ALL EVENTS, Rule XIII, Section 6 pertains to the
COA’s filing of administrative and/or criminal cases against the concerned parties. It has no bearing on any legal action taken by other agencies not subject of the 2009 COA Rules, such as the NBI or the FIO.
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
The diversion or misuse of the PDAF was coursed through a complex scheme involving participants from the legislator’s office, the DBM, IAs and NGOs controlled by respondent Janet Napoles.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======62
Based on the testimonial and documentary evidence presented, the widespread misuse of the subject PDAF allotted to a legislator was coursed through a complex scheme basically involving projects supposed to have been funded by said PDAF which turned out to be inexistent or “ghost” projects. The funds intended for the implementation of the
PDAF-funded project are, with the imprimatur of the legislator, the IAs and NGOs, diverted to the possession and control of
Napoles and her cohorts.
The Modus Operandi
Basically, the scheme commences when Napoles first meets with a legislator and offers to “acquire” his or her PDAF allocation in exchange for a “commission” or kickback amounting to a certain percentage of the PDAF.
Once an agreement is reached, Napoles would then advance to the legislator a down payment representing a portion of his or her kickback. The legislator would then request the Senate President or the House Speaker as the case may be for the immediate release of his or her PDAF. The
Senate President or Speaker would then indorse the request to the DBM.133 This initial letter-request to the DBM contains a program or list of IAs and the amount of PDAF to be released
133 Records, p. 217, OMB-C-C-13-0318.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======63 in order to guide the DBM in its preparation and release of the corresponding SARO.
The kickbacks, around 50% of the PDAF amount involved, are received by legislators personally or through their representatives, in the form of cash, fund transfer, manager’s check or personal check issued by Napoles.134
After the DBM issues the SARO representing the legislator’s PDAF allocation, the legislator would forward a copy of said issuance to Napoles. She, in turn, would remit the remaining portion of the kickback due the legislator. 135
The legislator would then write another letter addressed to the IAs which would identify his or her preferred NGO to undertake the PDAF-funded project. However, the NGO chosen by the legislator would be one of those organized and controlled by Napoles. These NGOs were, in fact, specifically set up by Napoles for the purpose.136
Upon receipt of the SARO, Napoles would direct her staff, at the time material to the cases, including witnesses Luy,
Sula and Suñas, to prepare the PDAF documents for the approval of the legislator. These documents reflect, among other things, the preferred NGO to implement the undertaking, the project proposals by the identified NGO/s, and
134 Id. at 221. 135 Id. at 218. 136 Ibid.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======64 indorsement letters to be signed by the legislator and/or his staff. Once signed by the legislator or his/her authorized staff, the PDAF documents are transmitted to the IA, which, in turn, handles the preparation of the MOA relating to the project to be executed by the legislator’s office, the IA and the chosen
NGO.
The projects are authorized as eligible under the DBM's menu for pork barrel allocations. Note that the NGO is directly selected by the legislator. No public bidding or negotiated procurement takes place, in violation of RA 9184 or the
Government Procurement Reform Act.
Napoles, through her employees, would then follow up the release of the NCA with the DBM.137
After the DBM releases the NCA to the IA concerned, the IA would expedite the processing of the transaction and the release of the corresponding check representing the PDAF disbursement. Among those tasked by Napoles to pick up the checks and deposit them to bank accounts in the name of the
NGO concerned were witnesses Luy and Suñas as well as respondents De Leon and De Asis.138
137 Id. at 219. 138 Id. at 219.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======65
Once the funds are deposited in the NGO’s account,
Napoles would then call the bank to facilitate the withdrawal thereof. Her staff would then withdraw the funds and remit the same to her, thereby placing said amount under Napoles’ full control and possession.139
To liquidate the disbursements, Napoles and her staff would then manufacture fictitious lists of beneficiaries, liquidation reports, inspection reports, project activity reports and similar documents that would make it appear that the
PDAF-related project was implemented.
The PDAF allocation of Senator Enrile
Based on the records, the repeated diversions of the PDAF allocated to Senator Enrile during the period 2004 to 2010 were coursed via the above-described scheme.
In the case of Senator Enrile’s PDAF, the NGOs affiliated and/or controlled by Napoles that undertook to implement the projects to be funded by the PDAF were MAMFI, POPDFI,
PSDFI, AMFI, CARED, PASEDFI, SDPFFI, AEPPF and
KPMFI.140 These organizations transacted through persons known to be employees, associates or relatives of Napoles, including witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas, as well as respondents Jo Napoles, James Napoles, De Leon, Pioranto,
139 Ibid. 140 Records, p. 12, OMB-C-C-13-0318.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======66
Lim, Ramirez, Cabilao, Ogerio, Fabian, Ditchon, Galay, Uy,
Fernando, De Asis, Encarnacion, Palama, Ornopia, Castillo and Macha.
Napoles, through respondent Tuason, initially approached respondent Reyes regarding a “business proposition” relating to
Senator Enrile’s PDAF. Tuason, in her Counter-Affidavit, declared that Reyes, who had Senator Enrile’s full trust and confidence, accepted Napoles’ proposition:
6. Since I was close to then President Estrada, Janet Napoles wanted me to refer politicians to her so I approached my friend Atty. Jessica “Gigi” Reyes, who was the Chief-of-Staff of Senator Enrile.
7. When I told her about the business proposition of Janet Napoles, Atty. Gigi Reyes agreed to transact the PDAF of Senator Enrile with Janet Napoles. I believed that Atty. Gigi Reyes had the full authority to act for and on behalf of Senator Enrile with respect to his PDAF allocations x x x (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Once a PDAF allocation becomes available to Senator
Enrile, his staff, either Reyes or Evangelista, would inform
Tuason of this development. Tuason, in turn, would relay the information to either Napoles or Luy.141
Tuason, who admitted having acted as a liaison between
Napoles and the office of Senator Enrile, confirmed that the modus operandi described by witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas, indeed, applied to the disbursements drawn from Senator
Enrile’s PDAF. Tuason’s verified statements corroborate the
141 Paragraph 11, respondent Ruby Tuason’s Counter-Affidavit dated 21 February 2014.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======67 modus operandi in carrying out the transactions and described by witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas in their respective affidavits in support of the complaints:
11. … It starts with a call or advise from Atty. Gigi Reyes or Mr. Jose Antonio Evangelista (also from the Office of Senator Enrile) informing me that a budget from Senator Enrile’s PDAF is available. I would then relay this information to Janet Napoles/Benhur Luy.
12. Janet Napoles/Benhur Luy would then prepare a listing of the projects available indicating the implementing agencies. This listing would be sent to Atty. Gigi Reyes who will endorse the same to the DBM under her authority as Chief-of- Staff of Senator Enrile.
13. After the listing is released by the Office of Senator Enrile to the DBM, Janet Napoles would give me a down payment for delivery for the share of Senator Enrile through Atty. Gigi Reyes.
14. After the SARO and/or NCA is released, Janet Napoles would give me the full payment for delivery to Senator Enrile through Atty. Gigi Reyes.
15. Sometimes Janet Napoles would have the money for Senator Enrile delivered to my house by her employees. At other times, I would get it from her condominium in Pacific Plaza or from Benhur Luy in Discovery Suites. When Benhur Luy gives me the money, he would make me scribble on some of their vouchers of even sign under the name “Andrea Reyes,” Napoles’ codename for me. This is the money that I would deliver to Senator Enrile through Atty. Gigi Reyes.
16. I don’t count the money I receive for delivery to Senator Enrile. I just receive whatever was given to me. The money was all wrapped and ready for delivery when I get it from Janet Napoles or Benhur Luy. For purposes of recording the transactions, I rely on the accounting records of Benhur Luy for the PDAF of Senator Enrile, which indicates the date, description and amount of money I received for delivery to Senator Enrile.
x x x
18. As I have mentioned above, I personally received the share of Senator Enrile from Janet Napoles and Benhur Luy and I personally delivered it to Senator Enrile’s Chief-of-Staff, Atty. Gigi Reyes…..There were occasions when Senator Enrile (sic) would join us for a cup of coffee when he would pick her up. For me, his presence was a sign that whatever Atty. Gigi Reyes was doing was with Senator Enrile’s blessing.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======68
Aside from Tuason’s statement, the following set of documentary evidence supports the modus operandi described by witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas: (a) the business ledgers prepared by witness Luy, showing the amounts received by
Senator Enrile, through Tuason and Reyes, as his
“commission” from the so-called PDAF scam;142 (b) the 2007-
2009 COA Report documenting the results of the special audit undertaken on PDAF disbursements - that there were serious irregularities relating to the implementation of PDAF-funded projects, including those endorsed by Senator Enrile;143 and (c) the reports on the independent field verification conducted in
2013 by the investigators of the FIO which secured sworn statements of local government officials and purported beneficiaries of the supposed projects which turned out to be inexistent.144
A violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 was committed.
Under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, a person becomes criminally liable if three (3) elements are satisfied, viz.:
1. He or she must be a officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;
2. He or she must have acted with manifest partiality,
142 Records, pp. 240-241, OMB-C-C-13-0318. 143 Id at 850-1065. 144 Records, pp. 35-104, OMB-C-C-13-0396.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======69
evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and
3. His or her action: (a) caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government; or (b) gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his or her functions.145
The presence of the foregoing is evident from the records.
First, respondents Senator Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista,
Javellana, Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo, Ortiz, Cunanan, Jover,
Munsod, Relevo, Mendoza, Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal,
Jalandoni, Guañizo, Ordoñez, Cruz, Espiritu, Relampagos,
Nuñez, Paule, Bare and Lacsamana were all public officers at the time material to the charges. Their respective roles in the processing and release of PDAF disbursements were in the exercise of their administrative and/or official functions.
Senator Enrile himself indorsed, in writing, the Napoles- affiliated NGO to implement projects funded by his PDAF. His trusted authorized staff, respondents Reyes and Evangelista, then prepared indorsement letters and other communications relating to the PDAF disbursements addressed to the DBM and the IAs (NABCOR, TRC and NLDC). These trusted staff also participated in the preparation and execution of MOAs with the NGOs and the IAs, inspection and acceptance reports, disbursement reports and other PDAF documents.
145 Catacutan v. People, G.R. No. 175991, August 31, 2011.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======70
The DBM, through respondents Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule and Bare, then processed with undue haste the SAROs and
NCAs pertaining to Senator Enrile’s PDAF projects.
In turn, the heads of the IAs, NABCOR, NLDC and TRC, as well as their respective staff participated in the preparation and execution of MOAs governing the implementation of the projects. They also facilitated, processed and approved the
PDAF disbursements to the questionable NGOs. The table below indicates the participation of the IA officials/employees- respondents:
NABCOR
RESPONDENT PARTICIPATION Alan A. Javellana Signatory to MOAs with CARED, POPDFI, MAMFI and SDPFFI; approved disbursement vouchers relating to PDAF disbursements; and co-signed the corresponding checks issued to the NGOs. Rhodora B. Mendoza Co-signatory to checks issued to the NGOs; and attended inspection of livelihood kits. Victor Roman Cacal Assisted in the preparation/review of memoranda of agreement with NGOs; and certified in disbursement vouchers that the PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision. Encarnita Cristina P. Munsod Certified in disbursement vouchers that the PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under her direct supervision. Romulo M. Relevo Certified in disbursement vouchers that the PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision. Ma. Ninez P. Guañizo Certified in disbursement vouchers that funds were available and supporting documents were complete and proper. Ma. Julie V. Johnson Certified in disbursement vouchers that funds were available and supporting documents were complete and proper.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======71
NLDC
RESPONDENT PARTICIPATION Gondelina G. Amata Signatory to MOAs with APMFI, CARED and MAMFI; approved disbursement vouchers relating to PDAF disbursements; and co-signed the corresponding checks issued to the NGOs. Chita C. Jalandoni Co-signed the corresponding checks issued to the NGOs. Emmanuel Alexis G. Sevidal Certified in disbursement vouchers that the PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision. Ofelia E. Ordoñez Certified in disbursement vouchers that funds were available. Sofia D. Cruz Certified in disbursement vouchers that supporting documents were complete and proper. Gregoria Buenaventura Checked and verified the endorsement letters of respondent Enrile; confirmed the authenticity of the authorization given by respondent Enrile to his subordinates regarding the monitoring, supervision and implementation of PDAF projects; and prepared evaluation and verification reports. Filipina T. Rodriguez Certified in disbursement vouchers that funds were available.
TRC
RESPONDENT PARTICIPATION Antonio Y. Ortiz Signatory to MOAs with CARED and APMFI; approved disbursement vouchers relating to PDAF disbursements; and co-signed the corresponding checks issued to the NGOs. Dennis L. Cunanan Certified in disbursement vouchers that the PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision. Francisco B. Figura Assisted in the preparation/review of memoranda of agreement with NGOs; certified in disbursement vouchers that the PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision; and co-signed the corresponding checks issued to the NGOs. Marivic Jover Certified in disbursement vouchers that funds were available and supporting documents were complete and proper. Ma. Rosalinda Lacsamana Oversaw the processing of PDAF releases to NGOs; and assisted in the preparation/review of memoranda of agreement with NGOs. Consuelo Lilian Espiritu Certified in disbursement vouchers that funds were available.
On the other hand, private respondents in these cases acted in concert with their co-respondents.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======72
From the accounts of witnesses Luy, Sula, Suñas and respondent Tuason, Napoles made a business proposal to
Reyes regarding the Senator’s PDAF. Senator Enrile later indorsed NGOs affiliated with/controlled by Napoles to implement his PDAF-funded projects.
Respondents Jo Napoles, James Napoles, De Leon,
Piorato, Lim, Ramirez, Cabilao, Ogerio, Fabian, Ditchon,
Galay, Uy, Fernando, De Asis, Encarnacion, Palama, Ornopia,
Castillo and Macha were all working for Napoles and served as officers of her NGOs which were selected and endorsed by
Senator Enrile to implement his projects. They executed MOAs relative to these undertakings in behalf of the organizations and acknowledged receipt of the checks issued by NLDC,
NABCOR and TRC representing the PDAF releases.
Second, Senator Enrile and respondent-public officers of the IAs were manifestly partial to Napoles, her staff and the affiliated NGOs she controlled.
Sison v. People146 teaches that:
“Partiality” is synonymous with “bias,” which “excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are.”
146 G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 670.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======73
To be actionable under Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, partiality must be manifest. There must be a clear, notorious and plain inclination or predilection to favor one side rather than the other. Simply put, the public officer or employee’s predisposition towards a particular person should be intentional and evident.
That Napoles and the NGOs affiliated with/controlled by her were extended undue favor is manifest.
Senator Enrile repeatedly and directly indorsed the NGOs headed or controlled by Napoles and her cohorts to implement his projects without the benefit of a public bidding.
As correctly pointed out by the FIO, the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of RA 9184 states that an NGO may be contracted only when so authorized by an appropriation law or ordinance:
53.11. NGO Participation. When an appropriation law or ordinance earmarks an amount to be specifically contracted out to Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), the procuring entity may enter into a Memorandum of Agreement in the NGO, subject to guidelines to be issued by the GPPB.
National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 476,147 as amended by
NBC No. 479, provides that PDAF allocations should be
147 Otherwise known as “Guidelines for the Release and Utilization of the PDAF for FY 2001 and thereafter.”
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======74 directly released only to those government agencies identified in the project menu of the pertinent General Appropriations
Act (GAAs). The GAAs in effect at the time material to the charges, however, did not authorize the direct release of funds to NGOs, let alone the direct contracting of NGOs to implement government projects. This, however, did not appear to have impeded Senator Enrile’s direct selection of the
Napoles-affiliated or controlled NGOs, and which choice was accepted in toto by the IAs.
Even assuming arguendo that the GAAs allowed the engagement of NGOs to implement PDAF-funded projects, such engagements remain subject to public bidding requirements. Consider GPPB Resolution No. 012-2007:
4.1 When an appropriation law or ordinance specifically earmarks an amount for projects to be specifically contracted out to NGOs, the procuring entity may select an NGO through competitive bidding or negotiated procurement under Section 53.11 of the IRR. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
The aforementioned laws and rules, however, were disregarded by public respondents, Senator Enrile having just chosen the Napoles-founded NGOs. Such blatant disregard of public bidding requirements is highly suspect, especially in light of the ruling in Alvarez v. People:148
148 G.R. No. 192591, June 29, 2011.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======75
The essence of competition in public bidding is that the bidders are placed on equal footing. In the award of government contracts, the law requires a competitive public bidding. This is reasonable because “[a] competitive public bidding aims to protect the public interest by giving the public the best possible advantages thru open competition.” It is a mechanism that enables the government agency to avoid or preclude anomalies in the execution of public contracts. (underlining supplied)
Notatu dignum is the extraordinary speed attendant to the examination, processing and approval by the concerned
NABCOR, NLDC and TRC officers of the PDAF releases to the
Napoles-affiliated or controlled NGOs. In most instances, the
DVs were accomplished, signed and approved on the same day. Certainly, the required careful examination of the transactions’ supporting documents could not have taken place if the DV was processed and approved in one day.
Javellana, Mendoza and Cunanan of the TRC were categorically identified by their subordinates co-respondents as those who consistently pressed for the immediate processing of PDAF releases.
Cacal pointed to Javellana and Mendoza as having pressured him to expedite the processing of the DVs:
15. In most instances, Boxes “B” and “C” were already signed wherein the herein Respondent was required to sing (sic) Box “A” of the Disbursement Vouchers. Most of the times the Box “B” and/or Box “C” of the Disbursement Vouchers were already signed ahead by Niñez Guanizo and/or Rhodora B. Mendoza and ALAN A. JAVELLANA respectively.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======76
16. In other instances, the checks for PDAF releases were already prepared and signed by NABCOR President ALAN A. JAVELLANA and VP for Finance RHODORA B. MENDOZA attached to the Disbursement Voucher before the herein Respondent were made signs Box “A” of the said Disbursement Vouchers. This is indicative of the target5 (sic) Municipalities and immediately stern instructions of herein Respondent’s superiors to sign the Disbursement Voucher immediately for reasons that it is being followed up by the concerned NGO. Furthermore, the herein Respondent relied on the duly executed Memorandum of Agreement by and between NABCOR, NGO and the Office of the Legislator. According to the said MOA, initial release of funds will be undertaken by NABCOR upon signing thereof. Hence, payment and/or release of fund to the NGO became a lawful obligation of NABCOR.
x x x
18. On many instances, sternly ordered [sic] the NABCOR VP for Admin. and Finance RHODORA B. MENDOZA to herein Respondent to immediately sign Box “A” of the Disbursement Voucher even if the NGOs have not yet complied with the other documentary requirements to be attached to the said Disbursement Voucher on the basis on [sic] the commitment of the NGO to submit the other required documents (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
In his Counter-Affidavit, respondent Figura claimed that:
x x x
b) In the course of my review of PDAF documents, DDG Dennis L. Cunanan would frequently personally follow up in my office the review of the MOA or my signature on the checks. He would come down to my office in the third floor and tell me that he had a dinner meeting with the First Gentleman and some legislators so much that he requested me to fast track processing of the PDAF papers. Though I hate name- dropping, I did not show any disrespect to him but instead told him that if the papers are in order, I would release them before the end of working hours of the same day. This was done by DDG many times, but I stood my ground when the papers on PDAF he’s following up had deficiencies…. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Worth noting too is the extraordinary speed Relampagos and his co-respondents from the DBM processed the
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======77 documents required for the release of the PDAF as witnesses
Luy and Suñas positively attest to, viz: the DBM’s expedited processing of the requisite SAROs and NCAs was made possible through the assistance provided by Nuñez, Paule and
Bare. Relampagos being their immediate superior, they could not have been unaware of the follow-ups made by Napoles’ staff with regard to the SARO and NCA.
The concerned officials of NABCOR, NLDC and TRC did not even bother to conduct a due diligence audit on the selected NGOs and the suppliers chosen by the NGO to provide the livelihood kits, which supply thereof was, it bears reiteration, carried out without the benefit of public bidding, in contravention of existing procurement laws and regulations.
In addition to the presence of manifest partiality on the part of respondent public officers, evident bad faith is present.
Evident bad faith connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self- interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes.149
149 People v. Atienza, G.R. No. 171671, June 18, 2012.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======78
That several respondent public officers unduly benefited from the diversion of the PDAF is borne by the records.
As earlier mentioned, Tuason claimed that she regularly remitted significant portions (around 50%) of the diverted sums to Reyes, which portions represented Senator Enrile’s
“share” or “commission” in the scheme, thus:
14. After the SARO and/or NCA is released, Janet Napoles would give me the full payment for delivery to Senator Enrile through Atty. Gigi Reyes.
x x x
16. I don’t count the money I receive for delivery to Senator Enrile. I just receive whatever was given to me. The money was all wrapped and ready for delivery when I get it from Janet Napoles or Benhur Luy. For purposes of recording the transactions, I rely on the accounting records of Benhur Luy for the PDAF of Senator Enrile, which indicates the date, description and amount of money I received for delivery to Senator Enrile. (underlining supplied)
Notably, Tuason admits having received a 5% commission for acting as liaison between Napoles and respondents Enrile and Reyes.
Aside from Enrile and Reyes, respondents Javellana,
Cunanan, Ortiz and Sevidal were identified by witness Luy as among those who received portions of the diverted amounts:150
150 Records, p. 392, OMB-C-C-13-0318.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======79
126. T: May nabanggit ka na may 10% na napupunta sa president o head ng agency, sino itong tinutokoy mo? S: Ang alam ko nakita kong tumanggap ay sila ALLAN JAVELLANA ng NABCOR, DENNIS CUNANAN at ANTONIO Y. ORTIZ ng TRC…. Nasabi din sa akin ni EVELYN DE LEON na may inaabot din kina GIGI BUENAVENTURA at ALEXIS SEVIDAL ng NLDC. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Witness Sula, in her Affidavit dated 12 September 2013,151 also identified Amata as among those who benefited from the
PDAF disbursements:
k) Ms. GONDELINA AMATA (NLDC) – Nakilala ko siya noong may sakit ang kanyang asawa na nagpapagamot sa NKTI Hospital. Silang mag-asawa ay nagpunta din sa office sa 2502 Discovery Center, Ortigas. Ako rin ang nagdala ng pera para sa pambayad ng gamot. May tatlong (3) beses ko po silang dinalhan ng pera sa hospital. (underlining supplied)
Indubitably, repeatedly receiving portions of sums of money wrongfully diverted from public coffers constitutes evident bad faith.
Third, the assailed PDAF-related transactions caused undue injury to the Government in the amount of
Php345,000,000.00.
Based on the 2007-2009 COA Report as well as the independent field verifications conducted by the FIO, the projects supposedly funded by Senator Enrile’s PDAF were
“ghost” or inexistent. There were no livelihood kits distributed
151 Id. at 268.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======80 to beneficiaries. Witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas declared that, per directive given by Napoles, they made up lists of fictitious beneficiaries to make it appear that the projects were implemented, albeit none took place.
Instead of using the PDAF disbursements received by them to implement the livelihood projects, respondents Jo
Napoles, James Napoles, De Leon, Piorato, Lim, Ramirez,
Cabilao, Ogerio, Fabian, Ditchon, Galay, Uy, Fernando, De
Asis, Encarnacion, Palama, Ornopia, Castillo and Macha, as well as witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas, all acting for Napoles, continuously diverted these sums amounting to
Php345,000,000.00 to Napoles’ control.
Certainly, these repeated, illegal transfers of public funds to Napoles’ control, purportedly for projects which did not, however, exist, and just as repeated irregular disbursements thereof, represent quantifiable, pecuniary losses to the
Government constituting undue injury within the context of
Section 3(e) of RA 3019.152
Fourth, respondents Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista, Javellana,
Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo, Ortiz, Cunanan, Jover, Munsod,
152 Llorente v. Sandiganbayan, 350 Phil. 820 (1998).
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======81
Relevo, Mendoza, Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Jalandoni,
Guañizo, Ordoñez, Cruz, Espiritu, Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule,
Bare and Lacsamana, granted respondents Janet Napoles, Jo
Napoles, James Napoles, De Leon, Piorato, Lim, Ramirez,
Cabilao, Ogerio, Fabian, Ditchon, Galay, Uy, Fernando, De
Asis, Encarnacion, Palama, Ornopia, Castillo and Macha unwarranted benefits.
Jurisprudence teaches that unwarranted benefits or privileges refer to those accommodations, gains or perquisites that are granted to private parties without proper authorization or reasonable justification.153
In order to be found liable under the second mode of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019, it suffices that the offender has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in the exercise of his official, administrative or judicial functions.154
Respondents Senator Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista, Javellana,
Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo, Ortiz, Cunanan, Jover, Munsod,
Relevo, Mendoza, Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Jalandoni,
Guañizo, Ordoñez, Cruz, Espiritu, Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule,
Bare and Lacsamana, did just that. That they repeatedly failed to observe the requirements of RA 9184, its implementing
153 Gallego v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-57841, July 30, 1982 and Cabrera, et. al. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 162314-17, October 25, 2004. 154 Sison v. People, G.R. No. 170339, 170398-403, March 9, 2010.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======82 rules and regulations, GPPB regulations as well as national budget circulars, shows that unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference was given to private respondents. The NGOs represented by them were chosen to undertake the implementation of PDAF projects without the benefit of a fair system in determining the best possible offer for the
Government. Napoles, who controlled the NGOs personally chosen by Senator Enrile, was able to unduly profit from the fictitious transactions.
Moreover, the NGOs selected by Senator Enrile did not appear to have the capacity to implement the undertakings to begin with. At the time material to the charges, these entities did not possess the required accreditation to transact with the
Government, let alone possess a track record in project implementation to speak of.
In spite of the aforesaid irregularities, respondents
Javellana, Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo, Ortiz, Cunanan, Jover,
Munsod, Relevo, Mendoza, Amata, Buenaventura, Rodriguez,
Sevidal, Jalandoni, Guañizo, Ordoñez, Cruz, Espiritu,
Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule, Bare and Lacsamana, with indecent haste, processed the SAROs and NCAs needed to facilitate the release of the funds, as well as expedited the release of the PDAF disbursements to the NGOs affiliated with
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======83 or controlled by Napoles. These efforts to accommodate her
NGOs and allow her to repeatedly receive unwarranted benefits from the inexistent projects are too obvious to be glossed over.
ALL TOLD, there is probable cause to indict the following respondents named in the table below, for 15 counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, the material details of which are indicated also in the table:
IMPLEMENTING DISBURSEMENT TOTAL AGENCY/NGOs VOUCHERS NO. AMOUNT RESPONDENTS
01-2007-040669, 01- Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista, TRC-CARED 2007-040670, 01- 20,000,000 Tuason, Relampagos, 2007-040671, 01- Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Ortiz, 2007-040672 Cunanan, Figura, Lacsamana, Espiritu, Jover, Janet Napoles, Jo Napoles, James Napoles, Eulogio Rodriguez, De Leon, Lim, Ramirez, Cabilao, Fernando, Palama, De Asis and Encarnacion. Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista, TRC-APMFI 01-2009-040929, 01- 22,500,000 Tuason, Relampagos, 2009-051300 Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Ortiz, Cunanan, Figura, Lacsamana, Espiritu, Jover, Janet Napoles, Jo Napoles, James Napoles, Eulogio Rodriguez, De Leon, Lim, Ramirez, Cabilao, Pioranto, Fabian, Ditchon, Galay and Uy. Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista, NABCOR-POPDFI 08-04-01201, 08-07- 24,250,000 Tuason, Relampagos, 02312 Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Javellana, Mendoza, Munsod, Relevo, Johnson, Janet Napoles, Jo Napoles, James Napoles, Eulogio
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======84
Rodriguez, De Leon, Lim, Ramirez and Cabilao.
Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista, NABCOR-MAMFI 08-09-3575, 09-04- 19,400,000 Tuason, Relampagos, 1622 Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Javellana, Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo, Janet Napoles, Jo Napoles, James Napoles, Eulogio Rodriguez, De Leon, Lim, Ramirez, Cabilao and Ornopia. Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista, NABCOR-SDPFFI 08-09-3572, 09-05- 29,100,000 Tuason, Relampagos, 1751 Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Javellana, Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo, Janet Napoles, Jo Napoles, James Napoles, Eulogio Rodriguez, De Leon, Lim, Ramirez, Cabilao and Macha. Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista, NABCOR-MAMFI 09-05-1773, 09-06- 24,250,000 Tuason, Relampagos, 2025 Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Javellana, Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo, Janet Napoles, Jo Napoles, James Napoles, Eulogio Rodriguez, De Leon, Lim, Ramirez, Cabilao and Ornopia. Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista, NABCOR-SDPFFI 09-05-1774, 09-06- 24,250,000 Tuason, Relampagos, 2022 Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Javellana, Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo, Janet Napoles, Jo Napoles, James Napoles, Eulogio Rodriguez, De Leon, Lim, Ramirez, Cabilao and Macha. Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista, NABCOR-MAMFI 09-05-1767, 09-06- 14,550,000 Tuason, Relampagos, 2028 Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Javellana, Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo, Janet Napoles, Jo Napoles, James Napoles, Eulogio Rodriguez, De Leon, Lim, Ramirez, Cabilao and Ornopia. Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista, NABCOR-SDPFFI 09-06-1825, 09-06- 9,700,000 Tuason, Relampagos, 2027 Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Javellana, Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo, Janet Napoles, Jo Napoles, James Napoles, Eulogio Rodriguez, De
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======85
Leon, Lim, Ramirez, Cabilao and Macha.
Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista, NLDC-CARED 09-10-1530 8,000,000 Tuason, Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Amata, Sevidal, Ordoñez, Filipina Rodriguez, Cruz, Jalandoni, Janet Napoles, Jo Napoles, James Napoles, Eulogio Rodriguez, De Leon, Lim, Ramirez, Cabilao, Fernando, Palama, De Asis and Encarnacion. Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista, NLDC-MAMFI 09-09-1355, 09-10- 20,000,000 Tuason, Relampagos, 1443, 09-10-1534 Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Amata, Sevidal, Ordoñez, Filipina Rodriguez, Cruz, Jalandoni, Janet Napoles, Jo Napoles, James Napoles, Eulogio Rodriguez, De Leon, Lim, Ramirez, Cabilao and Ornopia. 09-12-1834, 10-01- Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista, NLDC-CARED 0004, 10-01-0118, 10- 44,000,000 Tuason, Relampagos, 05-0747 Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Amata, Sevidal, Ordoñez, Filipina Rodriguez, Cruz, Jalandoni, Janet Napoles, Jo Napoles, James Napoles, Eulogio Rodriguez, De Leon, Lim, Ramirez, Cabilao, Fernando, Palama, De Asis and Encarnacion. Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista, NLDC-AEPFFI 09-091353, 09-10- 25,000,000 Tuason, Relampagos, 1444, 09-10-1540 Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Amata, Sevidal, Ordoñez, Filipina Rodriguez, Cruz, Jalandoni, Janet Napoles, Jo Napoles, James Napoles, Eulogio Rodriguez, De Leon, Lim, Ramirez, Cabilao, Ogerio and Guadinez. Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista, NLDC-APMFI 09-09-1358, 09-10- 25,000,000 Tuason, Relampagos, 1449,09-10-1535 Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Amata, Sevidal, Ordoñez, Filipina Rodriguez, Cruz, Jalandoni, Janet Napoles,
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======86
Jo Napoles, James Napoles, Eulogio Rodriguez, De Leon, Lim, Ramirez, Cabilao, Pioranto, Fabian, Ditchon, Galay and Uy. Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista, NLDC-CARED 09-09-1354, 09-10- 32,000,000 Tuason, Relampagos, 1447 Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Amata, Sevidal, Ordoñez, Filipina Rodriguez, Cruz, Jalandoni, Janet Napoles, Jo Napoles, James Napoles, Eulogio Rodriguez, De Leon, Lim, Ramirez, Cabilao, Fernando, Palama, De Asis and Encarnacion.
Probable cause for Plunder exists.
Plunder is defined and penalized under Section 2 of RA
No. 7080,155 as amended:
Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. - Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d)156 hereof in the aggregate amount
155 Republic Act No. 7080, July 12, 1991, as amended by R.A 7659, December 13, 1993. 156 Section 1 (d) of the same statute stated in Section 2 above reads: d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:
1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned;
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or -controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======87
or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State.
As laid down in Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan,157 the elements of Plunder are:
1. That the offender is a public officer who acts by
himself or in connivance with members of his family,
relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business
associates, subordinates or other persons;
2. That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten
wealth through a combination or series of the following
overt or criminal acts:
4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or
6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
157 G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======88
(a) through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
(b) by receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback or any other form of pecuniary benefits from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer;
(c) by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of Government owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries;
(d) by obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
(e) by establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or
(f) by taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines; and,
3. That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten
wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired is at least
P50,000,000.00.158 (emphasis supplied)
158 The terms “combination,” “series,” and “pattern” were likewise defined in Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, supra, as follows:
Thus when the Plunder Law speaks of "combination," it is referring to at least two (2) acts falling under different categories of enumeration provided in Sec. 1, par. (d), e.g., raids on the public treasury in Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1), and fraudulent conveyance of assets belonging to the National Government under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (3).
On the other hand, to constitute a "series" there must be two (2) or more overt or criminal acts falling under the same category of enumeration found in Sec. 1, par. (d), say, misappropriation, malversation and raids on the public treasury, all of which fall under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1). Verily, had the legislature intended a technical or distinctive meaning for "combination" and "series," it would have taken greater pains in specifically providing for it in the law.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======89
The presence of the foregoing elements has been sufficiently established.
First, it is undisputed that Senator Enrile was a public officer at the time material to the charges.159
Second, he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill- gotten wealth.
As disclosed by the evidence, he repeatedly received sums of money from Napoles for indorsing her NGOs160 to implement the projects to be funded by his PDAF. Senator
Enrile, through his authorized representative Reyes, agreed to transact his PDAF with Napoles who acted through Tuason.161
As for "pattern," we agree with the observations of the Sandiganbayan 9 that this term is sufficiently defined in Sec. 4, in relation to Sec. 1, par. (d), and Sec. 2 —
“. . . . under Sec. 1 (d) of the law, a 'pattern' consists of at least a combination or series of overt or criminal acts enumerated in subsections (1) to (6) of Sec. 1 (d). Secondly, pursuant to Sec. 2 of the law, the pattern of overt or criminal acts is directed towards a common purpose or goal which is to enable the public officer to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. And thirdly, there must either be an 'overall unlawful scheme' or 'conspiracy' to achieve said common goal. As commonly understood, the term 'overall unlawful scheme' indicates a 'general plan of action or method' which the principal accused and public officer and others conniving with him, follow to achieve the aforesaid common goal. In the alternative, if there is no such overall scheme or where the schemes or methods used by multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of a conspiracy to attain a common goal.”
159 He was a Senator from 2004 to 2010 and was reelected in 2010; his term ends in 2016. 160 To repeat, these NGOs were MAMFI, POPDF, PSDFI, AMPFI, CARED, PASEDFI, SDPFFI, AEPPF and KPMFI. 161 As narrated by Tuason, who admitted having acted as a liaison between private respondent Janet Napoles and the office of respondent Enrile:
Napoles, through respondent Tuason, initially approached Reyes regarding a “business proposition” relating to respondent Enrile’s PDAF; and Reyes, who had Enrile’s full confidence, accepted Napoles’ proposition to transact the PDAF of Senator Enrile with Janet Napoles.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======90
As outlined by witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas, which was corroborated by Tuason: once a PDAF allocation becomes available to Senator Enrile, his staff, in the person of either respondent Reyes or Evangelista, would inform Tuason of this development. Tuason, in turn, would relay the information to either Napoles or Luy. Napoles or Luy would then prepare a listing162 of the projects available where Luy would specifically indicate the implementing agencies. This listing would be sent to Reyes who would then endorse it to the DBM under her authority as Chief-of-Staff of Senator Enrile. After the listing is released by the Office of Senator Enrile to the DBM, Janet
Napoles would give Tuason a down payment for delivery to Senator Enrile through Reyes. After the SARO and/or
NCA is released, Napoles would give Tuason the full payment for delivery to Senator Enrile through Atty. Gigi
Reyes.
It bears noting that money was paid and delivered to
Senator Enrile even before the SARO and/or NCA is released. Napoles would advance Senator Enrile’s down payment from her own pockets upon the mere release by his
Office of the listing of projects to the DBM, with the remainder
162 This “listing” is a letter from the legislator containing a program or list of implementing agencies and the amount of PDAF to be released as to guide the DBM in its preparation and release of the corresponding SARO. This is also a formal request of the legislator to the DBM for the release of his or her PDAF.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======91 of the amount payable to be given after the SARO representing the legislator’s PDAF allocation was released by the DBM and a copy of the SARO forwarded to Napoles.
Significantly, after the DBM issues the SARO, Senator
Enrile, through his staff members Reyes or Evangelista, would then write another letter addressed to the IAs which would identify and indorse Napoles’ NGOs as his preferred NGO to undertake the PDAF-funded project,163 thereby effectively designating in writing the Napoles-affiliated NGO to implement projects funded by his PDAF. Along with the other PDAF documents, the indorsement letter of Senator Enrile is transmitted to the IA, which, in turn, handles the preparation of the MOA concerning the project, to be entered into by the
Senator’s Office, the IA and the chosen NGO.
As previously discussed, such indorsements enabled
Napoles to gain access164 to substantial sums of public funds.
163 Upon receipt of the SARO, respondent Janet Napoles would direct her staff, then including witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas, to prepare the PDAF documents for the approval of the legislator and reflecting the preferred NGO to implement the undertaking, including: (a) project proposals by the identified NGO/s; and (b) indorsement letters to be signed by the legislator and/or his staff.
Enrile’s trusted staff, Reyes and Evangelista, then signed the indorsement letters and other communications relating to the PDAF disbursements addressed to the DBM and the implementing agencies (NABCOR, TRC and NLDC). They also participated in the preparation and execution of memoranda of agreement with the NGO and the implementing agency, inspection and acceptance reports, disbursement reports and other PDAF documents.
164After indorsement by Senator Enrile and processing by the implementing agencies, the projects are authorized as eligible under the DBM's menu for pork barrel allocations; Napoles, through her employees, would then follow up the release of the NCA with the DBM. After the DBM releases the NCA to the
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======92
The collective acts of Senator Enrile, Napoles, et al. allowed the illegal diversion of public funds to their own personal use.
It cannot be gainsaid that the sums of money received by
Senator Enrile amount to “kickbacks” or “commissions” from a government project within the purview of Sec. 1 (d) (2)165 of RA
7080. He repeatedly received commissions, percentage or kickbacks, representing his share in the project cost allocated from his PDAF, from Napoles or her employees or cohorts in exchange for his indorsement of Napoles’s NGOs to implement his PDAF-funded projects.
Worse, the evidence indicates that he took undue advantage of his official position, authority and influence to unjustly enrich himself at the expense, and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the
implementing agency concerned, the latter would expedite the processing of the transaction and the release of the corresponding check representing the PDAF disbursement.
Once the funds are deposited in the NGO’s account, respondent Janet Napoles would then call the bank to facilitate the withdrawal thereof. Her staff would then withdraw the funds involved and remit the same to her, thus placing said amount under Napoles’ full control and possession.
From her 50% share, Napoles then remits a portion (around 10%) thereof to officials of the implementing agencies who facilitated the transaction as well as those who served as her liaison with the legislator’s office.
165 Section 1. Definition of terms. - As used in this Act, the term:
d. "Ill-gotten wealth" means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Section two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned;
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======93
Philippines, within the purview of Sec. 1 (d) (6) of RA 7080.166
He used and took undue advantage of his official position, authority and influence as a Senator of the Republic of the
Philippines to access his PDAF and illegally divert the allocations to the possession and control of Napoles and her cohorts, in exchange for commissions, kickbacks, percentages from the PDAF allocations.
Undue pressure and influence from Senator Enrile’s
Office, as well as his indorsement of Napoles’ NGOs, were brought to bear upon the public officers and employees of the
IAs.
Figura, an officer from TRC, claimed that the TRC management told him: “legislators highly recommended certain
NGOs/Foundations as conduit implementors and since PDAFs are their discretionary funds, they have the prerogative to choose their NGO’s”; and the TRC management warned him that “if TRC would disregard it (choice of NGO), they (legislators) would feel insulted and would simply take away their PDAF
166 Section 1. Definition of terms. - As used in this Act, the term:
d. "Ill-gotten wealth" means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Section two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:
6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======94 from TRC, and TRC losses (sic) the chance to earn service fees.”
Figura claimed that he tried his best to resist the pressure exerted on him and did his best to perform his duties faithfully; [but] he and other low-ranking TRC officials had no power to “simply disregard the wishes of Senator
Enrile,” especially on the matter of disregarding public bidding for the PDAF projects.167
Cunanan,168 another public officer from the TRC, narrates that he met Napoles sometime in 2006 or 2007, who
“introduced herself as the representative of certain legislators who supposedly picked TRC as a conduit for PDAF-funded projects;” at the same occasion, Napoles told him that “her principals were then Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile,
Senators Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr., Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito
Estrada;” in the course of his duties, he “often ended up taking and/or making telephone verifications and follow-ups and receiving legislators or their staff members;” during his telephone verifications, he was able to speak with Reyes, who was acting in behalf of her superior, public respondent Enrile; Reyes confirmed to him that she and public respondent Evangelista “were duly authorized by respondent Enrile” to facilitate his PDAF projects and she
167 Counter-Affidavit dated 8 January 2014. 168 Counter-Affidavit dated 20 February 2014.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======95 also affirmed to him that the signatures appearing in communications sent to TRC were, indeed, hers and
Evangelista’s; and he occasionally met with witness Luy, who pressured him into expediting the release of the funds by calling the offices of the legislators.
NLDC’s Amata also mentioned about undue pressure surrounding the designation of NLDC as one of the IAs for
PDAF.169 Her fellow NLDC employee, Buenaventura170 adds that in accordance with her functions, she “checked and verified the endorsement letters of Senator Enrile, which designated the NGOs that would implement his PDAF projects and found them to be valid and authentic;” she confirmed the authenticity of the authorization given by
Enrile to his subordinates regarding the monitoring, supervision and implementation of PDAF projects; and her evaluation and verification reports were accurate.
Another NLDC officer, Sevidal,171 claimed that Senator
Enrile and Napoles, not NLDC employees, who were responsible for the misuse of the PDAF; Senator Enrile, through Reyes and Evangelista, were responsible for
“identifying the projects, determining the project costs
169 Counter-Affidavit dated 20 January 2014. 170 Counter-Affidavit dated 20 January 2014. 171 Counter-Affidavit dated 15 January 2014.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======96 and choosing the NGOs” which were “manifested in the letters of Senator Enrile;” and that he and other NLDC employees were victims of the “political climate,” “bullied into submission by the lawmakers.”
NLDC’s Ordoñez172 claimed that as far as she was concerned, she and her co-respondents, “lowly Government employees who were dictated upon,” were victims, “bullied into submission by the lawmakers;” and she performed her duties in good faith and was “not in a position to negate or defy these actions of the Lawmakers, DBM and the NLDC
Board of Trustees.”
The corroborative evidence evinces that Senator Enrile used and took undue advantage of his official position, authority and influence as a Senator to unjustly enrich himself at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the
Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
The PDAF was allocated to Senator Enrile by virtue of his position, hence, he exercised control in the selection of his priority projects and programs. He indorsed Napoles’ NGOs in consideration for the remittance of kickbacks and commissions from Napoles. These circumstances were
172 Counter-Affidavit dated 27 January 2014.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======97 compounded by the fact that the PDAF-funded projects were
“ghost projects” and that the rest of the PDAF allocation went into the pockets of Napoles and her cohorts. Undeniably,
Senator Enrile unjustly enriched himself at the expense, and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the
Republic of the Philippines.
Third, the amounts received by Senator Enrile through kickbacks and commissions, amounted to more than Fifty
Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00).
Witness Luy’s ledger173 shows, among others, that Senator
Enrile received the following amounts as and by way of kickbacks and commissions:
Year Sums received by Senator Enrile 2004 PhP 1,500,000.00 2005 PhP 14,622,000.00 2006 PhP 13,300,000.00 2007 PhP 27,112,500.00 2008 PhP 62,550,000.00 2009 PhP 23,750,000.00 2010 PhP 30,000,00.00 Total: Php 172,834,500.00
The aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired by Senator Enrile stands at PhP172,834,500.00, at the very least.174
173 See the Business Ledgers attached to Luy, Suñas, Gertrudes Luy, Batal-Macalintal, Abundo and Lingo’s Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 11 September 2013.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======98
The sums were received by the Senator through his Chief of Staff, Reyes, as earlier discussed.
Napoles provided these kickbacks and commissions.
Witnesses Luy and Suñas, and even Tuason, stated that
Napoles was assisted in delivering the kickbacks and commissions by her employees and cohorts, namely: John
Raymund de Asis,175 Ronald John Lim176 and Tuason.
Senator Enrile’s commission of the acts covered by
Section 1 (d) (2) and Section 1 (d) (6) of R.A. No. 7080 repeatedly took place over the years 2004 to 2010. This shows a pattern – a combination or series of overt or criminal acts – directed towards a common purpose or goal which is to enable the Senator to enrich himself illegally.
Senator Enrile, taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence as a
Senator acted, in connivance with his subordinate and duly
174 It is ncdoted that Luy and Suñas claimed that the total commissions received by Senator Enrile was PhP363,276,000.00, representing 50% of PhP726,550,000.00 of Enrile’s PDAF allocations. However, Luy was only able to record in his ledger the aggregate amount PhP 172,834,500.00. He explained that sometimes transactions are not recorded in his ledger because Napoles herself personally delivers the commissions to the legislators or their representatives outside the JLN Corporation office. Hence, there are no signed vouchers presented to him (Luy); nevertheless, in these cases, Napoles merely informs him that the lawmaker’s commission has been paid completely. See Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 11 September 2013, Records, p. 8, OMB-C-C-13-0318. 175 According to witnesses Luy and Suñas: De Asis and Lim, along with witnesses Luy and Suñas, prepares the money to be delivered to the legislators and/or their representatives. See p.3 of Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 11 September 2013, Records, (OMB-C-C-13-0318). 176 According to witnesses Luy and Suñas: De Asis and Lim, along with witnesses Luy and Suñas, prepares the money to be delivered to the legislators and/or their representatives. See p.3 of Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 11 September 2013, Records, (OMB-C-C-13-0318).
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======99 authorized representative Reyes, to receive commissions and kickbacks for indorsing the Napoles NGOs to implement his
PDAF-funded project, and likewise, in connivance with Napoles assisted by her employees and cohorts Tuason, John
Raymund de Asis, and Ronald John Lim who delivered the kickbacks to him. These acts are linked by the fact that they were plainly geared towards a common goal which was to amass, acquire and accumulate ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least PhP172,834,500.00 for Senator Enrile.
Probable cause therefore exists to indict Senator
Enrile, Reyes, Napoles, Tuason, de Asis and Lim for
Plunder under RA No. 7080.
Conspiracy is established by the evidence presented.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.177
Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found because criminals do not write down their lawless plans and plots.
Nevertheless, the agreement to commit a crime may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the
177 Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======100 offense, or inferred from acts that point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.178
Conspiracy exists among the offenders when their concerted acts show the same purpose or common design, and are united in its execution.179
When there is conspiracy, all those who participated in the commission of the offense are liable as principals, regardless of the extent and character of their participation because the act of one is the act of all.180
As extensively discussed above, the presence of conspiracy among respondents Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista, Javellana,
Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo, Ortiz, Cunanan, Jover, Munsod,
Relevo, Mendoza, Amata, Buenaventura, Rodriguez, Sevidal,
Jalandoni, Guañizo, Ordoñez, Cruz, Espiritu, Relampagos,
Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Lacsamana, Tuason, Janet Napoles, Jo
Napoles, James Napoles, De Leon, Pioranto, Lim, Ramirez,
Cabilao, Ogerio, Fabian, Ditchon, Galay, Uy, Fernando, De
Asis, Encarnacion, Palama, Ornopia, Castillo and Macha is manifest.
178 People v. Hapa, G.R. No. 125698, July 19, 2001, 361 SCRA 361. 179 People v. Olazo and Angelio, G.R. No. 197540, February 27, 2012, citing People v. Bi-Ay, Jr., G.R. No. 192187, December 13, 2010, 637 SCRA 828, 836. 180 People v. Forca, G.R. No. 134938, June 8, 2000.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======101
To be able to repeatedly divert substantial funds from the
PDAF, access thereto must be made available, and this was made possible by Senator Enrile who indorsed NGOs affiliated with or controlled by Napoles to implement his PDAF-related undertakings. Reyes and Evangelista prepared the requisite indorsement letters and similar documentation addressed to the DBM and the IAs which were necessary to ensure that the chosen NGO would be awarded the project.
Relampagos, Paule, Bare and Nuñez, as officers of the
DBM, were in regular contact with Napoles and her staff who persistently followed up the release of the coveted SAROs and
NCAs. It was on account of their persistence that the DBM immediately released the SAROs and NCAs to the concerned
IAs.
In turn, Javellana, Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo, Ortiz,
Cunanan, Jover, Munsod, Relevo, Mendoza, Amata,
Buenaventura, Sevidal, Jalandoni, Guañizo, Ordoñez, Cruz,
Espiritu and Lacsamana, as officers of the IAs, prepared, reviewed and entered into the MOAs governing the implementation of the projects. And they participated in the processing and approval of the PDAF disbursements to the questionable NGOs. The funds in question could not have been transferred to these NGOs if not for their
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======102 certifications, approvals, and signatures found in the corresponding DVs and checks.
Once the fund releases were successfully processed by the
IAs, Jo Napoles, James Napoles, De Leon, Pioranto, Lim,
Ramirez, Cabilao, Ogerio, Fabian, Ditchon, Galay, Uy,
Fernando, De Asis, Encarnacion, Palama, Ornopia, Castillo and Macha, in behalf of the NGOs in question and under the direction of Janet Napoles, would pick up the corresponding checks and deposit them in accounts under the name of the
NGOs. The proceeds of the checks would later be withdrawn from the banks and brought to the offices of Janet Napoles, who would then proceed to exercise full control and possession over the funds.
Jo Napoles, James Napoles, De Leon, Pioranto, Lim,
Ramirez, Cabilao, Ogerio, Fabian, Ditchon, Galay, Uy,
Fernando, De Asis, Encarnacion, Palama, Ornopia, Castillo and Macha, again on orders of Janet Napoles, would prepare the fictitious beneficiaries list and other similar documents for liquidation purposes, to make it appear that the projects were implemented.
For their participation in the above-described scheme,
Senator Enrile, Javellana, Cunanan, Amata, Buenaventura
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======103 and Sevidal were rewarded with portions of the PDAF disbursements from Napoles. Senator Enrile’s share or commission was coursed by Napoles through Tuason who, in turn, delivered the same to and received by Reyes.
ALL TOLD, there is a cohesion and interconnection in the above-named respondents’ intent and purpose that cannot be logically interpreted other than to mean the attainment of the same end that runs through the entire gamut of acts they perpetrated separately. The role played by each of them was so indispensable to the success of their scheme that, without any of them, the same would have failed.
There is no evidence showing that the signatures of respondents Enrile, Reyes or Evangelista in the PDAF documents were forged.
Reyes and Evangelista argue that the signatures appearing in the letters, MOAs, liquidation reports and similar
PDAF documents attributed to them and Senator Enrile are mere forgeries. They deny having signed these documents and disclaim any participation in the preparation and execution thereof.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======104
In support of her claim, Reyes submitted an Affidavit dated 6 December 2013 executed by Rogelio G. Azores
(Azores), who claims to be a former NBI document examiner and now works as a freelance consultant, and who represents himself to be an expert in the examination of documents “to determine their authenticity and the genuineness of signatures appearing thereon.”
Azores stated that his services were engaged by Reyes to
“determine whether or not the signatures of Ms. Reyes appearing in certain documents were her true and genuine signatures;” in the course of his engagement, he gathered samples of Reyes’ signatures appearing in several documents she signed during her tenure as Enrile’s chief-of-staff; he compared these sample signatures with the signatures appearing in the PDAF documents which are attributed to
Reyes; based on his examination, there were “significant differences in habit handwriting characteristics existing between the questioned signatures of ‘Atty. Jessica Lucila G.
Reyes’ on one hand, and the standard signatures of Atty.
Jessica Lucila G. Reyes on the other hand;” and in his opinion, the signatures allegedly belonging to Reyes and appearing in the PDAF documents are forgeries.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======105
Respondents Reyes and Evangelista’s claim fails to convince.
Forgery is not presumed; it must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.181
It bears stressing that Senator Enrile, in his Letter dated
21 March 2012,182 confirmed to the COA that: (a) he authorized respondents Reyes and Evangelista to sign letters,
MOAs and other PDAF documents in his behalf; and (b) the signatures appearing in the PDAF documents as belonging to respondents Reyes and Evangelista are authentic. The pertinent portion of the Senator’s letter reads:
I confirm that Atty. Jessica L. G. Reyes, Chief of Staff, Office of the Senate President, and Mr. Jose A. V. Evangelista II, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the Senate President, have been authorized to sign pertinent documents to ensure the proper implementation of such livelihood projects subjects to pertinent government accounting and auditing laws, rules and regulations. The signatures appearing in the documents enumerated are those of my authorized representatives. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
It bears noting at this juncture that the Senator has not disclaimed authorship of the 21 March 2012 letter. That the
Senator readily authenticated Reyes and Evangelista’s
181 JN Development Corporation v. Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation, G.R. No. 151060 and Cruz v. Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation, G.R. No. 151311, August 31, 2005, 468 SCRA 555, 569-570. 182 Records, p. 1073, OMB-C-C-13-0318.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======106 signatures is not difficult to understand, the two having been members of his confidential staff for many years.
Nonetheless, Reyes and Evangelista strongly deny having signed the PDAF documents and insist that they did not participate in the preparation or execution thereof. Mere denial is insufficient, however, to disprove the authenticity of their signatures appearing in the PDAF documents.183 This holds true especially in Evangelista’s case. The MOAs bearing his questioned signatures are notarized documents that enjoy the presumption of regularity and can be overturned only by clear and convincing evidence.184
Besides, respondent Evangelista, in his Letter dated 2
August 2012185 to the COA, admitted the authenticity of his signatures appearing in the PDAF documents, save for those found in documents relating to PDAF disbursements of another legislator. His letter reads, in part:
As confirmed in the letter of the Senate President dated 21 March 2012, Atty. Jessica L. G. Reyes, Chief of Staff, Office of the Senate President, and I have been authorized to sign pertinent documents to ensure the proper implementation of livelihood projects subject to pertinent government accounting and auditing laws, rules and regulations.
183 Supra, JN Development Corporation v. Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation. Also Ladignon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122973, July 18, 2000. 184 Delfin, et al. v. Billones, et al., G.R. No. 146550, March 17, 2006. 185 Records, p. 1075, OMB-C-C-13-0318.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======107
However, please be informed that the subject signatures on the following documents submitted regarding the livelihood projects implemented by the 3rd District of Davao City (in the total amount of P15 Million Pesos released to the National Agribusiness Corporation on 9 July 2009 as requested by former Rep. Ruy Elias Lopez) are not my signatures:
a) Certificate of Acceptance dated 4 May 2010 (Annex 16) b) List of Beneficiaries by Barangay (Annex 17) (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Regarding affiant Azores’ assertion that the signatures of
Reyes in the PDAF documents were forgeries because they and
Reyes’ standard signatures had “significant differences in habit handwriting characteristics,” the same deserves scant consideration.
Mere variance of the signatures in different documents cannot be considered as conclusive proof that one is forged. As
Rivera v. Turiano186 teaches:
This Court has held that an allegation of forgery and a perfunctory comparison of the signatures by themselves cannot support the claim of forgery, as forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof lies in the party alleging forgery. Even in cases where the alleged forged signature was compared to samples of genuine signatures to show its variance therefrom, this Court still found such evidence insufficient. It must be stressed that the mere variance of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same were forged. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Moreover, the observations of affiant Azores in his Affidavit and Examination Report dated 10 October 2013 do not meet
186 G.R. No. 156249, March 7, 2007.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======108 the criteria for identification of forgery as enunciated in
Ladignon v. Court of Appeals:187
The process of identification, therefore, must include the determination of the extent, kind, and significance of this resemblance as well as of the variation. It then becomes necessary to determine whether the variation is due to the operation of a different personality, or is only the expected and inevitable variation found in the genuine writing of the same writer. It is also necessary to decide whether the resemblance is the result of a more or less skillful imitation, or is the habitual and characteristic resemblance which naturally appears in a genuine writing. When these two questions are correctly answered the whole problem of identification is solved. (underlining supplied)
In his Affidavit and Examination Report, affiant Azores simply concluded that the signatures in the PDAF documents and Reyes’ sample signatures “were not written by one and the same person.”
AT ALL EVENTS, this Office, after a prima facie comparison with the naked eyes of the members of the Panel of Investigators between the signatures appearing in the PDAF documents that are attributed to respondents Senator Enrile,
Reyes and Evangelista and their signatures found in their respective counter-affidavits, opines that both sets of signatures appear to have been affixed by one and the same respective hands.188 In the absence of clear and convincing evidence, this Office thus finds that the questioned signatures
187 G.R. No. 122973. July 18, 2000. 188 Vide Fernando v. Fernando, G.R. No. 191889, January 31, 2011.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======109 on the relevant documents belong to respondents Enrile,
Reyes and Evangelista.
The Arias doctrine is not applicable to these proceedings.
Javellana argues that he cannot be held accountable for approving the PDAF releases pertaining to those projects assigned to NABCOR because he only issued such approval after his subordinates, namely, respondents Mendoza, Cacal,
Relevo and other NABCOR officials involved in the processing and/or implementation of PDAF-funded projects, examined the supporting documents, assured him of the availability of funds and recommended the approval of the disbursements.
Similarly, Cunanan claims that he approved the PDAF releases relating to projects assigned to TRC only after his subordinates at the agency recommended such approval.
Simply put, Javellana and Cunanan invoke the ruling in
Arias v. Sandiganbayan.189 Reliance thereon is misplaced.
Arias squarely applies in cases where, in the performance of his official duties, the head of an office is being held to answer for his act of relying on the acts of his subordinate:
189 259 Phil. 794 (1989).
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======110
We would be setting a bad precedent if a head of office plagued by all too common problems - dishonest or negligent subordinates, overwork, multiple assignments or positions, or plain incompetence - is suddenly swept into a conspiracy conviction simply because he did not personally examine every single detail, painstakingly trace every step from inception, and investigate the motives of every person involved in a transaction before affixing his signature as the final approving authority.
x x x
We can, in retrospect, argue that Arias should have probed records, inspected documents, received procedures, and questioned persons. It is doubtful if any auditor for a fairly sized office could personally do all these things in all vouchers presented for his signature. The Court would be asking for the impossible. All heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and on the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations. x x x There has to be some added reason why he should examine each voucher in such detail. Any executive head of even small government agencies or commissions can attest to the volume of papers that must be signed. There are hundreds of documents, letters, memoranda, vouchers, and supporting papers that routinely pass through his hands. The number in bigger offices or departments is even more appalling.
There should be other grounds than the mere signature or approval appearing on a voucher to sustain a conspiracy charge and conviction.190 (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
The above pronouncement readily shows that the Arias doctrine does not help the cause of Javellana and Cunanan.
First, the Arias doctrine applies only if it is undisputed that the head of the agency was the last person to sign the vouchers, which would show that he was merely relying on the prior certifications and recommendations of his subordinates.
It will not apply if there is evidence showing that the head of
190 Ibid.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======111 agency, before a recommendation or certification can be made by a superior, performs any act that would signify his approval of the transaction. In other words, the Arias doctrine is inapplicable in cases where it is the head of agency himself or herself who influences, pressures, coerces or otherwise convinces the subordinate to sign the voucher or recommend the approval of the transaction.
In Javellana’s case, Cacal stated in his Counter-Affidavit that he signed the disbursement vouchers pertaining to PDAF disbursements because Javellana directed him to do so. In support of his claim, Cacal submitted a document entitled
“Authorization” issued and signed by respondent Javellana which states:
In order to facilitate processing of payments and in the exigency of the service, MR. VICTOR ROMAN CACAL, Paralegal, this Office is hereby authorized to sign BOX A of the Disbursement Vouchers of all transactions related to PDAF Project.
This authorization takes effect starting August 20, 2008. (underscoring supplied)
Cacal, in his Supplemental Affidavit, also claimed that
Javellana, among others, already signed the checks and other documents even before he (Cacal) could sign Box “A” of the disbursement vouchers:
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======112
15. In most instances, Boxes “B” and “C” were already signed wherein the herein Respondent was required to sing (sic) Box “A” of the Disbursement Vouchers. Most of the times the Box “B” and/or Box “C” of the Disbursement Vouchers were already signed ahead by Niñez Guanizo and/or Rhodora B. Mendoza and ALAN A. JAVELLANA respectively.
16. In other instances, the checks for PDAF releases were already prepared and signed by NABCOR President ALAN A. JAVELLANA and VP for Finance RHODORA B. MENDOZA attached to the Disbursement Voucher before the herein Respondent were made signs Box “A” of the said Disbursement Vouchers. This indicative of the target5 (sic) Municipalities and immediately stern instructions of herein Respondent’s superiors to sign the Disbursement Voucher immediately for reasons that it is being followed up by the concerned NGO. Furthermore, the herein Respondent relied on the duly executed Memorandum of Agreement by and between NABCOR, NGO and the Office of the Legislator. According to the said MOA, initial release of funds will be undertaken by NABCOR upon signing thereof. Hence, payment and/or release of fund to the NGO became a lawful obligation of NABCOR.
x x x
18. On many instances, sternly ordered [sic] the NABCOR VP for Admin. and Finance RHODORA B. MENDOZA to herein Respondent to immediately sign Box “A” of the Disbursement Voucher even if the NGOs have not yet complied with the other documentary requirements to be attached to the said Disbursement Voucher on the basis on [sic] the commitment of the NGO to submit the other required documents (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Cacal added that he was constrained to sign the disbursement vouchers due to pressure exerted by his superiors:
19. … In many instances wherein the Respondent questioned the attachments/documents in the said vouchers regarding the disbursements of the PDAF of legislators the respondent was herein threatened and/or coerced by his superiors. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======113
Since the subordinate himself vehemently disputes having recommended the approval of the fund release to his superior, this Office in not inclined to apply the Arias doctrine. Note that the Arias doctrine is only applied in cases where it is undisputed that the recommendation of the subordinate preceded the superior’s approval, and not in situations where it is the superior who persuades or pressures the subordinate to favorably recommend approval.
Second, the Arias doctrine, even assuming that it is applicable, does not ipso facto free the heads of agencies from criminal, civil or administrative liability. The ruling merely holds that the head of agency cannot be deemed to be a co- conspirator in a criminal offense simply because he signed and/or approved a voucher or document that facilitated the release of public funds.191
In the present cases, the liability of Javellana and
Cunanan is not based solely on their approval of the vouchers and other papers relating to PDAF projects implemented by
NABCOR and/or TRC, but on their own overt acts showing their undue interest in the release of PDAF funds. In short,
Javellana and Cunanan’s actions indicate that they wanted the
191 Vide Jaca v. People, Gaviosa v. People, Cesa v. People, G.R. Nos 166967, 166974 and 167167, January 28, 2013.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======114 funds released as soon as possible, regardless of whether applicable laws or rules governing the disbursements had been observed or complied with.
As discussed above, Javellana’s own subordinate stated that the latter actually pre-signed the checks pertaining to
PDAF releases even before the DVs were duly accomplished and signed.
Figura declared in his Counter-Affidavit that Cunanan constantly followed up with him (Figura) the expedited processing of PDAF documents:
b) In the course of my review of PDAF documents, DDG Dennis L. Cunanan would frequently personally follow up in my office the review of the MOA or my signature on the checks. He would come down to my office in the third floor and tell me that he had a dinner meeting with the First Gentleman and some legislators so much that he requested me to fast track processing of the PDAF papers. Though I hate name- dropping, I did not show any disrespect to him but instead told him that if the papers are in order, I would release them before the end of working hours of the same day. This was done by DDG many times, but I stood my ground when the papers on PDAF he’s following up had deficiencies x x x (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Likewise, witness Luy in his Sworn Statement dated 12
September 2013192 stated that Javellana and Cunanan were among those he saw receive a percentage of the diverted PDAF sums from Napoles:
192 Records, p. 392, OMB-C-C-13-0318.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======115
126. T: May nabanggit ka na may 10% na napupunta sa president o head ng agency, sino itong tinutokoy mo? S: Ang alam ko nakita kong tumanggap ay sila ALLAN JAVELLANA ng NABCOR, DENNIS CUNANAN at ANTONIO Y. ORTIZ ng TRC…. emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Furthermore, this Office takes note of the fact that witness Luy, during the legislative inquiry conducted by the
Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations (the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee) on 7
November 2014, testified that he personally knew Javellana as among those who benefited from Napoles for his role in the
PDAF releases, viz:
Luy said he saw Napoles giving money to officials of implementing agencies at her office.
“When Ms. Napoles gives the instruction to prepare the money and their 10-percent commission, I will so prepare it. I will type the voucher and have it checked by my seniors or by her daughter Jo Christine,” Luy said. “I will bring the money to her office and there are instances when she and I will meet the person and give the money contained in a paper bag.”
Luy said he saw Alan Javellana, a former president of the National Agribusiness Corp., and Antonio Ortiz, former head of the Technology Resource Center, receive their respective payoffs.193 (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
On 6 March 2014, witness Luy again testified before the
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee that Cunanan was among those who received undue benefits from the PDAF scam through kickbacks given by Napoles:
193 Norman Bordadora and TJ Burgonio, “Benhur Luy upstages Napoles in Senate hearing,” electronically published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer at its website located at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/522831/benhur-luy-upstages-napoles-in-senate-hearing#ixzz2wqP0PnoP on November 8, 20
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======116
The principal whistleblower in the pork barrel scam Benhur Luy said Thursday that Dennis Cunanan, the former chief of the Technology Resource Center who wants to turn state witness, personally received P960,000 in kickbacks from Janet Lim Napoles, contrary to his claims.
In the continuation of the Blue Ribbon Committee hearings on the pork barrel scam, Luy said he personally saw Cunanan carrying a bagful of money after meeting Napoles at the JLN Corp. office at the Discovery Suites in Ortigas, Pasig City.
Luy said he was instructed by Napoles to prepare the P960,000 intended for Cunanan, representing his commission for the pork barrel coursed through the TRC. He then handed the money to his co-worker, Evelyn De Leon, who was present at the meeting room with Napoles and Cunanan.
“When Dencu (referring to Dennis Cunanan) emerged out of the conference room, I saw him carrying the paper bag,” Luy said. Asked if he saw Cunanan receive the money, Luy answered: “After the meeting, I saw the paper bag. He was carrying it.” (emphasis, underscoring and italics supplied)194
The immediately-quoted chronicle of the testimonies of Luy indubitably indicates that respondents Javellana and Cunanan did not approve the PDAF releases because they relied on the recommendation of their subordinates; rather, they themselves wanted the funds released of their own volition.
IN FINE, this Office holds that the Arias doctrine is not applicable to the heads of agencies impleaded in these proceedings including Javellana and Cunanan.
194 Macon Ramos-Araneta, “Cunanan got pork cuts,” electronically published by Manila Standard Today at its website located at http://manilastandardtoday.com/2014/03/07/-cunanan-got-pork-cuts-i-saw-him-carry- bag-with-p-9m-benhur/ last March 7, 2014 and last accessed on 24 March 2014.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======117
There is no probable cause to indict public respondent Montuya.
Montuya, an Accounting Assistant at NABCOR, is impleaded for allegedly preparing the inspection reports pertaining to livelihood projects funded by PDAF and covered by SARO Nos. ROCS-08-0516,195 ROCS-08-07211196 and
ROCS-08-00804.197 She, however, denies having participated in the misuse of the PDAF and insists that she actually did conduct physical inspections of the agricultural packages at warehouses and prepared the corresponding reports. She alleges that she was supervised in her inspection by her superior, respondent Mendoza.
This Office finds in favor of Montuya.
The Office takes note that her inspection of the livelihood kits took place after NABCOR released the PDAF disbursements to SDPFFI. In other words, her actions were unrelated, let alone necessary, to NABCOR’s improper transfer of public funds to SDPFFI.
Indeed the Office finds no fault in Montuya’s actions. Her inspection reports simply reflect what she saw during the
195 Records, p. 1836, OMB-C-C-13-0318. 196 Id. at 1914. 197 Id. at 1950.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======118 inspection, i.e., that there were livelihood kits at the Bulacan warehouses where Mendoza brought her. Montuya, in the course of her inspection, was not duty-bound to inquire beyond the existence of the livelihood kits as her job was limited to conducting a physical inspection of the items in question. Mendoza brought her to the Bulacan warehouses and showed her (Montuya) the livelihood kits subject of the inspection. In fact, she (Mendoza) even co-signed the inspection report in relation to the livelihood project covered by SARO Nos. ROCS-08-0516. She was given instructions by
Mendoza on how to conduct the inspections and prepare the corresponding reports.
In any event, Montuya was under the full supervision and control of her superior Mendoza during the inspections.
Unlike Mendoza, however, there is no evidence indicating that Montuya was unduly interested in the PDAF releases, received any particular benefit therefrom or was involved in
NABCOR’s processing/facilitation of PDAF disbursements to
SDPFFI. The criminal charges against her must thus be dismissed.
There is no probable cause to indict private respondents Oliveros, Talaboc, Agcaoili, Balanoba, Lawas-Yutok,
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======119
Santos, Victorino and Solomon.
Respondents Oliveros, Talaboc, Agcaoili, Balanoba, Lawas-
Yutok and Santos, who were supposed to be notaries public at the time material to the charges, are impleaded in these proceedings for having allegedly allowed Napoles and her staff to use their notarial seals in notarizing MOAs and other similar PDAF documents. Likewise, respondents Victorino and
Solomon were impleaded because they prepared independent auditor’s reports for some of the Napoles-affiliated NGOs which received funds drawn from Senator Enrile’s PDAF.
The criminal charges against the above-named notaries public and certified public accountants must also be dismissed.
As notaries public, Oliveros, Talaboc, Agcaoili, Balanoba,
Lawas-Yutok and Santos’ duty in relation to the notarial act of acknowledgment of public instruments is to make sure that:
(a) the parties acknowledging the instrument personally appear before them at the time of the notarization; and (b) said parties are personally known to them and, for this purpose, require the presentation of competent evidence of identity.198
They are not required to inquire as to the contents of the
198 Rule IV, Section 2 (b) (1) and (2), A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======120 instrument, let alone the motives of the acknowledging parties who executed said document. This Office cannot, therefore, assume that respondents Oliveros, Talaboc, Agcaoili,
Balanoba, Lawas-Yutok and Santos were aware of the contents of the PDAF documents when they notarized the same.
Similarly, respondents Victorino and Solomon were implicated because they prepared the independent auditor’s reports of some of the NGOs used in the diversion of the PDAF.
The preparation of these reports, however, is not directly related to or an act necessary to carrying out the irregular transfer of funds from the IAs to the NGOs involved. There is no indication that either Victorino or Solomon knew that the reports they prepared would be used for nefarious purposes, let alone evidence showing that they were actively involved in the systematic diversion of the PDAF.
Respecting the subject notaries public, even if they, indeed, allowed other persons to use their notarial seals and notarize documents in their names, these acts are not indispensable to the commission of Plunder or violation of
Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. If at all, the acts complained of constitute violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.199
Similarly, any irregularity in the public accountants’
199 A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======121 preparation of the audit reports may render them liable for violation of RA 9298200 or other similar laws or rules.
The criminal charges against respondents Oliveros,
Talaboc, Agcaoili, Balanoba, Lawas-Yutok, Santos, Victorino and Solomon must thus be dismissed for insufficient evidence.
The dismissal of said charges, however, is without prejudice to any action that may be taken against them by the appropriate body or office in relation to any possible violation of the 2004
Rules on Notarial Practice, R.A. No. 9298, or other applicable laws or rules.
Respondents’ defenses are best left to the trial court’s consideration during trial on the merits.
Respondent public officers insist that they were motivated by good faith, and acted in accordance with existing laws and rules, and that the disbursements from the PDAF were all regular and above board.
During preliminary investigation, this Office does not determine if the evidence on record proves the guilt of the person charged beyond reasonable doubt. It merely ascertains
200 Otherwise known as the "Philippine Accountancy Act of 2004."
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======122 whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed; that the respondent charged is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial; and that based on the evidence presented, the Office believes that the respondent’s assailed act constitutes the offense charged.201
Public respondents’ claims of good faith and regularity in their performance of official functions fail.
As earlier reflected, the sworn statements of witnesses, the disbursement vouchers, the indorsed/encashed checks, the
MOAs with NGOs, the written requests, liquidation reports, confirmation letters and other evidence on record indubitably indicate that respondents Senator Enrile, Reyes, Evangelista,
Javellana, Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo, Ortiz, Cunanan, Jover,
Munsod, Relevo, Mendoza, Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal,
Jalandoni, Guañizo, Ordoñez, Cruz, Espiritu, Relampagos,
Nuñez, Paule, Bare and Lacsamana, as well as respondents
Tuason, Janet Napoles, Jo Napoles, James Napoles, De Leon,
Pioranto, Lim, Ramirez, Cabilao, Ogerio, Fabian, Ditchon,
Galay, Uy, Fernando, De Asis, Encarnacion, Palama, Ornopia,
Castillo and Macha, conspired with one another to repeatedly raid the public treasury through what appears to be the
201 Deloso, et al. v. Desierto, et al., G.R. No. 129939, September 9, 1999.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======123 drawing of cash advances from the PDAF allocated to respondent Enrile, albeit for fictitious projects.
Consequently, they must be deemed to have illegally conveyed public funds in the amount of Php345,000,000.00, more or less, to the possession and control of questionable
NGOs affiliated with Napoles, and thereafter allowed Enrile to acquire and amass ill-gotten proceeds through kickbacks in the sum of Php172,834,500.00, which is in excess of
Php50,000,000.00.
At any rate, specifically with respect to Plunder, good faith is neither and element or a defense.
AT ALL EVENTS, respondents Senator Enrile, Reyes,
Evangelista, Javellana, Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo, Ortiz,
Cunanan, Jover, Munsod, Relevo, Mendoza, Amata,
Buenaventura, Sevidal, Jalandoni, Guañizo, Ordoñez, Cruz,
Rodriguez, Espiritu, Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule, Bare and
Lacsamana’s claims of good faith and regularity in the performance of their duties are defenses in violation of R.A.
No. 3019 which are best raised during trial proper. As explained in Deloso v. Desierto:202
202 Supra at note 198.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======124
We agree with public respondents that the existence of good faith or lack of it, as elements of the crimes of malversation and violation of Section 3 (e), R. A. No. 3019, is evidentiary in nature. As a matter of defense, it can be best passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits. (emphasis and italics supplied)
It bears reiterating that, indeed, preliminary investigation is a merely inquisitorial mode of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime.203 It is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties' evidence, including respondents-movants’ respective defenses.204 Precisely there is a trial on the merits for this purpose.
WHEREFORE, this Office, through the undersigned:
(a) FINDS PROBABLE CAUSE to indict for:
[PLUNDER- 1 Count]
i. Juan Ponce Enrile, Jessica Lucila G. Reyes, Ruby
C. Tuason, Janet Lim Napoles, Ronald John Lim
and John Raymund De Asis, acting in concert, for
PLUNDER (Section 2 in relation to Section 1 (d)
[1], [2] and [6] of R. A. No. 7080, as amended), in
203 Paderanga v. Drilon, G. R. No. 96080 April 19, 1991, 196 SCRA 93, 94. 204 Drilon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115825, July 5, 1996.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======125
relation to Enrile’s ill-gotten wealth in the
aggregate sum of Php172,834,500.00,
representing kickbacks or commissions received
by Enrile from Napoles in connection with Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF)-funded
government projects and by reason of his office or
position;
[VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 – 15
Counts]
i. Juan Ponce Enrile, Jessica Lucila G. Reyes, Jose
Antonio V. Evangelista II, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario
L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule,
Marilou Bare, Antonio Y. Ortiz, Dennis L.
Cunanan, Francisco B. Figura, Ma. Rosalinda
Lacsamana, Consuelo Lilian R. Espiritu, Marivic
V. Jover, Janet Lim Napoles, Jo Christine L.
Napoles, James Christopher L. Napoles, Eulogio D.
Rodriguez, Evelyn D. De Leon, Ronald John Lim,
Amparo L. Fernando, Fernando Ramirez, Nitz
Cabilao, Aileen Palama, John Raymund De Asis
and Mylene T. Encarnacion, acting in concert, for
VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======126
in relation to fund releases amounting to
Php20,000,000.00 drawn from Enrile’s PDAF and
coursed through the Technology Resource Center
(TRC) and Countrywide Agri and Rural Economic
and Development Foundation, Inc. (CARED), as
reflected in Disbursement Voucers (DV) No. 01-
2007-040669, 01-2007-040670, 01-2007-040671
and 01-2007-040672;
ii. Juan Ponce Enrile, Jessica Lucila G. Reyes, Jose
Antonio V. Evangelista II, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario
L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule,
Marilou Bare, Antonio Y. Ortiz, Dennis L.
Cunanan, Francisco B. Figura, Ma. Rosalinda
Lacsamana, Consuelo Lilian R. Espiritu, Marivic
V. Jover, Janet Lim Napoles, Jo Christine L.
Napoles, James Christopher L. Napoles, Eulogio D.
Rodriguez, Evelyn D. De Leon, Ronald John Lim,
Amparo L. Fernando, Fernando Ramirez, Nitz
Cabilao, Jocelyn D. Piorato, Dorilyn A. Fabian,
Hernani Ditchon, Rodrigo B. Galay and Laarni A.
Uy, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION
3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases
amounting to Php22,500,000.00 drawn from
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======127
Enrile’s PDAF and coursed through the TRC and
Agricultura Para sa Magbubukid Foundation, Inc.
(APMFI), as reflected in DV No. 01-2009-040929
and 01-2009-051300;
iii. Juan Ponce Enrile, Jessica Lucila G. Reyes, Jose
Antonio V. Evangelista II, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario
L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule,
Marilou Bare, Alan A. Javellana, Rhodora B.
Mendoza, Encarnita Christina P. Munsod, Romulo
Relevo, Maria Julie A. Villaralvo-Johnson, Janet
Lim Napoles, Jo Christine L. Napoles, James
Christopher L. Napoles, Eulogio D. Rodriguez,
Evelyn D. De Leon, Ronald John Lim, Fernando
Ramirez and Nitz Cabilao, acting in concert, for
VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019
in relation to fund releases amounting to
Php24,250,000.00 drawn from Enrile’s PDAF and
coursed through the National Agribusiness
Corporation (NABCOR) and People’s Organization
for Progress and Development Foundation, Inc.
(POPDI), as reflected in DV No. 08-04-01201 and
08-07-02312;
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======128
iv. Juan Ponce Enrile, Jessica Lucila G. Reyes, Jose
Antonio V. Evangelista II, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario
L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule,
Marilou Bare, Alan A. Javellana, Rhodora B.
Mendoza, Victor Roman C. Cacal, Ma. Ninez P.
Guañizo, Janet Lim Napoles, Jo Christine L.
Napoles, James Christopher Napoles, Eulogio D.
Rodriguez, Evelyn D. De Leon, Ronald John Lim,
Fernando Ramirez, Nitz Cabilao and Renato S.
Ornopia, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF
SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to
fund releases amounting to Php19,400,000.00
drawn from Enrile’s PDAF and coursed through
NABCOR and Masaganang Ani Para sa Magsasaka
Foundation, Inc. (MAMFI), as reflected in DV No.
08-09-3575 and 09-04-1622;
v. Juan Ponce Enrile, Jessica Lucila G. Reyes, Jose
Antonio V. Evangelista II, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario
L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule,
Marilou Bare, Alan A. Javellana, Rhodora B.
Mendoza, Victor Roman C. Cacal, Ma. Ninez P.
Guañizo, Janet Lim Napoles, Jo Christine L.
Napoles, James Christopher Napoles, Eulogio D.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======129
Rodriguez, Evelyn D. De Leon, Ronald John Lim,
Fernando Ramirez, Nitz Cabilao and Noel V.
Macha, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF
SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to
fund releases amounting to Php29,100,000.00
drawn from Enrile’s PDAF and coursed through
NABCOR and Social Development Program for
Farmers Foundation, Inc. (SDPFFI), as reflected in
DV No. 08-09-3572 and 09-05-1751;
vi. Juan Ponce Enrile, Jessica Lucila G. Reyes, Jose
Antonio V. Evangelista II, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario
L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule,
Marilou Bare, Alan A. Javellana, Rhodora B.
Mendoza, Victor Roman C. Cacal, Ma. Ninez P.
Guañizo, Janet Lim Napoles, Jo Christine L.
Napoles, James Christopher Napoles, Eulogio D.
Rodriguez, Evelyn D. De Leon, Ronald John Lim,
Fernando Ramirez, Nitz Cabilao and Renato S.
Ornopia, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF
SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to
fund releases amounting to Php24,250,000.00
drawn from Enrile’s PDAF and coursed through
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======130
NABCOR and MAMFI, as reflected in DV No. 09-
05-1773 and 09-06-2025;
vii. Juan Ponce Enrile, Jessica Lucila G. Reyes, Jose
Antonio V. Evangelista II, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario
L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule,
Marilou Bare, Alan A. Javellana, Rhodora B.
Mendoza, Victor Roman C. Cacal, Ma. Ninez P.
Guañizo, Janet Lim Napoles, Jo Christine L.
Napoles, James Christopher Napoles, Eulogio D.
Rodriguez, Evelyn D. De Leon, Ronald John Lim,
Fernando Ramirez, Nitz Cabilao and Noel V.
Macha, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF
SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to
fund releases amounting to Php24,250,000.00
drawn from Enrile’s PDAF and coursed through
NABCOR and SDPFFI, as reflected in DV No. 09-
05-1774 and 09-06-2022;
viii. Juan Ponce Enrile, Jessica Lucila G. Reyes, Jose
Antonio V. Evangelista II, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario
L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule,
Marilou Bare, Alan A. Javellana, Rhodora B.
Mendoza, Victor Roman C. Cacal, Ma. Ninez P.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======131
Guañizo, Janet Lim Napoles, Jo Christine L.
Napoles, James Christopher Napoles, Eulogio D.
Rodriguez, Evelyn D. De Leon, Ronald John Lim,
Fernando Ramirez, Nitz Cabilao and Renato S.
Ornopia, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF
SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to
fund releases amounting to Php14,550,000.00
drawn from Enrile’s PDAF and coursed through
NABCOR and MAMFI, as reflected in DV No. 09-
05-1767 and 09-06-2028;
ix. Juan Ponce Enrile, Jessica Lucila G. Reyes, Jose
Antonio V. Evangelista II, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario
L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule,
Marilou Bare, Alan A. Javellana, Rhodora B.
Mendoza, Victor Roman C. Cacal, Ma. Ninez P.
Guañizo, Janet Lim Napoles, Jo Christine L.
Napoles, James Christopher Napoles, Eulogio D.
Rodriguez, Evelyn D. De Leon, Ronald John Lim,
Fernando Ramirez, Nitz Cabilao and Noel V.
Macha, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF
SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to
fund releases amounting to Php9,700,000.00
drawn from Enrile’s PDAF and coursed through
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======132
NABCOR and SDPFFI, as reflected in DV No. 09-
06-1825 and 09-06-2027;
x. Juan Ponce Enrile, Jessica Lucila G. Reyes, Jose
Antonio V. Evangelista II, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario
L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule,
Marilou Bare, Gondelina G. Amata, Emmanuel
Alexis G. Sevidal, Ofelia E. Ordoñez, Filipina T.
Rodriguez, Sofia D. Cruz, Chita C. Jalandoni,
Janet Lim Napoles, Jo Christine L. Napoles, James
Christopher L. Napoles, Eulogio D. Rodriguez,
Evelyn D. De Leon, Ronald John Lim, Amparo L.
Fernando, Fernando Ramirez, Nitz Cabilao, Aileen
Palama, John Raymund De Asis and Mylene T.
Encarnacion, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF
SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to
fund releases amounting to Php8,000,000.00
drawn from Enrile’s PDAF and coursed through
the National Livelihood Development Corporation
(NLDC) and CARED, as reflected in DV No. 09-10-
1530;
xi. Juan Ponce Enrile, Jessica Lucila G. Reyes, Jose
Antonio V. Evangelista II, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======133
L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule,
Marilou Bare, Gondelina G. Amata, Emmanuel
Alexis G. Sevidal, Ofelia E. Ordoñez, Filipina T.
Rodriguez, Sofia D. Cruz, Chita C. Jalandoni,
Janet Lim Napoles, Jo Christine L. Napoles, James
Christopher Napoles, Eulogio D. Rodriguez, Evelyn
D. De Leon, Ronald John Lim, Fernando Ramirez,
Nitz Cabilao and Renato S. Ornopia, acting in
concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A.
NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting
to Php20,000,000.00 drawn from Enrile’s PDAF
and coursed through NLDC and MAMFI, as
reflected in DV No. 09-09-1355, 09-10-1443 and
09-10-1534;
xii. Juan Ponce Enrile, Jessica Lucila G. Reyes, Jose
Antonio V. Evangelista II, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario
L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule,
Marilou Bare, Gondelina G. Amata, Emmanuel
Alexis G. Sevidal, Ofelia E. Ordoñez, Filipina T.
Rodriguez, Sofia D. Cruz, Chita C. Jalandoni,
Janet Lim Napoles, Jo Christine L. Napoles, James
Christopher L. Napoles, Eulogio D. Rodriguez,
Evelyn D. De Leon, Ronald John Lim, Amparo L.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======134
Fernando, Fernando Ramirez, Nitz Cabilao, Aileen
Palama, John Raymund De Asis and Mylene T.
Encarnacion, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF
SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to
fund releases amounting to PHP44,000,000.00
drawn from Enrile’s PDAF and coursed through
the NLDC and CARED, as reflected in DV No. 09-
12-1834, 10-01-0004, 10-01-0118 and 10-05-
0747;
xiii. Juan Ponce Enrile, Jessica Lucila G. Reyes, Jose
Antonio V. Evangelista II, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario
L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule,
Marilou Bare, Gondelina G. Amata, Emmanuel
Alexis G. Sevidal, Ofelia E. Ordoñez, Filipina T.
Rodriguez, Sofia D. Cruz, Chita C. Jalandoni,
Janet Lim Napoles, Jo Christine L. Napoles, James
Christopher L. Napoles, Eulogio D. Rodriguez,
Evelyn D. De Leon, Ronald John Lim, Fernando
Ramirez, Nitz Cabilao, Myla Ogerio and Margarita
P. Guadinez, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF
SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to
fund releases amounting to Php25,000,000.00
drawn from Enrile’s PDAF and coursed through
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======135
the NLDC and Agri and Economic Program for
Farmers Foundation, Inc. (AEPFFI), as reflected in
DV No. 09-091353, 09-10-1444 and 09-10-1540;
xiv. Juan Ponce Enrile, Jessica Lucila G. Reyes, Jose
Antonio V. Evangelista II, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario
L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule,
Marilou Bare, Gondelina G. Amata, Emmanuel
Alexis G. Sevidal, Ofelia E. Ordoñez, Filipina T.
Rodriguez, Sofia D. Cruz, Chita C. Jalandoni,
Janet Lim Napoles, Jo Christine L. Napoles, James
Christopher L. Napoles, Eulogio D. Rodriguez,
Evelyn D. De Leon, Ronald John Lim, Amparo L.
Fernando, Fernando Ramirez, Nitz Cabilao,
Piorato, Fabian, Hernani Ditchon, Galay and
Laarni A. Uy, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF
SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to
fund releases amounting to Php25,000,000.00
drawn from Enrile’s PDAF and coursed through
the NLDC and APMFI, as reflected in DV No. 09-
09-1358, 09-10-1449 and 09-10-1535;
xv. Juan Ponce Enrile, Jessica Lucila G. Reyes, Jose
Antonio V. Evangelista II, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======136
L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule,
Marilou Bare, Gondelina G. Amata, Emmanuel
Alexis G. Sevidal, Ofelia E. Ordoñez, Filipina T.
Rodriguez, Sofia D. Cruz, Chita C. Jalandoni,
Janet Lim Napoles, Jo Christine L. Napoles, James
Christopher L. Napoles, Eulogio D. Rodriguez,
Evelyn D. De Leon, Ronald John Lim, Amparo L.
Fernando, Fernando Ramirez, Nitz Cabilao, Aileen
Palama, John Raymund De Asis and Mylene T.
Encarnacion, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF
SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to
fund releases amounting to Php32,000,000.00
drawn from Enrile’s PDAF and coursed through
the NLDC and CARED, as reflected in DV No. 09-
09-1354, 09-10-1447;
and accordingly RECOMMENDS the immediate filing of
the corresponding Informations against them with the
Sandiganbayan;
(b) DISMISSES the criminal charges against Mark S.
Oliveros, Editha P. Talaboc, Delfin Agcaoili, Jr., Daniel
Balanoba, Lucila M. Lawas-Yutok, Antonio M. Santos,
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======137
Lucita P. Solomon, Susan R. Victorino and Shyr Ann
Montuya for insufficiency of evidence;
(c) FURNISHES copies of this Joint Resolution to the Anti-
Money Laundering Council for its appropriate action on
the possible violations by the above-named respondents
of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, considering that
Plunder and violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019
are considered unlawful activities under this statute;
(d) FURNISHES copies of this Joint Resolution to the
Supreme Court, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and
the Professional Regulation Commission for appropriate
action on the alleged misconduct committed by notaries
public Oliveros, Talaboc, Agcaoili, Balanoba, Lawas-
Yutok and Santos, Solomon and Victorino; and
(e) DIRECTS the Field Investigation Office to conduct
further fact-finding investigation on the possible
criminal and/or administrative liability of Javellana,
Mendoza, Ortiz, Cunanan, Amata, Sevidal and other
respondents who may have received commissions
and/or kickbacks from Napoles in relation to their
participation in the scheme subject of these cases.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======138
SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, Philippines, 28 March 2014.
SPECIAL PANEL PER OFFICE ORDER NO. 349, SERIES OF 2013
(Sgd.) M.A. CHRISTIAN O. UY Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer IV Chairperson
(Sgd.) RUTH LAURA A. MELLA Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Member
(Sgd.) FRANCISCA M. SERFINO Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Member
(Sgd.) ANNA FRANCESCA M. LIMBO Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Member
(Sgd.) JASMINE ANN B. GAPATAN Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I Member
APPROVED/DISAPPROVED
(Sgd.) CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Ombudsman
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======139
Copy Furnished:
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Complainant NBI Bldg., Taft Avenue, Ermita, Manila
LEVITO D. BALIGOD Complainant Villanueva & Baligod, 3/F The Lydia Bldg. 39 Polaris St., Bel-air, Makati
FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE Complainant 4th Floor, Ombudsman Building Agham Road, Quezon City 1100
PONCE ENRILE REYES AND MANALASTAS LAW OFFICE Counsel for respondent Juan Ponce Enrile Vernida IV Bldg, 128 L.P. Leviste St., Makati City 1200
LAW FIRM OF DIAZ DEL ROSARIO AND ASSOCIATES Counsel for respondent Jessica Lucila G. Reyes 6th Floor, Padilla Building, F. Ortigas, Jr. Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
EDWARDSON L. ONG and MERCEDES ISABEL B. MAYORALGO Counsel for respondent Jose Antonio Evangelista II Vernida IV Bldg, 128 L.P. Leviste St., Makati 1200
DENNIS P. MANALO Counsel for respondent Ruby C. Tuason 9-10th Floors, LPL Tower, 112 Legaspi St. Legazpi Village, Makati City
DE GUZMAN DIONIDO CAGA JUCABAN & ASSOCIATES Counsel for respondents Mario L. Relampagos, Lalaine Paule, Malou Bare and Rosario Nuñez Rm. 412, Executive Building Center, Gil Puyat Ave cor. Makati Ave., Makati City
ALENTAJAN LAW OFFICE Counsel for respondent Antonio Y. Ortiz 24 Ilongot St., La Vista, Quezon City
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======140
THE LAW FIRM OF CHAN ROBLES AND ASSOCIATES Counsel for respondent Dennis L. Cunanan Suite 2205, Philippine Stock Exchange Center, East Tower, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
FRANCISCO B. FIGURA Respondent Unit 5-A, 5th Floor, Valero Tower, 122 Valero St., Salcedo Village, Makati City
MARIA ROSALINDA LACSAMANA Respondent Unit 223, Pasig Royale Mansion, Santolan Pasig City
CONSUELO LILIAN R. ESPIRITU Respondent 5306 Diesel St., Bgy. Palanan, Makati City
MARIVIC V. JOVER Respondent 3 Gumamela St., Ciudad Licel, Banaba, San Mateo, Rizal
ACERON PUNZALAN VEHEMENTE AVILA & DEL PRADO LAW OFFICE Counsel for respondent Alan A. Javellana 31st Floor, Atlanta Center Annapolis, Greenhills, San Juan City
RHODORA B. MENDOZA Respondent Lot 2, Block 63, Bright Homes Subd., Bgy. Cay Pombo, Sta. Maria, Bulacan
ENCARNITA CRISTINA P. MUNSOD Respondent 14 Saturn St., Meteor Homes Subdivision Bgy. Fortune, Makati City
VICTOR ROMAN C. CACAL Respondent 4 Milkyway St., Joliero Compound, Phase 1- D, Moonwalk Village, Talon V, Las Piñas City
MA. JULIE A. VILLARALVO-JOHNSON Respondent 509 Mapayapa St., United San Pedro Subd. San Pedro, Laguna
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======141
MIRANDA, ANASTACIO & LOTERTE LAW OFFICES Counsel for respondent Ma. Ninez P. Guañizo Penthouse B., Venture Bldg., Prime St. Madrigal Business Park, Ayala Alabang Muntinlupa City
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE – QUEZON CITY Counsel for respondent Romulo Relevo B-29, Quezon City Hall of Justice Bldg., Quezon City
ATENCIA LAW OFFICES Counsel for respondent Shyr Ann Montuya Upper 1st Floor, 101 Corinthian Executive Regency, Ortigas Avenue, Ortigas Center
GONDELINA G. AMATA Respondent c/o National Livelihood Development Corporation, 7th Floor, One Corporate Plaza 845 Arnaiz Ave., Makati City
BALGOS, GUMARU AND JALANDONI Counsel for respondents Chita C. Jalandoni and Filipina T. Rodriguez Unit 1009, West Tektite Tower, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
OFELIA E. ORDOÑEZ Respondent c/o National Livelihood Development Corporation, 7th Floor, One Corporate Plaza 845 Arnaiz Ave., Makati City
EMMANUEL ALEXIS G. SEVIDAL Respondent 18 Kasing-Kasing St., East Kamias, Quezon City
JOSE P. VILLAMOR Counsel for respondent Gregoria G. Buenaventura Unit 3311 One Corporate Center, Julia Vargas Avenue cor. Meralco Ave., Ortigas Center, Pasig City
CALILUNG LAW OFFICE Counsel for respondent Sofia D. Cruz 24 J. P. Rizal St., Davsan Subd., Sindalan San Fernando, Pampanga
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======142
EVITA MAGNOLIA I. ANSALDO Counsel for respondents Janet Lim Napoles, Jo Christine L. Napoles, James Christopher L. Napoles and Ronald John Lim Suite 1905-A, Philippine Stock Exchange Center, West Tower, Ortigas Center Pasig City
BRUCE V. RIVERA Counsel for respondents Evelyn D. De Leon and Jocelyn Piorato 15 Nicanor Tomas St., BF Homes, Phase 6- A, Bgy. BF, Parañaque City 1720
EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ Respondent JLN Corporation Offices, Discovery Suites Ortigas Center, Pasig City
FERNANDO RAMIREZ Respondent 635 San Isidro St., Ayala Alabang Muntinlupa City
NITZ CABILAO Respondent Block 10, Lot 5, Daet St., South City Homes Biñan, Laguna
MARK S. OLIVEROS Respondent Suite 2604 PSE East Tower, Exchange Road Ortigas, Pasig City
EDITHA P. TALABOC Respondent Mezzanine Floor, Café Adriatico Bldg. Adriatico cor. Padre Faure Sts., Manila
DELFIN AGCAOILI, JR. Respondent 13 Caimito St., Payatas, Quezon City
LUCILA M. LAWAS-YUTOK Respondent 686-B Shaw Blvd., Kapitolyo, Pasig City
SUSAN VICTORINO Respondent 132 M. H. Del Pilar St., Sto. Tomas, Pasig City
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======143
LUCITA P. SOLOMON Respondent 33-C Matiaga St., Teachers’ Village, Quezon City
PROPRIETOR OF NUTRIGROWTH PHILIPPINES, MPC Respondent 949 Instruccion St., Sampaloc, Manila
PROPRIETOR OF MMRC TRADING Respondent 88 Buklod ng Nayon, Sangandaan, Caloocan City
MYLA OGERIO Respondent 285-F or Apt. 9005-15F, 17th St. Villamor Air Base, Pasay City
MARGARITA GUADINES Block 24, Lot 9, Iligan St., Phase I, EP Village, Taguig City or Block 23, Lot 1, Road 18 Street, AFPOVAI, Phase 2, Western Bicutan, Taguig City
DORILYN A. FABIAN Respondent Block 34, Lot 27 Iligan Street, South City Homes, Biñan, Laguna
HERNANI DITCHON Respondent Bgy. Sta. Fe, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
RODRIGO B. GALAY Respondent Block 23, Lot 24 Dumaguete Street, South City Homes, Biñan, Laguna or 5270 Romero St., Bgy. Dionisio, Parañaque City
LAARNI A. UY Respondent Block 23, Lot 24 Dumaguete Street, South City Homes, Biñan, Laguna or 5270 Romero St., Bgy. Dionisio, Parañaque City
AMPARO L. FERNANDO Respondent 14-O Samson St., Baritan, Malabon City
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0318 OMB-C-C-13-0396 Page ======144
AILEEN P. PALAMA Respondent 16-A Guevarra St., Paltok, Quezon City or 712 San Gabriel Compound, Llano Novaliches, Caloocan City
RENATO S. ORNOPIA Respondent 495 ME Ilang-Ilang St., T. S. Cruz, Almanza 2, Las Piñas or A. Calauan St., Cataingan, Masbate
JESUS B. CASTILLO Respondent Block 23, Lot 59, Phase 2, EP Village, Taguig City or Alim, Hinobaan, Negros Occidental
NOEL V. MACHA Respondent Unity Drive, Crispin Atilano St., Tetuan, Zamboanga City or 2502 Discovery Center, 25 ADB Avenue, Ortigas, Pasig City or Block 40, Lot 28 Iligan St., South City Homes, Biñan, Laguna
MYLENE T. ENCARNACION Respondent Blk. 4, Lot 18, Almandite St., Golden City Taytay, Rizal
JOHN RAYMOND DE ASIS Respondent Blk. 20, Lot 9, Phase III, Gladiola St., TS Cruz, Almanza 2, Las Piñas
HEIRS OF WILBERTO P. DE GUZMAN Respondent Block 1, Lot 30, 3118 Sto. Rosario St. Metrovilla Center, Mapulang Lupa Valenzuela City
Republic of the Philippines OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN OMBUDSMAN BLDG., AGHAM ROAD, NORTH TRIANGLE, DILIMAN, QUEZON CITY
NATIONAL BUREAU OF OMB-C-C-13-0313 INVESTIGATION (NBI) FOR: Violation of RA 7080 REP. BY: Asst. Dir. Medardo (PLUNDER) G. De Lemos (Criminal Case)
ATTY. LEVITO D. BALIGOD Complainants,
- versus -
JOSE “JINGGOY” P. EJERCITO-ESTRADA Senator Senate of the Philippines
PAULINE THERESE MARY C. LABAYEN Deputy Chief of Staff Office of Senator Estrada
ALAN A. JAVELLANA President National Agribusiness Corporation
GONDELINA G. AMATA President National Livelihood Development Corporation
ANTONIO Y. ORTIZ Director General Technology Resource Center
DENNIS LACSON CUNANAN Deputy Director General Technology Resource Center
VICTOR ROMAN COJAMCO CACAL Paralegal National Agribusiness Corporation
ROMULO M. RELEVO General Services Unit Head National Agribusiness Corporation
MARIA NINEZ P. GUAÑIZO Bookkeeper/OIC-Accounting Division National Agribusiness Corporation
MA. JULIE A. VILLARALVO-JOHNSON Former Chief Accountant National Agribusiness Corporation
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======2
RHODORA BULATAD MENDOZA Former Director for Financial Management Services/ Former Vice-President for Administration and Finance National Agribusiness Corporation
GREGORIA G. BUENAVENTURA Division Chief, Asset Management Division National Livelihood Development Corporation
ALEXIS G. SEVIDAL Director IV National Livelihood Development Corporation
SOFIA D. CRUZ Chief Financial Specialist/Project Management Assistant IV National Livelihood Development Corporation
CHITA C. JALANDONI Department Manager III National Livelihood Development Corporation
FRANCISCO B. FIGURA Department Manager III MARIVIC V. JOVER Chief Accountant Both of the Technology Resource Center
MARIO L. RELAMPAGOS Undersecretary for Operations Department of Budget and Management
LEAH LALAINE MALOU1 Office of the Undersecretary for Operations All of the Department of Budget and Management
JANET LIM NAPOLES RUBY TUASON MYLENE T. ENCARNACION JOHN RAYMOND (RAYMUND) DE ASIS JOHN/JANE DOES Private Respondents
Respondents. x ------x
1 See note 156.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======3
FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE OMB-C-C-13-0397 OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR: VIOLATION OF SEC 3 (e) Complainant, RA 3019, RA 7080 (PLUNDER) (Criminal Case) - versus -
JOSE “JINGGOY” P. EJERCITO-ESTRADA Senator Senate of the Philippines
PAULINE THERESE MARY C. LABAYEN Director IV/Deputy Chief of Staff Office of Senator Estrada
ALAN ALUNAN JAVELLANA President RHODORA B. MENDOZA Former Director for Financial Management Services/ Former Vice-President for Administration and Finance VICTOR ROMAN C. CACAL Paralegal MARIA NINEZ P. GUAÑIZO Bookkeeper/OIC-Accounting Division MA. JULIE A. VILLARALVO-JOHNSON Former Chief Accountant ROMULO M. RELEVO General Services Unit Head All of the National Agribusiness Corporation
GONDELINA G. AMATA President CHITA C. JALANDONI Department Manager III EMMANUEL ALEXIS G. SEVIDAL Director IV SOFIA D. CRUZ Chief Financial Specialist/Project Management Assistant IV EVELYN SUCGANG Former Director IV, Accounts Management and Development All of the National Livelihood Development Corporation
ANTONIO Y. ORTIZ Director General DENNIS L. CUNANAN Deputy Director General MARIA ROSALINDA LACSAMANA Former Group Manager MARIVIC V. JOVER Chief Accountant All of the Technology Resource Center
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======4
JANET LIM NAPOLES Private Respondent. Respondents. x ------x
JOINT RESOLUTION
For resolution is the preliminary investigation conducted by the Special Panel of Investigators2 constituted on 20
September 2013 by the Ombudsman on: 1) the complaint filed on September 16, 2013 with this Office by the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and Atty. Levito Baligod (The NBI
Complaint), for violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 7080 (An Act
Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder), and 2) the complaint filed on November 18, 2013 by the Field
Investigation Office (FIO), Office of the Ombudsman, for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (The Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) and Plunder, in connection with the alleged anomalous utilization of the Priority Development
Assistance Fund (PDAF) of Senator Jose “Jinggoy” P. Estrada
(Senator Estrada) for 2004-2012.
The NBI complaint for Plunder, docketed as OMB-C-C-
13-0313, charges the following respondents:
2 Per Office Order No. 349, Series of 2013.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======5
Name Position/Agency Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada ( Senator Estrada) Senator Pauline Labayen (Labayen) Deputy Chief of Staff Office of Senator Estrada Janet Napoles (Napoles) Private respondent Ruby Tuason (Tuason ) Private respondent President Alan Javellana (Javellana) National Agribusiness Corporation President Gondelina G. Amata (Amata) National Livelihood Development Corporation Director General Antonio Y. Ortiz (Ortiz) Technology Resource Center Mylene T. Encarnacion (Encarnacion) Private respondent John Raymond S. De Asis (De Asis) Private respondent Deputy Director General Dennis L. Cunanan (Cunanan) Technology Resource Center Paralegal Victor Roman Cacal (Cacal) National Agribusiness Corporation Romulo M. Relevo (Relevo) National Agribusiness Corporation Bookkeeper/OIC Accounting Division Maria Ninez Guanizo (Guañizo) National Agribusiness Corporation Former Chief Accountant Ma. Julie Asor Villaralvo-Johnson (Johnson) National Agribusiness Corporation Former Director for Financial Management Services and Former Vice Rhodora Bulatad Mendoza (Mendoza) President for Administration and Finance National Agribusiness Corporation National Livelihood Development Gregoria G. Buenaventura (Buenaventura) Corporation Director IV Alexis Gagni Sevidal (Sevidal) National Livelihood and Development Corporation Chief Financial Specialist/Project Development Assistant IV/National Sofia Daing Cruz (Cruz) Livelihood and Development Corporation Department Manager III Chita Chua Jalandoni (Jalandoni) National Livelihood and Development Corporation Francisco Baldoza Figura (Figura) Technology Resource Center Chief Accountant Marivic Villaluz Jover (Jover) Technology Resource Center Undersecretary for Mario L. Relampagos (Relampagos) Operations/Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Undersecretary for Leah3 Operations/Department of Budget and Management (DBM)
3 See note 156 which identifies her as Rosario Nuñez.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======6
Undersecretary for Lalaine4 Operations/Department of Budget and Management (DBM) Undersecretary for Operations Malou5 Department of Budget and Management (DBM) JOHN and JANE DOES
The FIO complaint,6 on the other hand, docketed as OMB-
C-C-13-0397, charges the following respondents with Plunder
and violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act:
Name Position/Agency Jose “Jinggoy” P. Ejercito Estrada Senator Pauline Therese Mary C. Labayen (Labayen) Director IV Office of Senator Estrada Antonio Y. Ortiz (Ortiz) Director General Technology Resource Center Gondelina G. Amata (Amata) President National Livelihood Development Corporation Former President Alan Alunan Javellana (Javellana) National Agribusiness Corporation Paralegal Victor Roman Cacal (Cacal) National Agribusiness Corporation Bookkeeper/OIC Accounting Division Maria Ninez P. Guañizo (Guañizo) National Agribusiness Corporation Romulo R. Relevo (Relevo) National Agribusiness Corporation Former Chief Accountant Ma. Julie Asor Villaralvo-Johnson (Johnson) National Agribusiness Corporation Director Rhodora B. Mendoza (Mendoza) National Agribusiness Corporation Director III Rosalinda Lacsamana (Lacsamana) Technology Resource Center Accountant III Marivic V. Jover (Jover) Technology Resource Center Director General Dennis L. Cunanan (Cunan) Technology Resource Center National Livelihood and Development Evelyn Sucgang (Sucgang) Corporation Department Manager III Chita Chua Jalandoni (Jalandoni) National Livelihood and Development Corporation
4 See note 156 which identifies her as Lalaine Paule. 5 See note 156 which identifies her as Marilou Bare. 6 Records, pp. 4-65, Blue Folder, OMB-C-C-13-0397
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======7
Director IV Emmanuel Alexis Gagni Sevidal (Sevidal) National Livelihood and Development Corporation Chief Financial Specialist Sofia D. Cruz (Cruz) National Livelihood and Development Corporation Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles) Private Respondent
Having arisen from the same or similar facts and transactions, these cases are resolved jointly.
I. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On 22 March 2013, agents of the NBI, acting on a
complaint from the parents of Benhur Luy (Luy), that Luy had
been illegally detained, swooped down on the South Wing
Gardens of the Pacific Plaza Tower in Bonifacio Global City,
Taguig City and rescued Luy. A criminal case for Serious
Illegal Detention was soon after filed against Reynald Lim7 and
his sister, Janet Lim Napoles8 (Napoles), before the Regional
Trial Court of Makati City where it remains pending.
Before the NBI, Luy claimed that he was detained in
connection with the discharge of his responsibilities as the
“lead employee” of the JANET LIM NAPOLES Corporation (JLN)
which, by his account, had been involved in overseeing
anomalous implementation of several government-funded
7 Still at large. 8 Presently detained at Fort Sto. Domingo, Sta. Rosa, Laguna.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======8
projects sourced from, among others, the Priority Development
Assistance Fund (PDAF) of several congressmen and senators of the Republic. The NBI thus focused on what appeared to be misuse and irregularities attending the utilization and implementation of the PDAF of certain lawmakers, in connivance with other government employees, private individuals, and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) which had been set up by JLN employees, upon the instructions of Napoles.
In the course of the NBI investigation which included conduct of interviews and taking of sworn statements of Luy along with several other JLN employees including Marina Sula
(Sula) and Merlina Suñas (Suñas)9 (the whistleblowers), the
NBI uncovered the “scheme” employed in what has now been commonly referred to as the PDAF or Pork Barrel Scam, outlined in general as follows:
1. Either the lawmaker or Napoles would commence
negotiations on the utilization of the lawmaker’s PDAF;
2. The lawmaker and Napoles then discuss, and later
approve, the list of projects chosen by the lawmaker,
the corresponding Implementing Agency (IA), namely
9 Luy, Sula and Suñas have been admitted into the Department of Justice’s Witness Protection Program.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======9
the National Agribusiness Corporation (NABCOR), the
National Livelihood Development Corporation (NLDC),
the Technology Resource Center (TRC [formerly
Technology and Livelihood Resource Center]), and the
Zamboanga Rubber Estate Corporation (ZREC),
through which the implementation of the projects
would be coursed, and the project cost, as well as the
commission of the lawmaker which would range
between 40-60% of either the project cost or the
amount stated in the Special Allotment Release Order
(SARO);
3. After the negotiations and upon instructions from
Napoles, Luy prepares the so-called “listing” which
contains the list of projects allocated by the lawmaker
to Napoles and her NGOs, the name of the IA, and the
project cost;
4. The lawmaker would then adopt the “listing” and write
to the Senate President and the Finance Committee
Chairperson, in the case of a Senator, and to the
House Speaker and Chair of the Appropriations
Committee, in the case of a Congressman, requesting
the immediate release of his allocation, which letter-
request the Senate President or the Speaker, as the
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======10
case may be, would then endorse to the Department of
Budget and Management (DBM);
5. The DBM soon issues a SARO addressed to the chosen
IA indicating the amount deducted from the
lawmaker’s PDAF allocation, and later issues a Notice
of Cash Allocation (NCA) to the IA which would
thereafter issue a check to the Napoles-controlled NGO
listed in the lawmaker’s endorsement;
6. Napoles, who recommends to the lawmaker the NGO
which would implement the project, directs her
employee to prepare a letter for the lawmaker’s
signature endorsing the selected NGO to the IA. The IA
later prepares a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
covering the project to be executed by the lawmaker or
his/her authorized staff member, the IA and the
chosen NGO;
7. The Head of the IA, in exchange for a 10% share in the
project cost, subsequently releases the check/s to the
Napoles-controlled NGO from whose bank accounts
Napoles withdraws the proceeds thereof;
8. Succeeding tranche payments are released by the IA
upon compliance and submission by the NGO of the
required documents.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======11
From 2007 to 2009, a total of Php480,650,000.00 was taken from Senator Estrada’s PDAF. The FIO cases, however, focus only on the projects implemented by the NLDC,
NABCOR, and TRC, the total costs of which amounted to
Php278,000,000.00.
The amount of Php278,000,000.00 was covered by ten
(10) SAROs, to wit:
(a) SARO No. ROCS-08-01698 dated 15 February 2008; 10
(b) ROCS-09-01612 dated 17 March 2009;11
(c) ROCS-09-02769 dated 05 May 2009;12
(d) G-07579 dated 12 October 2009;13
(e) F-09-09579 dated 29 December 2009;14
(f) G-09-07076 dated 25 September 2009;15
(g) ROCS-08-03116 dated 15 February 2008;
(h) ROCS-08-06025 dated 8 August 2008;16
(i) ROCS-09-02770 dated 5 May 2009;17
(j) ROCS-No.08-1697 dated 15 February 2008.
After the SAROs were released by the DBM, Senator
Estrada, through his Deputy Chief of Staff respondent
10 Records, P. 3430, Folder ROCS-08-01698, OMB-C-C-13-0313 11 Records, P. 828, Folder 4, OMB-C-C-13-0397 12 P. 854, ibid 13 Records, P. 1621, Folder 9, OMB-C-C-13-0397 14 Records, P. 1, Folder 13, OMB-C-C-09-0397 15 P. 28, ibid 16 Records, P. 1148, Folder ROCS-08-06025 17 Records, P. 196, Folder 15, OMB-C-C-13-0397
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======12
Labayen, identified the following government-owned and
controlled corporations (GOCCs) as the IAs of the projects to
be funded by his PDAF: a) NABCOR, b) NLDC, and c) the TRC.
Senator Estrada authorized respondent Labayen, to act
for him, deal with the parties involved in the process, and sign
documents necessary for the immediate and timely
implementation of his PDAF-funded projects.18
Through Labayen, the Senator also chose19 the following
NGOs as “project partners” in the implementation of the
livelihood projects financed by his PDAF, viz:
(a) Masaganang Ani Para sa Magsasaka Foundation Inc., (MAMFI) of which witness Marina C. Sula was President; and
(b) Social Development Program for Farmers Foundation, Inc., (SDPFFI) of which witness Benhur Luy was President.
The following table discloses the details of Senator
Estrada’s utilization of his Php278,000,000.00 PDAF:
SARO NO. & Projects/ Beneficiaries/LGUs Total Projects/ Implementing Project Amount Activities Activities Costs Agency Partners (in Php) (in PHP) /NGOs 1. ROCS-08- Financial TRC SDPFFI 01698 Assistance/Grants
18 Letters of Senator Estrada to the Head of IAs, pp. 788-792, Folder 4, OMB-C-C-13-0397. 19 Records, pp. 788-792, Folder 4, OMB-C-C-13-0397.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======13
for livelihood Php25,000,00 materials and farm Municipality of Clarin, implements/inputs Misamis Ocidental
Municipality of Talusan, Zamboanga, Sibugay Php22,500,000.00 Technical Assistance Municipality of Technology Transfer Simunul, Tawi-Tawi through Video courses (VCDs) and Php1,250,000.00 Printed Materials provided by TLRC Retention Fee Service Fee (3%) by Php1,250,000.00 TRC 2. ROCS-09- Agricultural starter Libungan, Cotabato 01612 kits Midsayap, Cotabato Php20,000,000 NLDC MAMFI Magpet, Cotabato Pigcawayan, Cotabato
3. ROCS-09- Plaridel, Quezon Livelihood kits in 02769 San Jose, Batangas, dressmaking, nail Umingan, Pangasinan care, pickled fruits NLDC MAMFI Php30,000,000 Rosales, Pangasinan and veggies and Masantol, Pampangga jewelry-making Sta. Maria, Bulacan 4. G-09-07579 Livelihood starter Sta. Maria, kits in silkscreen Pangasinan, Php50,000,000 printing, soap Mabini, Pangasinan SDPFFI making and Balungo, Pagnasinan NLDC barbering San Quintin, MAMFI Pangasinan Natividad, Pangasinan
5.) F-09-09579 Livelihood modules Sta. Maria, in video form and Pangasinan Php25,000,000 livelihood starter Mabini, Pangasinan kits in jewelry- Balungao, Pangasinan making, aromatic Quintin, Pangasinan candle-making, Natividad, Pangasinan NLDC MAMFI wellness massage, cell phone repair and basic auto repair and maintenance 6) G-09-07076 Asinga, Pangasinan Livelihood starter Cagwit, Surigao del kits and modules in Php31,000,000 Sur video forms in nail NLDC MAMFI San Luis, Agusan del care, soap making Sur and food processing
7)ROCS-08- Alegria, Surigao del 01697 Norte Carrascal, Surigao del Php25,000,000 Agricultural Sur Assistance/ Tubay, Agusan del 25,000,000.00 NABCOR MAMFI Packages Norte Esperanza, Agusan del Norte Properidad, Agusan
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======14
del Sur 8)ROCS-08- Umingan, Pangasinan 03116 Salug, Zamboanga del Agricultural Norte NABCOR MAMFI Php19,500,000 packages Mabitac, Laguna Mawab, Compostela Valley 9)ROCS-08- Lopez, Quezon 06025 Agricultural Tuguegarao, Cagayan MAMFI Production Sta. Maria, NABCOR Php42,000,000 Kits/Packages Pangasinan SDPFFI Tiwi, Albay 10) ROCS-09- 301 sets of Municipality of 02770 Agricultural Starter Midsayap, Cotabato NABCOR MAMFI Php10,000,000 Kits
The funds representing the activities’ costs were
transferred from the IAs to the NGOs/project partners
pursuant to several MOAs signed by the following individuals:
Signatories to the MOA SARO No. & No. Office of Implementing NGO/Project Partner of MOAs Senator Agencies Estrada 1. ROCS-08-01698 TRC-Antonio Y. 20 Labayen SDPFFI-Luy 1 MOA Ortiz 2.ROCS-09- 01612 1 MOA21 Labayen NLDC-Amata MAMFI-Sula
3.ROCS-09-02769 22 NLDC-Amata MAMFI- Sula 1 MOA Labayen 4.G-09-07579 Lebayen SDPFFI-Luy NLDC-Amata 2 MOAs23 MAMFI-Sula 5. F-09-09579 Labayen NLDC-Amata 1MOA24 SDPFFI-Luy 6. G-09-07076 Labayen NLDC-Amata MAMFI-Sula 1MOA25 7. ROCS-08-03116 NABCOR- MAMFI-Sula 1 MOA26 Javellana 8. ROCS-08-06025 DA-Arthur Yap MAMFI-Sula 3 MOA27 NABCOR- Javellana SDPFFI-Luy
20 Records, pp. 345-349, Folder 1, OMB-C-C-13-0397. 21 Records PP. 805-809, Folder 4, OMB-C-C-13-0397. 22 Id., pp.810-814. 23 Id., pp.799-804 & 822-827. 24 Id., pp.793-798. 25 Id., p.815-821. 26Records , pp. 94-95, Folder 15, OMB-C-C-13-0397. 27 Id., pp. 140-146.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======15
9. ROCS-09-2770 NABCOR- MAMFI-Sula 28 1 MOA Javellana 10. ROCS-08-1697 NABCOR- MAMFI-Sula
1 MOA29 Javellan
After the execution of the MOAs, the agricultural and
livelihood assistance kits/packages were supposed to be
delivered by the NGOs to identified
beneficiaries/municipalities in different parts of the country,
but as will be stated later, no deliveries were made.
The NGOs/project partners were later paid in full by the
IAs upon the NGO’s submission of Disbursement, Progress,
Accomplishment, Fund Utilization, Inspection, and Delivery
Reports, as well as the Certificates of Acceptance. The details
of payments to the NGOs/project partners are reflected in the
table below:
Paying Disbursement Amount of DV SARO No. Date of DV Agency/ Voucher (DV)No. (PhP) Check No. Claimant/Payee 30 31 ROCS-08-01698 012008092220 Undated 8,000,000 889985 (LBP) TLC-SDPFFI 33 01200709222132 Undated 8,000,000 889986 (LBP) TRC-SDPFFI 35 01200809222234 Undated 4,000,000 889987 (LBP) TRC-SDPFFI 37 01200902025736 undated 2,500,000 890066 (LBP) TRC-SDPFFI
28 Id., pp. 226-229. 29 Id., pp. 3-4 . 30 Records, p. 353, Folder 2, OMB-C-C-13-0397. 31 Id, p.353. 32 Id, p.355. 33 Id, p. 354. 34 Id, p. 357. 35 Id, p.356. 36 Id, p.359. 37 Id, p.358.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======16
ROCS-09-01612 0905065538 05-May-09 6,000,000 918458(LBP)39 NLDC- MAMFI 41 0906070140 08-Jun-09 10,000,000 918467(LBP) NLDC-MAMFI 42 43 09060783 19-Jun-09 4,000,000 918476 (LBP) NLDC-MAMFI
ROCS-09-02769 44 15-Dec-09 8,100,000 45 NLDC-MAMFI 09121838 244626 (LBP)
10011000546 10-Jan-10 15,000,000 244633 (LBP)47 NLDC- MAMFI
1001011648 25-Jan-10 3,000,000 244648 (LBP)49 NLDC- MAMFI
1005085550 14-May-10 3,000,000 260985(LBP)51 NLDC-MAMFI
G-09-07579 10-11-013552 10-Dec-10 7,500,000 260556 (LBP) NLDC-SDPFFI
10-12-014153 10-Dec-10 12,500,000 260556 NLDC- SDPFFI
54 10-12-0147 20-Dec-10 5,000,000 260561 NLDC- SDPFFI 56 55 244664 (LBP) F-09-0 9579 10020266 18-Feb-10 7,500,000 NLDC- SDPFFI
57 58 10030353 08–Mar-10 12,500,000 244671(LBP) NLDC-SDPFFI 60 59 260981(LBP) 10050821 14-May-10 5,000,000 NLDC-SDPFFI
62 G-09-07076 10-09-009961 21-Sep-10 9,300,000 260513 (LBP) NLDC-MAMFI 10-10-010563 10-Oct-10 15,500,000 260519 (LBP)64 NLDC-MAMFI 6501-01-1010 22-Oct-10 6,111,111 260538(LBP)66 CDLN-MFMAM ROCS-08-01697 18-17-11406 04-luJ-18 10,818,111 417360 (LBP)67 NABCOR-MAMFI 68 69 18-01-0740 6-Oct-08 1,418,111 437286 (LBP) CFCNAN-MFMAM
38 Records, P. 831, Folder 4, OMB-C-C-13-0397 39 Id, p. 830 40 Id, p. 833 41 Id, p. 832 42 Id. p. 835 43 Id.,p. 834 44 Id, p. 857 45 Id., p. 856 46 Id., p.859 47 Id., p. 858 48 Id., p. 861 49 Id., p. 860 50 Id., p. 863 51 Id., p. 862 52 Records, p. 1623, Folder 9, OMB-C-C-13-0397 53 Id., p. 1624 54 Id., p. 1625 55 Records, p.5, Folder 13, OMB-C-C-13-0397 56 Id., p. 4 57 Id., p. 7 58 Id. ,p. 6 59 Id., p. 9 60 Ibid 61 Id., p. 31 62 Id., p.30 63 Id., p33 64 Id, p. 32 65 Id., p. 35 66 Id., p. 34 67 Records, p.5, Folder 15, OMB-C-C-13-0397 68 Id., p.8 69 Id., p.7
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======17
70 ROCS-03116 08-09-03381 11-Sep-08 17,023,000 437144 (UCPB) NABCOR-MAMFI 71 72 09-03-1025 20-Mar-09 1,891,000 455678 (UCPB) NABCOR-MAMFI 73 74 ROCS-08-06205 09-03-0764 05-Mar-09 2,473,500 455570 (UCPB) NABCOR-MAMFI 75 76 09-03-0762 05-Mar-09 2,910,000 455569 (UCPB) NABCOR-SDPFFI 77 78 09-04-1395 27-Apr-09 5,771,500 455833 (UCPB) NABCOR-MAMFI 80 09-05-173579 26-May-09 8,245,000 455994 (UCPB) NABCOR-MAMFI 82 09-04-128381 16-Apr-09 6,790,000.00 455825 ROCS-09-02770 10-01-007783 12-Jan-10 1,455,000 462964 NABCOR-MAMFI 10-03-082484 17-Mar-10 8,245,000 462984 NABCOR-MAMFI
Signatories to the all the Disbursement Vouchers (DVs)
covering payment by the IAs for the agricultural and livelihood
projects, who are respondents herein, are indicated in the
table below:
Signatories of the DV BOX B BOX A Supporting Documents (Expenses/Advances Complete and Disbursement BOX C SARO NO. necessary, lawful, proper/Budget Certified /supporting (Approved Voucher No. and incurred under Utilization/Verification documents attached for Payment) my direct /Certification supervision as to Cash/Fund Availability/ Certified within the Budget
ROCS-08- Ma. Rosalinda M. Antonio Y. 01698 012008092220 Consuelo Lilian Espiritu Lacsamana Ortiz Ma. Rosalinda M. Marivic V. Jover Antonio Y. 012007092221 Consuelo Lilian Espiritu Lacsamana Ortiz 012008092222 Ma. Rosalinda M. Consuelo Lilian Espiritu Marivic V. Jover Antonio Y.
70 Id., p. 96 71 Id., p. 99 72 Id., p. 98 73 Id. p.174 74 Id, p.172 75 Records, p. 1149, Folder, ROCS-08-06025, OMB-C-C-13-0313 76 Ibid, p.1150 77 Id. p. 177 78 Id, p. 175 79 Id., p. 180 80 Id. p 178 81 Records, p. 1164, Folder, ROCS-08-0625 82 Records, p. 1165, Folder, ROCS-08-0625 83 Id, p. 233 84 Records, p. 234,Folder 15, OMB-C-C-13-0397
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======18
Lacsamana Ortiz Marivic V. Jover Antonio Y. 012009020257 Dennis L. Cunanan Consuelo Lilian Espiritu Ortiz ROCS-09- Gondelina G. 09050655 Alexis G. Sevidal Ofelia E. Ordoñez 01612 Amata Gondelina G. 09060701 Alexis G. Sevidal Ofelia E. Ordoñez Amata Gondelina G. 09060783 Alexis G. Sevidal Sofia D. Cruz Amata ROCS-09- Gondelina G. 09121838 Alexis G. Sevidal Sofia D. Cruz 02769 Amata Gondelina G. 100110005 Alexis G. Sevidal Ofelia E. Ordoñez Sofia D. Cruz Amata Gondelina G. 10010116 Alexis G. Sevidal Ofelia E. Ordoñez Sofia D. Cruz Amata Gondelina G. 10050855 Alexis G. Sevidal Filipina T. Rodriguez Amata G-09- Gondelina G. 10-11-0135 Alexis G. Sevidal Sofia D. Cruz 07579 Amata Gondelina G. 10-12-0141 Alexis G. Sevidal Sofia D. Cruz Amata Gondelina G. 10-12-0147 Alexis G. Sevidal Sofia D. Cruz Amata Gondelina G. F-09-09579 10020266 Alexis G. Sevidal Ofelia E. Ordoñez Amata Gondelina G. 10030353 Alexis G. Sevidal Sofia D. Cruz Amata Gondelina G. 10050821 Alexis G. Sevidal Filipina T. Rodriguez Sofia D. Cruz Amata Gondelina G. G-09-07076 10-09-0099 Alexis G. Sevidal Filipina T. Rodriguez Sofia D. Cruz Amata Gondelina G. 10-10-0105 Alexis G. Sevidal Sofia D. Cruz Amata Gondelina G. 10-10-0123 Alexis G. Sevidal Sofia D. Cruz Amata ROCS-08- Ma. Julie A. Villaralvo- Alan A. 18-17-11406 Romulo M. Relevo 01697 Johnson Javellana Alan A. 08-10-03743 Victor M. Cacal Maria Niñez-Guanizo Javellana ROCS-03116 Alan A. 08-09-03381 Victor M. Cacal Maria Niñez-Guanizo Javellana Alan A. 09-03-1025 Victor M. Cacal Maria Niñez-Guanizo Javellana ROCS-08-06205 Alan A. 09-03-0764 Victor M. Cacal Maria Niñez-Guanizo Javellana Alan A. 09-04-1395 Victor M. Cacal Maria Niñez-Guanizo Javellana Alan A. 09-05-1735 Victor M. Cacal Maria Niñez-Guanizo Javellana Alan A. 09-04-1283 Victor M. Cacal Maria Niñez-Guanizo Javellana Alan A. 09-05-1675 Victor M. Cacal Maria Niñez-Guanizo Javellana ROCS-09- Alan A. 10-01-0077 Alan A. Javellana Maria Niñez-Guanizo 02770 Javellana Alan A. 10-03-0824 Victor M. Cacal Maria Niñez-Guanizo Javellana
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======19
Details of the checks issued by the IAs in payment of the
projects, and the signatories thereto are indicated in the
following table:
Net Amount in Implementing (Php) (After Agency/ies & Disbursement Check No. Official Received SARO No. deducting Signatories to the Voucher (DV)No. management Checks Receipt Issued Payment fee management f 85 86 ROCS-08-01698 012008092220 889985 (LBP) Amount8,000,000 of DV TRC/Ortiz SDPFFI LUY
01200709222187 889986 (LBP)88 8,000,000(PhP) TRC/Ortiz SDPFFI LUY 01200809222289 889987 (LBP)90 4,000,000 TRC/Ortiz SDPFFI LUY 01200902025791 890066 (LBP)92 2,500,000 TRC SDPFFI LUY
NLDC/Sugcang & ROCS-09-01612 0905065593 918458(LBP)94 5,400,000 SULA Amata MAMFI
95 96 NLDC/Sugcang & 09060701 918467(LBP) 10,000,000 Amata MAMFI RODRIQUEZ 98 97 918476 (LBP) NLDC/ Sugcang & MAMFI 09060783 4,000,000 Amata RODRIQUEZ
99 100 NLDC/ Jalandoni & MAMFI ROCS-09-02769 09121838 244626 (LBP) 8,100,000 RODRIQUEZ Amata
101 102 NLDC/ Jalandoni & MAMFI 100110005 244633 (LBP) 15,000,000 RODRIQUEZ Amata
103 104 NLDC/ Jalandoni & 10010116 244648 (LBP) 3,000,000 MAMFI RODRIQUEZ Amata 105 106 NLDC/ Jalandoni & 10050855 260985(LBP) 3,000,000 MAMFI RODRIQUEZ Amata
85 Records, p. 353, Folder 2, OMB-C-C-13-0397 86 Id., p.353 87 Id., p.355 88 Id., p. 354 89 Id., p. 357 90 Id., p.356 91 Id., p.359 92 Id., p. 358 93 Records, p. 831, Folder 4, OMB-C-C-13-0397 94 Id., p. 830 95 Id., p. 833 96 Id., p. 832 97 Id., p. 835 98 Id., p. 834 99 Id., p. 857 100 Id., p. 856 101 Id., p. 859 102 Id., p. 858 103 Id., p. 861 104 Id., p. 860 105 Id., p. 863 106 Id., p. 862
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======20
107 NLDC/ Jalandoni & SDPFFI G-09-07579 10-11-0135 260556 (LBP) 7,500,000 DE LEON Amata
10-12-0141108 260556 12,500,000 NLDC SDPFFI
10-12-0147109 260561 5,000,000 NLDC SDPFFI
110 NLDC/Jalandoni & F-09-0 9579 10020266 244664 (LBP)111 6,750,000 DE LEON Amata SDPFFI
112 113 NLDC/ Jalandoni & 10030353 244671(LBP) 12,500,000 SDPFFI DE LEON Amata 115 114 260981(LBP) NLDC/ Jalandoni & 10050821 5,000,000 SDPFFI DE LEON Amata NLDC/ Jalandoni & G-09-07076 10-09-0099116 260513 (LBP)117 8,370,000 MAMFI RODRIQUEZ Amata 118 119 NLDC/ Jalandoni & MAMFI 10-10-0105 260519 (LBP) 15,500,000 RODRIQUEZ Amata 12001-01-1010 260538(LBP)121 6,111,111 NLDC/ Jalandoni & MAMFI RODRIQUEZ Amata ROCS-08-01697 122 18-17-11406 10,818,111 NABCOR/Mendoza MAMFI 417360 (LBP)123 & Javellana 12418-01-0740 1,418,111 NABCOR/ MAMFI 437286 (LBP)125 Mendoza & SULA Javellana 127 ROCS-03116 437144 (UCPB) 17,023,000 NABCOR/ 08-09-03381126 Mendoza & MAMFI SULA Javellana 129 128 455678 (UCPB) 1,891,000 NABCOR/Mendoza MAMFI 09-03-1025 RODRIQUEZ & Javellana 131 130 455570 (UCPB) 2,473,500 NABCOR/Mendoza MAMFI ROCS-08-06205 09-03-0764 & Javellana RODRIQUEZ 133 132 455833 (UCPB) 5,771,500 NABCOR/Mendoza MAMFI 09-04-1395 & Javellana RODRIQUEZ
134 135 NABCOR/Mendoza MAMFI 09-05-1735 455994 (UCPB) 8,245,000 SULA & Javellana
107 Records, p. 1623, Folder 9, OMB-C-C-13-0397 108 Id., p. 1624 109 Id., p. 1625 110 Records, p.5, Folder 13, OMB-C-C-13-0397 111 Id., p. 4 112 Id., p. 7 113 Id., p. 6 114 Id. p. 9 115 Id., p. 8 116 Id., p. 31 117 Id. p. 30 118 Id.,p. 33 119 Id., p..32 120 Id., p.35 121 Id., p. 34 122 Records, p.6, Folder 15, OMB-C-C13-0397 123 Id., p.5 124 Id., p.8 125 Id., p.7 126 Id., p. 97 127 Id., p.96 128 Id.,p. 99 129 Id., p.98 130 Id., p.174 131 Id., p.172 132 Id., p. 177 133 Id., p.175 134 Id., p. 180
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======21
136 137 NABCOR/Mendoza SDPFFI 09-04-1283 455825 (UCPB) 6,790,000.00 DE ASIS & Javellana
138 139 NABCOR/Mendoza SDPFFI 09-05-1675 455969 (UCPB) 9,7000,000 DE ASIS & Javellana NABCOR/ MAMFI ROCS-09-02770 10-01-0077 462964 1,455,000 Javellana NABCOR/ MAMFI 10-03-0824 462984 8,245,000 Javellana DE ASIS
Field verifications conducted by complainant FIO
revealed that the Php278,000,000.00 PDAF of Senator Estrada
was never used for the intended projects. It appears that the
documents submitted by the NGOs/project partners to the IAs
such as, Disbursement, Progress, Accomplishment, Fund
Utilization, Inspection, Delivery and Reports, as well as the
Certificates of Acceptance, were all fabricated.
The livelihood and agricultural production kits/packages
never reached the intended beneficiaries, i.e., either there were
no projects or goods were never delivered. The mayors and the
municipal agriculturists, who had reportedly received the
livelihood assistance kits/packages for their respective
municipalities, never received anything from the Office of
Senator Estrada, the IA, or any of the project partners. None of
the mayors or municipal agriculturists was even aware of the
projects.
135 Id., p.178 136 Records, p. 1164, Folder ROCS-08-06025, OMB-C-C-13-0313 137 Id., p. 1165 138 Id., p.1180 139 Id. p. 1181
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======22
As reflected above, the signatures on the Certificates of
Acceptance or Delivery Reports were forged, and the farmer- recipients enumerated on the lists of beneficiaries denied having received any livelihood assistance kits/packages. In fact, many of the names appearing on the lists as farmer- recipients were neither residents nor registered voters of the place where they were listed as beneficiaries, were fictitious or had jumbled surnames while others were already deceased. In other words, these livelihood projects were “ghost projects.”
The Commission on Audit (COA), through its Special
Audits Office, conducted an audit of the PDAF allocations and disbursements covering the period 2007-2009, its findings of which are found in the COA Special Audits Office Report140 (the
“2007-2009 COA Report”).
Among the observations of the COA were: (a) the implementing agencies, including NABCOR, NLDC and TRC, did not actually implement the PDAF-funded projects; instead, the agencies released the funds to the NGOs, albeit charging a
"management fee" therefor; (b) the direct releases by the IAs of
PDAF to NGOs contravened the DBM's regulations considering that the same were not preceded by indorsements from the
140 COA SAO Report No. 2012-03.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======23
executive departments exercising supervisory powers over the
IAs; (c) worse, the releases were made essentially at the behest of the sponsoring legislator; (d) almost all of the
NGOs that received PDAF releases did not have a track record on the implementation of government projects, and their addresses were dubious; (e) the selection of the NGOs, as well as the procurement of the goods for distribution to the beneficiaries, did not undergo public bidding; and (f) some of the suppliers who allegedly provided the goods to the NGOs denied ever having dealt with these NGOs, contrary to the
NGOs’ claims.
The COA also found that the selections of the NGO were not compliant with the provisions of COA Circular No. 2007-
001 and GPPB Resolution No. 12-2007; the suppliers and reported beneficiaries were unknown or cannot be located at their given address; the NGOs had provided non-existent addresses or their addresses were traced to mere shanties or high-end residential units without any signage; and the NGOs submitted questionable documents, or failed to liquidate or fully document the ultilization of funds.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======24
Verily, the findings in the 2007-2009 COA Report jibe with the whistleblowers’ testimonies and are validated by the results of the FIO’s on-site field verification.
IN FINE, the PDAF-funded projects of Senator Estrada were “ghost” or inexistent.
Complainants contend that the amount of
Php278,000,000.00 allotted for livelihood and agricultural production projects was, instead, misappropriated and converted to the personal use and benefit of Senator Estrada in conspiracy with Napoles and the rest of the respondents.
Witnesses Luy, Sula, and Suñas claimed that the two foundation-NGOs indorsed by Senator Estrada were all dummies of Napoles, who operated them from her JLN office at
Unit 2502, Discovery Center Suites, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, and were created for the purpose of funnelling the Senator’s
PDAF through NABCOR, NLDC, and TRC; the majority of the incorporators, officers, and members of these NGOs are household helpers, relatives, employees and friends of
Napoles; some incorporators/corporators of the NGOs were aware of their involvement in the creation thereof while others were not; and the signatures in the Articles of Incorporation of the NGOs of those unaware of their involvement were forged.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======25
Luy, Sula, and Suñas add that the pre-selected President of each of the pre-selected NGOs, in addition to being required to furnish the names of at least five (5) persons to complete the list of incorporators, were obliged to sign an application for opening bank accounts in the name of the NGO, and to pre- sign blank withdrawal slips; these NGOs maintained bank accounts with either METROBANK, Magdalena Branch or
LANDBANK of the Philippines, EDSA-Greenhills Branch, from which Napoles would withdraw and/or cause the withdrawal of any and all amounts paid by the IAs to the NGOs concerned.
Per Luy’s records, Senator Estrada received, through
Labayen and Tuason, total commissions, rebates, or kickbacks amounting to at least Php183,793,750.00 from his PDAF- funded projects from 2004 to 2012: Php1,500,000.00 for
2004; Php16,170,000.00 for 2005; Php12,750,000.00 for
2006; Php16,250,000.00 for 2007; Php51,250,000.00 for
2008; Php2,200,000.00 for 2009; Php73,923,750.00 for 2010; and Php9,750,000.00 for 2012. The “pay offs” usually took place at the JLN office in Ortigas. In fact, Luy, Sula, and
Suñas often heard Napoles refer to Senator Estrada by his code name “Sexy” and saw Napoles hand over the money meant for the Senator to Labayen or Tuason at the premises of
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======26
JLN. The cash would come either from Luy’s vault or from
Napoles herself.
On the other hand, Napoles’ share of the money from
Senator Estrada’s PDAF was, by the claim of witnesses Luy,
Sula, Suñas, delivered in cash by them, along with respondents Encarnacion and De Asis, either at the JLN office or at Napoles’ residence at 18B, 18th Floor, North Wing Pacific
Plaza Tower Condominium, Taguig City. In the event of space constraints at her residence, Napoles would deposit some of the money to the bank accounts of the following companies which she owned:
Registered Owner Bank Account Number of the Account JO-CHRIS Trading Metrobank 7255-50955-8 JO-CHRIS Trading Metrobank 007-026-51152-2 (Checking) JO-CHRIS Trading Metrobank 3600024885
JLN Corporation Metrobank 073-3-07352390-8 JLN Corporation Metrobank 007-073-50928-5 (Checking) JCLN Global Metrobank 007-035-52543-9 Properties Development Corporation
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======27
II. THE CHARGES
The NBI thus charges Senator Estrada with PLUNDER for acquiring/receiving on various occasions, in conspiracy with his co-respondents, commissions, kickbacks, or rebates, in the total amount of at least Php183,793,750.00 from the
“projects” financed by his PDAF from 2004 to 2012.
The FIO, on the other hand, charges Senator Estrada and the rest of the respondents with violating SECTION 3(E) of RA
3019, as amended, for giving unwarranted benefits to private respondent Napoles and SDFFI, and MAMFI in the implementation of his PDAF-funded projects, thus, causing undue injury to the government in the amount of more than
Php278,000,000.00.
By Orders dated 19 and 29 November 2013, this Office directed respondents to file their respective counter-affidavits in these cases. Despite receipt of said Orders, respondents
Napoles, Labayen, Ortiz, Jalandoni, Encarnacion, and De Asis, failed to file any counter-affidavits, prompting this Office to consider them having waived their right to file the same.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======28
Despite earnest efforts, copies of the same Orders could not be served on respondent Lacsamana, she being said to be unknown at her last or given address.
III. RESPONDENTS’ COUNTER-AFFIDAVITS
In his Counter-Affidavits dated 8141 and 16142 January
2014, SENATOR ESTRADA decries political harassment and cites lack of probable cause to indict him for the offenses charged. He denies any wrongdoing and claims that he has “no knowledge or participation in the transfer of any amounts forming part of the PDAF allocation pertaining to my office or anyone other than the legally intended recipients or beneficiaries thereof;” neither he nor Labayen received any funds from Napoles, her staff or persons associated with NGOs affiliated with or controlled by her; he is not bound by the acts or declarations of “strangers,” including witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas, whose declarations are mere “hearsay;” he is not connected with the spouses Ranillo, Tuason or Ng nor did he authorize them to act on his behalf respecting his PDAF allocations; the signatures appearing in the PDAF documents and which allegedly belong to him and Labayen “were falsified;” witness Luy, who allegedly admitted falsifying
141 Records, pp. 1555-1594, Counter-Affidavit Folder III, OMB-C-C-13-313 142 Records, pp. 1-44, Counter-Affidavit Folder I, OMB-C-C-13-0397
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======29
signatures on some PDAF documents, and not him or
Labayen, should be held accountable therefor; as a legislator, he “had no hand towards the implementation of the projects funded by the PDAF” such that his choice of NGO to implement his PDAF projects was “clearly recommendatory” and “is best left to the motivated and the willing;” he did not conspire with anyone to pilfer or misuse his PDAF allocations, and his association with Napoles did not necessarily mean that he connived with her to divert PDAF disbursements; and following the Arias doctrine, he merely relied on the recommendations of his subordinate.
In her Counter-Affidavits both dated 21 February 2014,143
TUASON narrates that she personally knew private respondent Napoles, having first met her when she expressed interest in buying her (Tuason) house in Bel-Air, Makati City; because of her (Tuason) association with former President
Joseph Estrada, Napoles requested that she refer her (Napoles) to Senator Estrada which she did in 2008 during the wake of actor Rudy Fernandez; although when she informed the
Senator that Napoles wished to transact with him in relation to his PDAF, he initially turned the proposal down; she acted as the go-between for Napoles and Senator Estrada with
143 Records, pp. 1983-1997, Counter-Affidavit Folder III, OMB-C-C-13-0313
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======30
respect to his PDAF-related arrangements; she started to pick up and deliver Senator Estrada’s share in the PDAF-related arrangements in March 2008, which share-monies would be handed to her by either Luy or Napoles herself; she likewise received amounts corresponding to Senator Estrada’s kickbacks from the PDAF projects, and personally delivered the Senator’s share at his Senate Office or his satellite office in
Pacific Star or in his Greenhills, San Juan City home; she relied on records kept by witness Luy on the amounts received by Estrada because she did not keep her own records; and to her knowledge, her commissions represented 5% of the transaction/project amount involved.
NATIONAL LIVELIHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (NLDC) RESPONDENTS
Citing lack of probable cause, AMATA, NLDC’s President, avers in her Counter-Affidavits dated 26 December 2013 and
20 January 2014144, that because of undue pressure, she
“manifested…her discomfort from (sic) the designation of NLDC as one of the Implementing Agencies for PDAF” and “did not want to be involved in the distribution of PDAF;” she repeatedly requested the DBM in writing to exclude her agency from
144 Records, pp. 537-613, Counter-Affidavit Folder I, OMB-C-C-13-397; pp. 153-1554, Counter-Affidavit Folder II, OMB-C-C-13-0313
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======31
those authorized to implement PDAF-related projects; she was not involved in the misuse of the PDAF nor did she personally benefit from the same; she has performed her duties well and, save for these instant complaints, has never been formally charged with any administrative or criminal case in her more than twenty-five years in the civil service; and she “kept a distance from the solons and the NGOs” involved in PDAF- related transactions and, in fact, “caused the preparation of standard Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for PDAF transactions providing the safety nets for NLDC, as well as a
Process Flow Chart to clearly identify the responsibilities and accountabilities of the Solons, the NGOs and the NLDC PDAF internal processors for easy tracking of liabilities and irregularities that may be committed.”
BUENAVENTURA, then a regular NLDC employee, avers in her Counter-Affidavit dated 6 March 2014, that in her processing of documents relating to PDAF projects, she “did not do anything illegal or violate the instructions of (her) immediate superior;” in accordance with her functions, she undertook to verify the “endorsement letters of Senator Estrada which designated the NGOs that would implement his PDAF projects, and found them to be authentic;” she also undertook to confirm the authenticity of the authorization given by
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======32
Senator Estrada to his subordinates regarding the monitoring, supervision and implementation of PDAF projects.
Denying any participation in the implementation of PDAF projects or having received any personal benefit in relation to it, she maintains that her evaluation and verification reports were accurate, and she was never a party to the purported anomalies arising from PDAF-related transactions.
In his Counter-Affidavits dated 15145 January 2014 and
24146 February 2014, SEVIDAL, NLDC Director IV, denies having committed the offenses charged. He contends that complainant FIO submitted a false certificate of non-forum shopping, the NBI having already filed an earlier criminal complaint against him arising from the same set of facts averred in the FIO’s criminal complaint; the filing of the criminal charges was premature because the disallowances issued by the COA are not yet final and executory; he was not among those NLDC employees identified by complainants’ witnesses who supposedly planned and implemented PDAF- funded projects and points to Senator Estrada and Napoles, not NLDC employees, as the parties responsible for the misuse of the PDAF. He insists that Senator Estrada, through
145 Records, pp. 1595-1652, Counter-Affidavit Folder III, OMB-C-C13-0313 146 Records, pp. 45-110, Counter-Affidavit Folder I, OMB-C-C-13-0397
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======33
Labayen, was responsible for “identifying the projects, determining the project costs and choosing the NGOs” which was “manifested in the letters of Senator ESTRADA and Ms.
PAULINE LABAYEN.. that were sent to the NLDC;” he and other
NLDC employees were merely victims of the “political climate” and “bullied into submission by the lawmakers;” and he never derived any personal benefit from the purported misuse of the
PDAF.
CRUZ, Chief Financial Specialist and Project Development
Assistant, in her Counter-Affidavit dated 31 January 2014, denies the charges against her, claiming that in the exercise of her duties she only certified the existence, not the authenticity, of PDAF documents; her having certified that the
PDAF documents were attached to the corresponding disbursement vouchers does not constitute Plunder,
Malversation or violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019; and she did not conspire with anyone to commit the offenses charged.
She insists that she never received anything in relation to the
PDAF projects implemented by her office, she does not know whether the PDAF was abused by any or all of her co- respondents.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======34
In her Counter-Affidavit147 dated 11 February 2014,
SUCGANG, Former NLDC Director IV, Accounts Management and Development, denies the accusations against her, claiming that as co-signatory to checks relating to PDAF disbursements, she “would see to it that the following [PDAF documents] are in order and in accordance with NLDC’s established systems and procedures;” and she processed the
PDAF documents “in conformity with NLDC’s systems and procedures;”
NATIONAL AGRIBUSINESS CORPORATION (NABCOR) RESPONDENTS
Denying the charges against him in his Counter-
Affidavits148 both dated 6 February 2014, JAVELLANA,
NABCOR President, states in essence that he did not personally prepare the checks, vouchers, MOAs and other similar documents relating to NABCOR-implemented projects funded by PDAF as he merely signed and approved the PDAF documents in good faith, after his subordinates had signed the same and recommended their approval to him; and he did not conspire with anyone to defraud the Government.
147 Records, pp.870-881, Counter-Affidavit Folder I, OMB-C-C-13-0397. 148 Records, pp. 782-799, Counter Affidavit Folder I, OMB-C-C-13-0397; pp. 1937-1953, Folder III, OMB-C-C-13-0313
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======35
In his Counter-Affidavit dated 11 December 2013149 and
Supplemental Counter-Affidavit150 dated 22 January 2014,
CACAL, NABCOR Parelegal, refutes the charges against him, which to him are unsupported by the evidence. He claims that he signed Box “A” of the DVs relating to SARO No. ROCS-08-
01697, ROCS-08-003116, ROCS-08-06025 and ROCS-09-
02770 in compliance with his official functions and pursuant to stern directives issued by his superiors, namely, Javellana and Mendoza; by the time the vouchers are presented to him for signature, Javellana and Mendoza have already signed
Boxes “B” and “C” therein and they have “already prepared and signed” the corresponding checks drawn from PDAF funds, which is “indicative of their interest to fast track the transaction;” he never met with the legislators or Napoles, his interaction in relation to PDAF-related projects having been limited to Luy; he always examined the voucher’s supporting documents before issuing the aforementioned certification; he previously recommended to his superiors that the agency observe COA Memorandum Circular No. 2007-001 and revise the draft MOA used in PDAF-related transactions; and he was yelled at and berated by his superior Javellana whenever he would question some of the apparent irregularities in the
149 Records, pp. 463-482, Counter-Affidavit Folder I, OMB-C-C-13-0397; pp. 1792-1811, Counter- Affidavit Folder III, OMB-C-C-13-0313 150 Records, pp. 1792-1811, Counter-Affidavit Folder III, OMB-C-C-13-13-0313
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======36
PDAF documents. He maintains that he did not personally benefit from the implementation of PDAF projects.
In her Counter-Affidavits151 both dated 14 March 2014,
JOHNSON, former Chief Accountant, points out that there is nothing in the complaint “that would show, or even minutely imply that (she) was part of an express conspiracy” to commit the offenses charged; the complaints do not specifically allege the wrongful acts or omissions committed by her; her participation in the PDAF transactions was merely ministerial in nature, limited to a verification of “whether or not the documents enumerated on the face of the disbursement voucher were attached to that disbursement voucher;” her job did not include examining the authenticity of the vouchers or the signatures thereon; and her job did not include examining the authenticity of the vouchers or the signatures thereon.
MENDOZA, Vice President for Administration and
Finance, in her Counter-Affidavit152 dated 6 March 2014, alleges that being a mere employee of NABCOR, she “acted only upon stern instructions and undue pressure exerted upon us by our agency heads;” she signed checks relating to PDAF
151 Records, pp. 500-521, Counter-Affidavit Folder, OMB-C-C13-0397; pp. 2298-2314, Counter-Affidavit Folder, OMB-C-C13-0313 152 Records, pp. 884-895, Counter-Affidavit Folder, OMB-C-C-13-0397
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======37
disbursements, specifically those covered by SARO No. ROCS-
08-01697, ROCS-08-003116, ROCS-08-06025 and ROCS-09-
02770, because she was “designated and authorized to sign” by respondent Javellana, and these checks “were already signed by NABCOR President…JAVELLANA prior to the signing of the herein Respondent …. and checks were released upon the instruction of…JAVELLANA;” she “was given instruction to process payments to suppliers and NGOs, without proper bidding and without complete documentary requirements;” and sometime in 2011, Javellana terminated her services from
NABCOR “due to her knowledge of irregularities in NABCOR.”
She denies having obtained any personal benefit from the alleged misuse of the PDAF.
Refuting the charges against her in her Counter-Affidavit153 filed on 28 January 2014, GUAÑIZO, Bookkeeper/OIC
Accounting Division, claims that the complaint did not specify the extent of her participation in the assailed scheme; no substantial evidence exists to support the charges, hence, the lack of probable cause; and she still has remedies within the
COA rules to dispute or question the agency’s report.
153 Records, pp. 1812-1839, Folder III, OMB-C-C-13-0313
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======38
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCE CENTER (TRC) RESPONDENTS
In his Counter-Affidavits both dated 20 February 2014,154
CUNANAN, Deputy Director General of the TRC at the time material to the complaints, refutes the accusations against him, stating that to his recollection, TRC began receiving
PDAF-related disbursements sometime in 2005; it was his previous superior, then TRC Director General Ortiz, “who directly dealt with and supervised the processing of all PDAF related projects of the TRC;” Lacsamana, then TRC Group
Manager, assisted Ortiz in the implementation of PDAF projects and “reported directly to Director General Ortiz’s Office in this regard;” he and other colleagues from TRC “assumed
PDAF funded projects to be regular and legitimate projects;” because of measures instituted by Ortiz, he (Cunanan), then
Deputy Director General of TRC, “did not participate in the processing of said projects except in the performance of (his) ministerial duty as a co-signatory of vouchers, checks and other financial documents of TRC;” and Ortiz, Lacsamana and Figura were “the ones who actually dealt with the Offices of the
Legislators concerned as well as the NGOs, which supposedly implemented the projects.”
154 Records,, pp. 256-295, Counter-Affidavit Folder, OMB-C-C-13-0396; pp. 1998-2038, Counter- Affidavit Folder III OMB-C-C-13-0313
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======39
He claims that sometime in 2006 or 2007, he met Napoles who “introduced herself as the representative of certain legislators who supposedly picked TRC as a conduit for PDAF- funded projects;” at the same occasion, Napoles told him that
“her principals were then Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile,
Senators Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr., Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito
Estrada;” in the course of his duties, he “often ended up taking and/or making telephone verifications and follow-ups and receiving legislators or their staff members;” during his telephone verifications, Estrada admonished him and “insisted that the TRC should honor their choice of the NGO….since the projects were funded from their PDAF;” “all the liquidation documents and the completion reports of the NGO always bore the signatures of Ms. Pauline Labayen, the duly designated representative of Sen. Estrada;” he occasionally met with Luy, who pressured him to expedite the release of the funds by calling the offices of the legislators; and after he was appointed as TRC Director General in 2010, he exerted all efforts to have his agency removed from the list of agencies authorized to implement PDAF projects.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======40
In her Counter-Affidavits155 both dated 9 December 2013,
JOVER, TRC Chief Accountant, alleges that she was implicated in the instant complaints for “having certified in the
Disbursement Vouchers for the aforestated project xxx that adequate funds/budgetary allotment of the amount is properly certified, supported by documents;” her issuance of such certification was ministerial in nature, considering other TRC officials already certified, in the same vouchers, that
“expenses/cash advance is necessary, lawful and incurred under direct supervision” and “expenses/cash advance is within budget” when these documents were referred to her; her duty was limited to verifying if the voucher was supported by the requisite documents; it was “beyond (her) duty to personally have an actual field validation and confirmed (sic) deliveries to beneficiaries or to go on the details of the delivered items or make a rigid inspection of the PDAF project;” that she signed the vouchers “for no dishonest purpose, nor being bias
[sic] and no intent on any negligence;” and she had nothing to do with “non-delivery or under delivery of PDAF project.”
In his Counter-Affidavit dated 8 January 2014, FIGURA,
TRC Department Manager III, denies the charges against him, stating that he does not personally know Napoles or the
155 Records, pp. 522-526, Counter-Affidavit Folder, OMB-C-C13-0397; pp. 1-5, Counter-Affidavit Folder I,, OMB-C-C-13-0313
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======41
legislators “who had their PDAF’s (sic) coursed through TRC as implementing agency;” he “talked to him (witness Luy) once over the telephone .. and vividly remember [being berated by] him as he was name-dropping people from DBM and
Malacañang just to compel me to release from the Legal
Department the MOA of his foundation which was being reviewed by my office;” when TRC began implementing PDAF projects in 2007, he and other TRC colleagues welcomed this development because “it would potentially generate income for
TRC which does not receive any subsidy from the National
Government;” the service fee of 1% earned by TRC for implementing PDAF projects “was too negligible;” he was told by the TRC management that “legislators highly recommended certain NGO’s(sic)/Foundations as conduit implementors and since PDAF’s (sic) are their discretionary funds, they have the prerogative to choose their NGO’s (sic);” TRC management also warned him that “if TRC would disregard it (choice of NGO), they (legislators) would feel insulted and would simply take away their PDAF from TRC, and TRC losses (sic) the chance to earn service fees;” and Cunanan was among those who objected to his (Figura) proposal that TRC increase its service fee from 1% to 10%, claiming that “if we imposed a 10% service
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======42
fee, we would totally drive away the legislators and their
PDAF’s (sic).”
Figura adds that Ortiz issued Office Circular 000P0099, directing him (Figura) to sign checks representing PDAF releases sometime in 2007; Ortiz, however, subsequently issued Office Circular 000P0100, which increased TRC’s service fee to 5% but limited his (Figura) office’s participation in PDAF project to reviewing MOAs; his having signed checks and other PDAF documents was in good faith and in compliance with his designated tasks; he did not personally benefit from the TRC’s implementation of PDAF projects; he is uncertain if Cunanan or Ortiz benefitted from the projects but to his recollection, they repeatedly expressed undue interest in the transactions; Cunanan “would frequently personally follow up in my office the review of the MOA or my signature on the checks,” even name-dropping then First Gentleman Jose
Miguel Arroyo whenever “he requested me to fast track processing of the PDAF documents;” as regards Ortiz, “his office would sometimes inquire on the status of a particular PDAF;” he tried his best to resist the pressure exerted on him and did his best to perform his duties faithfully; and he and other low- ranking TRC officials had no power to “simply disregard the
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======43
wishes of Senator Estrada,” especially on the matter of public bidding for the PDAF projects.
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT (DBM) RESPONDENTS
In their Joint Counter-Affidavit dated 13 December 2013,
Rosario NUÑEZ, Lalaine PAULE and Marilou BARE,156 admitting that they are the DBM personnel alluded to as Leah,
Lalaine and Malou, respectively, and named as such in the caption of the NBI and Baligod Complaint, state that their names are not specifically mentioned in the NBI complaint as among those who allegedly participated in or abetted the misuse of the PDAF, and that no probable cause exists to indict them for the offenses charged.
RELAMPAGOS, DBM Undersecretary for Operations, in his Counter-Affidavit dated 13 December 2013,157 contends that not only is the complaint “insufficient in form and substance,” there is neither factual nor legal basis to indict him for
Plunder as the complaint and sworn statements of witnesses do not mention his name as among those who supposedly misused the PDAF; and he performed his duties in good faith.
156 Were not originally impleaded in the caption of the complaints as respondents by the NBI and Baligod. In the course of the preliminary investigation, the Panel of Investigators ordered them to submit counter- affidavits in light of the impression that they were the parties to the scheme. Records, pp76-84, Counter Affidavit Folder I, OMB-C-C-13-0313 157 Records, pp. 63-75, Counter Affidavit Folder I, OMB-C-C-13-0313.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======44
IV. DISCUSSION
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Respondents Relampagos, Bare, Nuñez and Paule were properly impleaded.
Relampagos, Bare, Nuñez and Paule all insist that they should be dropped from these proceedings because they were not specifically named as respondents in the criminal complaints filed by the NBI and the FIO.
This Office disagrees.
Among the documents attached to and made an integral part of the NBI’s complaint is witness Luy’s Affidavit dated 12
September 2013,158 in which he identified Relampagos, Bare,
Nuñez and Paule as Napoles’ “contacts” within the DBM who helped expedite the release of SAROs and NCAs relating to the
PDAF:
82: T: Mapunta naman tayo sa pagproseso ng transaction ni JANET LIM NAPOLES sa mga government projects, gaano naman katagal magpropeso ng mga ito? S: Mabilis lang po kung ikukumpara natin sa normal na transaction sa mga government agencies.
158 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0313), p. 818-819.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======45
83. T: Alam mo ba kung paano naman ito nagagawang mapabilis ni JANET LIM NAPOLES? S: Opo, may mga contact persons na siya kasi sa DBM. Inuutusan po kami ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES na i-follow up sa kanila iyong mga dokumento para mapabilis ang pagpoproseso nito.
84. T: Kilala mo ba kung sinu-sino naman itong mga contact persons ni JANET LIM NAPOLES sa DBM? S: Sa DBM po ay sa opisina ni Usec MARIO RELAMPAGOS kami pinagpa-follow up ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES. Ang mga tinatawagan po namin ay sina LEA, MALOU at LALAINE na naka- assign sa office ni USEC RELAMPAGOS.
85. T: Bakit doon kayo nagfo-follow up sa office ni USEC RELAMPAGOS? S: Sa pagkaka-alam ko po, doon ginagawa ang SARO. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
In other words, witness Luy alleges that Relampagos, Bare,
Nuñez and Paule’s participation in the misuse or diversion of the PDAF pertains to their expedited preparation and release of the SAROs covering PDAF projects, albeit due to the ministrations of Napoles and her staff. It was for this reason that this Office summoned said public respondents to these proceedings so that they may shed light on their supposed involvement in the so-called PDAF scam. After all, preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and it is often the only means of discovering whether a person may be reasonably
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======46
charged with a crime, and enabling the prosecutor to prepare his complaint or information.159
The FIO did not submit a false certificate of non-forum shopping.
Sevidal claims that the FIO submitted a false certificate of non-forum shopping in OMB-C-C-13-0397. According to him, the FIO failed to disclose, in said certificate, that the NBI earlier filed a criminal complaint for Plunder against him and his co-respondents, docketed as OMB-C-C-13-0313, and the charges alleged therein arose from the same set of facts set forth in the FIO’s complaint.
His contention fails to persuade.
Rule 7, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, which suppletorily applies to these proceedings,160 requires the complainant’s submission of a valid, duly-accomplished certificate of non- forum shopping:
Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of
159 Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101978. April 7, 1993. 160 Rule V, Section 3 of Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1990.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======47
his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
x x x
Based on the above provision, the complainant or initiating party is duty-bound only to disclose the existence of an earlier action or claim filed by him or her, and which involves the same issues. He or she is not required to disclose the existence of pending suits or complaints previously filed by another party.
In this case, the FIO had no obligation to disclose the existence of the complaint in OMB-C-C-13-0313 for the simple reason that it was not the initiating party of that complaint.
Rather, as Sevidal admits, the NBI, and not the FIO, is the complainant in OMB-C-C-13-0313. The FIO is not even a party to OMB-C-C-13-0313. This Office fails to see why the
FIO should be faulted for not mentioning the existence of this particular complaint.
All told, the FIO did not submit a false certificate of non- forum shopping.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======48
The filing of the complaints was not premature.
Sevidal argues that the filing of the criminal charges against them and their co-respondents is premature because the COA had yet to issue notices of disallowances (NDs) on disbursements drawn from the PDAF.
The above contention, however, has been rendered moot by the well-publicized fact that the COA already issued several
NDs covering disbursements relating to PDAF-funded projects of Estrada, among other persons, from the period 2007 to
2009.161
Sevidal, however, insists that the filing of the complaint remains premature even if the COA did issue NDs. According to them, the NDs are still appealable under the 2009 Revised
Rules of Procedure (the 2009 COA Rules) and no administrative or criminal complaint arising from the NDs may be instituted until and unless the issuances have become final and executory. In other words, Sevidal assumes that the NDs, at the least, give rise to a prejudicial question warranting the suspension of the instant preliminary investigation.
161 TJ Burgonio, “Return pork, 4 solons told,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, electronically published on February 1, 2014 at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/572215/return-pork-4-solons-told and last accessed on March 18, 2014.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======49
This Office remains unconvinced.
Under Rule 111, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, a prejudicial question exists when the following elements are present:
The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. (underscoring supplied)
As reflected in the above elements, the concept of prejudicial question involves both a civil and a criminal case.
There can be no prejudicial question to speak of if, technically, no civil case is pending.162
Proceedings under the 2009 COA Rules, including those pertaining to the NDs, are administrative in nature.
Consequently, any appeal or review sought by any of the herein respondents with the COA in relation to the NDs will not give rise to a prejudicial question.
Significantly, Reyna and Soria v. Commission on Audit163 teaches that an administrative proceeding pertaining to a COA disallowance is distinct and separate from a preliminary investigation in a criminal case which may have arisen from
162 Trinidad v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 166038, December 4, 2007. 163 G.R. No. 167219, February 8, 2011.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======50
the same set of facts. Both proceedings may proceed independently of each another. Thus, Reyna and Soria declares:
On a final note, it bears to point out that a cursory reading of the Ombudsman's resolution will show that the complaint against petitioners was dismissed not because of a finding of good faith but because of a finding of lack of sufficient evidence. While the evidence presented before the Ombudsman may not have been sufficient to overcome the burden in criminal cases of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it does not, however, necessarily follow, that the administrative proceedings will suffer the same fate as only substantial evidence is required, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
An absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative prosecution or vice versa. The criminal case filed before the Office of the Ombudsman is distinct and separate from the proceedings on the disallowance before the COA. So also, the dismissal by Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr., Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, of the criminal charges against petitioners does not necessarily foreclose the matter of their possible liability as warranted by the findings of the COA. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Moreover, nothing in existing laws or rules expressly states that a disallowance by the COA is a pre-requisite for the filing of a criminal complaint for Plunder,164 Malversation165 or violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019. In fact, an audit disallowance is not even an element of any of these offenses.
Sevidal’s reference to Rule XIII, Section 6 of the 2009 COA
Rules also fails to impress. This provision reads:
164 As defined and penalized by Republic Act No. 7080, as amended. 165 As defined and penalized by Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======51
Referral to the Ombudsman. - The Auditor shall report to his Director all instances of failure or refusal to comply with the decisions or orders of the Commission contemplated in the preceding sections. The COA Director shall see to it that the report is supported by the sworn statement of the Auditor concerned, identifying among others, the persons liable and describing the participation of each. He shall then refer the matter to the Legal Service Sector who shall refer the matter to the Office of the Ombudsman or other appropriate office for the possible filing of appropriate administrative or criminal action. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Evidently, the immediately-quoted COA Rule pertains to the possible filing of administrative or criminal action in relation to audit disallowance. Note that the tenor of the provision is permissive, not mandatory. As such, an audit disallowance may not necessarily result in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions or criminal prosecution of the responsible persons. Conversely, therefore, an administrative or criminal case may prosper even without an audit disallowance. Verily, Rule XIII, Section 6 is consistent with the ruling in Reyna and Soria that a proceeding involving an audit disallowance is distinct and separate from a preliminary investigation or a disciplinary complaint.
AT ALL EVENTS, Rule XIII, Section 6 pertains to the
COA’s filing of administrative and/or criminal cases against the concerned parties. It has no bearing on any legal action taken by other agencies not subject of the 2009 COA Rules, such as the NBI or the FIO.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======52
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
The diversion or misuse of the PDAF was coursed through a complex scheme involving participants from the legislator’s office, the DBM, IAs and NGOs controlled by Napoles.
Based on testimonial and documentary evidence presented, the widespread misuse of the subject PDAF allotted to a legislator was coursed through a complex scheme basically involving projects supposed to have been funded by said PDAF which turned out to be inexistent or "ghost” projects. The funds intended for the implementation of the
PDAF-funded project are diverted to the possession and control of Napoles and her cohorts.
Modus operandi
Basically, the scheme commences when Napoles first meets with a legislator and offers to “acquire” his or her PDAF allocation in exchange for a “commission” or kickback amounting to a certain percentage of the PDAF.
Once an agreement is reached, Napoles would then advance to the legislator a down payment representing a portion of his or her kickback. The legislator would then
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======53
request the Senate President or the House Speaker as the case may be, for the immediate release of his or her PDAF. The
Senate President or Speaker would then indorse the request to the DBM.166 This initial letter-request to the DBM contains a program or list of IAs and the amount of PDAF to be released in order to guide the DBM in its preparation and release of the corresponding SARO.
The kickbacks, around 50% of the PDAF amount involved, are received by legislators personally or through their representatives, in the form of cash, fund transfer, manager’s check or personal check issued by Napoles.167
After the DBM issues the SARO representing the legislator’s PDAF allocation, the legislator would forward a copy of said issuance to Napoles. She, in turn, would remit the remaining portion of the kickback due the legislator. 168
The legislator would then write another letter addressed to the IAs which would identify his or her preferred NGO to undertake the PDAF-funded project. However, the NGO chosen by the legislator would be among those organized and
166 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0313), p. 604. 167 Id, p. 608. 168 Id, p. 605.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======54
controlled by Janet Napoles. These NGOs were, in fact, specifically set up by Napoles for the purpose.169
Upon receipt of the SARO, Napoles would direct her staff, at the time material to the cases, including witnesses Luy,
Sula and Suñas, to prepare the PDAF documents for the approval of the legislator. These documents reflect, among other things, the preferred NGO to implement the undertaking, the project proposals by the identified NGO/s; and indorsement letters to be signed by the legislator and/or his staff. Once signed by the legislator or his/her authorized staff, the PDAF documents are transmitted to the IA, which, in turn, handles the preparation of the MOA relating to the project to be executed by the legislator’s office, the IA and the chosen
NGO.
The projects are authorized as eligible under the DBM's menu for pork barrel allocations. Note that the NGO is directly selected by the legislator. No public bidding or negotiated procurement takes place in violation of RA 9184 or the
Government Procurement Reform Act.
Napoles, through her employees, would then follow up the release of the NCA with the DBM.170
169 Ibid.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======55
After the DBM releases the NCA to the IA concerned, the IA would expedite the processing of the transaction and the release of the corresponding check representing the PDAF disbursement. Among those tasked by Napoles to pick up the checks and deposit the same to bank accounts in the name of the NGO concerned were witnesses Luy and Suñas as well as respondent De Asis.171
Once the funds are deposited in the NGO’s account,
Napoles would then call the bank to facilitate the withdrawal thereof. Her staff would then withdraw the funds and remit the same to her, thereby placing said amount under Napoles’ full control and possession.172
To liquidate the disbursements, Napoles and her staff would then manufacture fictitious lists of beneficiaries, liquidation reports, inspection reports, project activity reports and similar documents that would make it appear that, indeed, the PDAF related project was implemented.
170 Id, p. 606. 171 Ibid. 172 Ibid.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======56
The PDAF allocation of Senator Estrada
Based on the records, the repeated diversions of PDAF allocated to Senator Estrada, during the period 2004 to 2012, were coursed via the above-described scheme.
In the case of Senator Estrada’s PDAF, the NGOs affiliated and/or controlled by Napoles that undertook to implement the projects to be funded by the PDAF were MAMFI and SDPFFI.173
These organizations transacted through persons known to be employees, associates or relatives of Napoles, including witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas.
Similarly, Labayen, acting on Estrada’s behalf, prepared and executed communications with the DBM and implementing agencies, as well as other PDAF-related papers such as memoranda of agreement and project proposals.
During the time material to the charges, Senator Estrada issued several indorsement letters to NABCOR, NLDC, and
TRC, expressly naming the two NGOs as his chosen contractor or project partner for his PDAF projects.
173 Id, p. 13.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======57
Witness Luy also confirmed in his Affidavit dated 12
September 2013 that Senator Estrada, indeed, transacted with
Napoles:
63. T: Nabanggit mo na may mga Chief-of-Staff ng mga Senador na ka-transact ni JANET LIM NAPOLES, maari mo bang pangalanan kung sinu-sino ang mga ito? S: …Kay Senador JINGGOY ESTRADA, siya po mismo ang nakaka-usap ni Madame NAPOLES pero sa mga papel po ang alam kop o ang nagpre-prepare ay si PAULINE LABAYEN… (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)174
Tuason, who admitted having acted as a liaison between
Napoles and the Office of Senator Estrada, confirmed that, the modus operandi described by witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas, indeed, applied to the disbursements drawn from Senator
Estrada’s PDAF. Tuason’s verified statements are consistent with the modus operandi in carrying out the transactions and described by witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas in their respective affidavits in support of the complaints:
13. I started to pick up and deliver the share of Senator Jinggoy Estrada in March 2008. I started receiving money as referral commissions from Napoles also at about that time…
14. In these transactions, I was a go-between for Janet Napoles and Senator Jinggoy.
15. When I picked up money from the JLN Corp. intended for Senator Jinggoy Estrada, it was Benhur Luy or Janet Napoles who would personally give it to me.
16. When Benhur Luy was the one giving the money to me, he would make me scribble in a piece of paper.
174 Id, p. 815.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======58
17. I do not count the money received for turn-over to Senator Jinggoy. I just pick it up and deliver it as it is to Senator Jinggoy.
x x x
27. My understanding of PDAF is it is a source of fund coming from a legislator’s budget.
28. My understanding of SARO is pag na-approve yung project, nagseset aside na ang DBM ng pera, as certified by a SARO.
29. My understanding of NCA is the payment is ready.
30. Janet Napoles was the one who explained these things to me.
Furthermore, Cunanan, in his Counter-Affidavit, claimed that Senator Estrada confirmed to him that he (Senator
Estrada), indeed, chose the NGOs named in the aforementioned letters and insisted that said choice be honoured by the TRC:
17.4. … I remember vividly how both Senators Revilla and Estrada admonished me because they thought that TRC was purportedly “delaying” the projects. Both Senators Revilla and Estrada insisted that the TRC should honor their choice of NGO, which they selected to implement the projects, since the projects were funded from their PDAF. They both asked me to ensure that TRC would immediately act on and approve their respective projects. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Cunanan’s testimony is consistent with witnesses Luy,
Sula and Suñas’ assertion that Senator Estrada’s office participated in the complex scheme to improperly divert PDAF disbursements from designated beneficiaries to NGOs affiliated with or controlled by Napoles.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======59
Aside from Tuason and Cunanan’s statements, the following set of documentary evidence supports the modus operandi described by witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas: (a) the business ledgers prepared by witnesses Luy, showing the amounts received by Senator Estrada, through Tuason and
Labayen, as his “commission” from the so-called PDAF scam;175 (b) the 2007-2009 COA Report, documenting the results of the special audit undertaken on PDAF disbursements - that there were serious irregularities relating to the implementation of PDAF-funded projects, including those sponsored by Estrada;176 and (c) the reports on the independent field verification conducted in 2013 by the investigators of the FIO which secured sworn statements of local officials and purported beneficiaries of the supposed projects funded by Senator Estrada’s PDAF which turned out to be inexistent.177
A violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 was committed.
Under Section 3 (e) of R. A. No. 3019, a person becomes criminally liable if three (3) elements are satisfied, viz.:
1. He or she must be an officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;
175 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0313), p. 625-626. 176 Id, p. 851-1113. 177 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0397), Folder I, p. 4, et seq.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======60
2. He or she must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and
3. His or her action: (a) caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government; or (b) gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his or her functions.178
The presence of the foregoing is evident from the records.
First, respondents Senator Estrada, Labayen, Relampagos,
Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Ortiz, Amata, Javellana, Cacal, Guañizo,
Relevo, Johnson, Mendoza, Lacsamana, Jover, Cunanan,
Figura, Sucgang, Jalandoni, Sevidal and Cruz were all public officers at the time material to the charges. Their respective roles in the processing and release of PDAF disbursements were in the exercise of their administrative and/or official functions.
Senator Estrada himself chose, in writing, the Napoles- affiliated NGO to implement projects funded by his PDAF. His trusted authorized staff, respondent Labayen, then prepared indorsement letters and other communications relating to the
PDAF disbursements addressed to the DBM and the IAs
(NABCOR, TRC and NLDC). This trusted staff member also participated in the preparation and execution of MOAs with the NGOs and the IAs, inspection and acceptance reports, disbursement reports and other PDAF documents.
178 Catacutan v. People, G.R. No. 175991, August 31, 2011.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======61
The DBM, through respondents Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule and Bare, then processed the SAROs and NCAs pertaining to
Senator Estrada’s PDAF projects.
In turn, the heads of the IAs (NABCOR, NLDC and TRC), as well as their respective staff participated in the preparation and execution of MOAs governing the implementation of the projects. They also facilitated, processed and approved the
PDAF disbursements to the questionable NGOs The table below indicates the participation of the IA officials/employees- respondents:
NABCOR
RESPONDENT PARTICIPATION Allan A. Javellana Signatory to MOAs with SDPFFI; approved disbursement vouchers relating to PDAF disbursements; and co-signed the corresponding checks issued to the NGOs. Rhodora B. Mendoza Co-signatory to checks issued to the NGOs; and attended inspection of livelihood kits. Victor Roman Cacal Assisted in the preparation/review of memoranda of agreement with NGOs; and certified in disbursement vouchers that the PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision. Romulo M. Relevo Certified in disbursement vouchers that the PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision. Ma. Ninez P. Guañizo Certified in disbursement vouchers that funds were available and supporting documents were complete and proper. Ma. Julie V. Johnson Certified in disbursement vouchers that funds were available and supporting documents were complete and proper.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======62
NLDC
RESPONDENT PARTICIPATION Gondelina G. Amata Signatory to MOAs with MAMFI and SDPFFI; approved disbursement vouchers relating to PDAF disbursements; and co-signed the corresponding checks issued to the NGOs. Chita C. Jalandoni Co-signed the corresponding checks issued to the NGOs. Evelyn Sucgang Co-signed the corresponding checks issued to the NGOs. Emmanuel Alexis G. Sevidal Certified in disbursement vouchers that the PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision. Sofia D. Cruz Certified in disbursement vouchers that supporting documents were complete and proper. Gregoria Buenaventura Checked and verified the endorsement letters of Estrada; confirmed the authenticity of the authorization given by Estrada to his subordinates regarding the monitoring, supervision and implementation of PDAF projects; and prepared evaluation and verification reports.
TRC
RESPONDENT PARTICIPATION Antonio Y. Ortiz Signatory to MOAs with SDPFFI and MAMFI; approved disbursement vouchers relating to PDAF disbursements; and co-signed the corresponding checks issued to the NGOs. Dennis L. Cunanan Certified in disbursement vouchers that the PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision. Francisco B. Figura Assisted in the preparation/review of memoranda of agreement with NGOs; certified in disbursement vouchers that the PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision; and co-signed the corresponding checks issued to the NGOs. Marivic Jover Certified in disbursement vouchers that funds were available and supporting documents were complete and proper. Ma. Rosalinda Lacsamana Oversaw the processing of PDAF releases to NGOs; and assisted in the preparation/review of memoranda of agreement with NGOs Consuelo Lilian Espiritu Certified in disbursement vouchers that funds were available.
On the other hand, the private respondents in this case acted in concert with their co-respondents.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======63
From the accounts of witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas’ as well as of Tuason, Napoles made a business proposal to
Labayen regarding the Senator’s PDAF, which Labayen accepted. Senator Estrada later chose NGOs affiliated with/controlled by Napoles to implement his PDAF-funded projects.
Respondent De Asis, who was working for Napoles, served as an officer of her NGOs which were selected and indorsed by
Senator Estrada to implement his projects.
Second, Senator Estrada and respondent-public officers of the IAs were manifestly partial to Napoles, her staff and the
NGOs affiliated she controlled.
Sison v. People,179 teaches that:
“Partiality” is synonymous with “bias,” which “excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are.”
To be actionable under Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, however, partiality must be manifest.
There must be a clear, notorious and plain inclination or predilection to favor one side rather than other. Simply put, the public officer or employee’s predisposition towards a particular person should be intentional and evident.
179 G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 670.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======64
That Napoles and the NGOs affiliated with/controlled by her were extended undue favor is manifest.
Senator Estrada repeatedly and directly chose the NGOs headed or controlled by Napoles and her cohorts to implement his projects without the benefit of a public bidding, and without being authorized by an appropriation law or ordinance.
As correctly pointed out by the FIO, the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of RA 9184180 states that an NGO may be contracted only when so authorized by an appropriation law or ordinance:
53.11. NGO Participation. When an appropriation law or ordinance earmarks an amount to be specifically contracted out to Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), the procuring entity may enter into a Memorandum of Agreement in the NGO, subject to guidelines to be issued by the GPPB.
National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 476,181 as amended by
NBC No. 479, provides that PDAF allocations should be directly released only to those government agencies identified in the project menu of the pertinent General Appropriations
Act (GAAs). The GAAs in effect at the time material to the charges, however, did not authorize the direct release of funds
180 Otherwise known as the “Government Procurement Reform Act.” 181 Otherwise known as “Guidelines for the Release and Utilization of the PDAF for FY 2001 and thereafter.”
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======65
to NGOs, let alone the direct contracting of NGOs to implement government projects. This, however, did not appear to have impeded Estrada’s direct selection of the Napoles affiliated or controlled NGOs, and which choice was accepted in toto by the IAs.
Even assuming arguendo that the GAAs allowed the engagement of NGOs to implement PDAF-funded projects, such engagements remain subject to public bidding requirements. Consider GPPB Resolution No. 012-2007:
4.1 When an appropriation law or ordinance specifically earmarks an amount for projects to be specifically contracted out to NGOs, the procuring entity may select an NGO through competitive bidding or negotiated procurement under Section 53.11 of the IRR. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
The aforementioned laws and rules, however, were disregarded by public respondents, Senator Estrada having just chosen the Napoles-founded NGOs. Such blatant disregard of public bidding requirements is highly suspect, especially in view of the ruling in Alvarez v. People:182
The essence of competition in public bidding is that the bidders are placed on equal footing. In the award of government contracts, the law requires a competitive public bidding. This is reasonable because “[a] competitive public bidding aims to protect the public interest by giving the public the best possible advantages thru open competition. It is a mechanism that enables the government agency to avoid or preclude anomalies
182 G.R. No. 192591, June 29, 2011.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======66
in the execution of public contracts. (underscoring supplied)
Notatu dignum is the extraordinary speed attendant to the examination, processing and approval by the concerned
NABCOR, NLDC and TRC officers of the PDAF releases to the
Napoles-affiliated or controlled NGOs. In most instances, the
DVs were accomplished, signed and approved on the same day. Certainly, the required, careful examination of the transaction’s supporting documents could not have taken place if the DV was processed and approved in one day.
Javellana, Mendoza and Cunanan were categorically identified by their subordinates-co-respondents as having consistently pressed for the immediate processing of PDAF releases.
Cacal pointed to Javellana and Mendoza as having pressured him to expedite the processing of the DVs:
12. In most instances, Boxes “B” and “C” of the disbursement voucher were already signed wherein the herein Respondent was required to sign Box “A” of the Disbursement Vouchers….In many instances the herein Respondent questioned the attachments/documents in the said vouchers regarding the disbursement of the PDAF of Legislators/Lawmakers the herein Respondent was threatened and/or coerced by his superiors for insubordination.
13. In other instances, the checks for PDAF releases were already prepared and signed by both the NABCOR President ALAN A. JAVELLANA and VP for Finance RHODORA B. MENDOZA attached to the Disbursement Voucher before the
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======67
herein Respondent signs Box “A” of the said Disbursement Vouchers. This (is) indicative of their interest to fast tract the transaction considering that the release of funds is being followed up by the concerned NGOs.
x x x
15. Usually the NABCOR VP for Admin. and Finance RHODORA B. MENDOZA to herein Respondent was sternly ordered to immediately sign Box “A” of the Disbursement Voucher even if the NGOs have not yet complied with the other documentary requirements to be attached to the said Disbursement Voucher allegedly on the basis on (sic) the verbal commitment of the NGO to submit the other required documents. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
In his Counter-Affidavit, Figura claimed that:
b) In the course of my review of PDAF documents, DDG Dennis L. Cunanan would frequently personally follow up in my office the review of the MOA or my signature on the checks. He would come down to my office in the third floor and tell me that he had a dinner meeting with the First Gentleman and some legislators so much that he requested me to fast track processing of the PDAF papers. Though I hate name- dropping, I did not show any disrespect to him but instead told him that if the papers are in order, I would release them before the end of working hours of the same day. This was done by DDG many times, but I stood my ground when the papers on PDAF he’s following up had deficiencies…. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Worth noting too is the extraordinary speed Relampagos and his co-respondents from the DBM processed the documents required for the release of the PDAF as witnesses
Luy and Suñas positively attest to, viz: the DBM’s expedited processing of the requisite SAROs and NCAs was made possible through the assistance provided by Nuñez, Paule and
Bare. Relampagos being their immediate superior, they could not have been unaware of the follows-up made by Napoles’
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======68
staff with regard to the SARO and NCA.
The concerned officials of NABCOR, NLDC and TRC did not even bother to conduct a due diligence audit on the selected NGO and the supplier chosen by the NGO to provide the livelihood kits, which supply thereof was, it bears reiteration, carried out without the benefit of public bidding, in contravention of existing procurement laws and regulations.
In addition to the presence of manifest partiality on the part of respondent public officers alluded to, evident bad faith is present.
Evident bad faith connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self- interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes.183
That several respondent public officers unduly benefitted from the diversion of the PDAF is borne by the records.
183 People v. Atienza, G.R. No. 171671, June 18, 2012.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======69
As earlier mentioned, Tuason claimed that she regularly remitted significant portions (around 50%) of the diverted sums to Estrada, which portions represented Senator
Estrada’s “share” or “commission” in the scheme, thus:
37. In all transactions mentioned, Janet Napoles paid Senator Estrada’s share in cash.
38. I personally delivered Senator Estrada’s share in (sic) his office inside Senate or in his satellite office in Pacific Star or in house in Greenhills, San Juan. I also remember that I delivered Php 1 Million to him in his comedy bar called Zirkoh in Wilson St. Greenhills, San Juan. With me at that time was Janet Napoles and her husband Jimmy.
39. I delivered Senator Estrada’s share immediately after I get the money from Janet Napoles or Benhur Luy. The dates are stated in the accounting record of Benhur Luy.
40. Senator Jinggoy Estrada receives the money that I bring coming from Janet Napoles. When I deliver the money in (sic) the Senate, I no longer pass through the metal detector. An employee of Senator Jinggoy fetches me para tulungan akong magdala ng bag ng pera straight to the office of Senator Jinggoy. Only the two of us are left in his office once the bag of money is placed down his room. His employee puts the money next to where Senator Jinggoy is seated.
41. The payments corresponding to the transactions found in the accounting records of Benhur Luy (Annex A) are not completely listed. As far as I know, Senator Jinggoy received sums bigger than what is indicated in the record of Benhur Luy. Iba kasi yung kay Benhur at iba din yung kay Janet Napoles na minsan ay diretso ng nagbibigay ng pera. Yung nare-receive ni Jinggoy should be bigger kesa dun sa records ni Benhur Luy.
x x x
44. All the deliveries made to Senator Jinggoy Estrada were personally delivered by me and personally received by him. In other words, I give it to Senator Jinggoy himself…. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
x x x
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======70
Notably, Tuason admitted having received a 5% commission for acting as liaison between Napoles and Senator
Estrada.
Witness Luy’s business ledgers validate Tuason’s claim that Labayen did, from time to time, receive money from
Napoles that was intended for Estrada.
Aside from Estrada and Labayen, respondents Javellana,
Ortiz, Cunanan, Sevidal, Buenaventura and Mendoza were identified by witness Luy as among those whom he saw receive portions of the diverted amounts:184
126. T: May nabanggit ka na may 10% na napupunta sa president o head ng agency, sino itong tinutokoy mo? S: Ang alam ko nakita kong tumanggap ay sila ALLAN JAVELLANA ng NABCOR, DENNIS CUNANAN at ANTONIO Y. ORTIZ ng TRC…. Nasabi din sa akin ni EVELYN DE LEON na may inaabot din kina GIGI BUENAVENTURA at ALEXIS SEVIDAL ng NLDC. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Witness Sula, in her Affidavit dated 12 September 2013,185 also identified Amata as among those who benefitted from the
PDAF disbursements:
k) Ms. GONDELINA AMATA (NLDC) – Nakilala ko siya noong may sakit ang kanyang asawa na nagpapagamot sa NKTI Hospital. Silang mag-asawa ay nagpunta din sa office sa 2502 Discovery Center, Ortigas. Ako rin ang nagdala ng pera para sa pambayad ng gamot. May tatlong (3) beses ko po silang
184 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0313), p. 828. 185 Id, p. 655.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======71
dinalhan ng pera sa hospital. (underscoring supplied)
Indubitably, repeatedly receiving portions of sums of money wrongfully diverted from public coffers constitutes evident bad faith.
Third, the assailed PDAF-related transactions caused undue injury to the Government in the aggregate amount of
PHP278,000,000.00.
Based on the 2007-2009 COA Report as well as on the independent field verification conducted by the FIO, the projects supposedly funded by Senator Estrada’s PDAF were
“ghost” or inexistent. There were no livelihood kits distributed to beneficiaries. Witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas declared that, per directive given by Napoles, they made up lists of fictitious beneficiaries to make it appear that the projects were implemented, albeit none took place.
Instead of using the PDAF disbursements received by them to implement the livelihood projects, respondent De Asis as well as witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas, all acting for
Napoles, continuously diverted these sums amounting to
PHP278,000,000.00 to the pocket of Napoles.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======72
Certainly, these repeated, illegal transfers of public funds to Napoles’ control, purportedly for projects which did not exist, and just as repeated irregular disbursements thereof, represent quantifiable, pecuniary losses to the Government, constituting undue injury within the context of Section 3 (e) of
RA 3019.186
Fourth, respondents Estrada, Labayen, Javellana,
Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo, Ortiz, Cunanan, Jover, Relevo,
Sucgang, Mendoza, Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Jalandoni,
Guañizo, Cruz, Espiritu, Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule, Bare and
Lacsamana, granted rspondent Napoles unwarranted benefits.
Jurisprudence teaches that unwarranted benefits or privileges refer to those accommodations, gains or perquisites that are granted to private parties without proper authorization or reasonable justification.187
In order to be found liable under the second mode of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019, it suffices that the offender has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in the exercise of his official, administrative or judicial functions.188
186 Llorente v. Sandiganbayan, 350 Phil. 820 (1998). 187 Gallego v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-57841, July 30, 1982 and Cabrera, et. al. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 162314-17, October 25, 2004. 188 Sison v. People, G.R. No. 170339, 170398-403, March 9, 2010.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======73
Estrada, Labayen, Javellana, Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo,
Ortiz, Cunanan, Jover, Relevo, Sucgang, Mendoza, Amata,
Buenaventura, Sevidal, Jalandoni, Guañizo, Cruz, Espiritu,
Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule, Bare and Lacsamana, did just that. That they repeatedly failed to observe the requirements of
R. A. No. 9184, its implementing rules and regulations, GPPB regulations as well as national budget circulars shows that unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference were given to private respondents.
The NGOs selected by Estrada did not appear to have the capacity to implement the undertakings to begin with. At the time material to the charges, these entities did not possess the required accreditation to transact with the Government, let alone possess a track record in project implementation to speak of.
In spite of the aforesaid irregularities, respondents
Javellana, Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo, Ortiz, Cunanan, Jover,
Relevo, Mendoza, Amata, Buenaventura, Rodriguez, Sucgang,
Sevidal, Jalandoni, Guañizo, Cruz, Espiritu, Relampagos,
Nuñez, Paule, Bare and Lacsamana, with indecent haste, processed the SAROs and NCAs needed to facilitate the release of the funds, as well as expedited the release of the PDAF
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======74
disbursements to the NGOs affiliated with or controlled by
Napoles. These efforts to accommodate her NGOs and allow her to repeatedly receive unwarranted benefits from the inexistent projects are too obvious to be glossed over.
ALL TOLD, there is probable cause to indict the following respondents named in the table below for 11 counts of violation of Section 3 (e) RA 3019, the material details of which are indicated also in the table:
IMPLEMENTING DISBURSEMENT TOTAL RESPONDENTS AGENCY/NGOs VOUCHERS NO. AMOUNT
Estrada, Labayen, 012008092220 Tuason, Relampagos, TRC-SDPFFI 012007092221 22,500,000 Nuñez, Bare, Paule, 012008092222 Ortiz, Cunanan, Figura, 012009020257 Lacsamana, Espiritu, Jover, Napoles and De Asis. Estrada, Labayen, 09050655 Tuason, Relampagos, NLDC-MAMFI 09060701 20,000,000 Nuñez, Bare, Paule, 09060783 Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Sucgang, Cruz, Jalandoni, Napoles and De Asis. Estrada, Labayen, 09121838 Tuason, Relampagos, NLDC-MAMFI 100110005 29,100,000 Nuñez, Bare, Paule, 10010116 Amata, Buenaventura, 10050855 Sevidal, Cruz, Sucgang, Jalandoni, Napoles and De Asis. Estrada, Labayen, 10-11-0135 Tuason, Relampagos, NLDC-SDPFFI 10-12-0141 25,000,000 Nuñez, Bare, Paule, 10-12-0147 Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Cruz, Jalandoni, Sucgang, Napoles and De Asis. Estrada, Labayen,
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======75
10020266 Tuason, Relampagos, NLDC-SDPFFI 10030353 25,000,000 Nuñez, Bare, Paule, 10050821 Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Cruz, Jalandoni, Sucgang, Napoles and De Asis. Estrada, Labayen, 10-09-0099 Tuason, Relampagos, NLDC-MAMFI 10-10-0105 31,000,000 Nuñez, Bare, Paule, 10-10-0123 Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Cruz, Sucgang, Jalandoni, Napoles and De Asis. Estrada, Labayen, 08-07-02436 Tuason, Relampagos, NABCOR-MAMFI 08-10-3743 24,250,000 Nuñez, Bare, Paule, Javellana, Mendoza, Relevo, Johnson, Cacal, Guañizo, Napoles and De Asis. Estrada, Labayen, 08-09-03381 Tuason, Relampagos, NABCOR-MAMFI 09-03-1025 18,914,000 Nuñez, Bare, Paule, Javellana, Mendoza, Relevo, Johnson, Cacal, Guañizo, Napoles and De Asis. Estrada, Labayen, 09-03-0764 Relampagos, Nuñez, NABCOR-MAMFI 09-04-1395 23,460,000 Bare, Paule, Javellana, 09-05-1735 Mendoza, Relevo, 09-04-1283 Johnson, Cacal, Guañizo, Napoles and De Asis. Estrada, Labayen, Relampagos, Nuñez, NABCOR-SDPFFI 09-03-0762 2,910,000 Bare, Paule, Javellana, Mendoza, Relevo, Johnson, Cacal, Guañizo, Napoles and De Asis. Estrada, Labayen, NABCOR-MAMFI 10-01-0077 9,700,000 Relampagos, Nuñez, 10-03-0824 Bare, Paule, Javellana, Mendoza, Relevo, Johnson, Cacal, Guañizo, Napoles and De Asis.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======76
Probable cause for Plunder exists.
Plunder is defined and penalized under Section 2 of RA
7080,189 as amended, thus:
Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. - Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d)190 hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and
189 Republic Act No. 7080, July 12, 1991, as amended by R.A 7659, December 13, 1993. 190 Section 1 (d) of the same statute stated in Section 2 above reads: d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:
1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned;
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or -controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or
6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======77
extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State.
As laid down in Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan,191 the elements of Plunder are:
1. That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons;
2. That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of the following overt or criminal acts:
(a) through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury; (b) by receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback or any other form of pecuniary benefits from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer;
(c) by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of Government owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries;
(d) by obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
(e) by establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or
191 G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======78
(f) by taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines; and,
3. That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten
wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired is at least
P50,000,000.00.192 (emphasis supplied).
The presence of the foregoing elements has been sufficiently established.
First, it is undisputed that Senator Estrada was a public officer at the time material to the charges.193
192 The terms “combination,” “series,” and “pattern” were likewise defined in the afore-cited case as follows:
Thus when the Plunder Law speaks of "combination," it is referring to at least two (2) acts falling under different categories of enumeration provided in Sec. 1, par. (d), e.g., raids on the public treasury in Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1), and fraudulent conveyance of assets belonging to the National Government under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (3).
On the other hand, to constitute a "series" there must be two (2) or more overt or criminal acts falling under the same category of enumeration found in Sec. 1, par. (d), say, misappropriation, malversation and raids on the public treasury, all of which fall under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1). Verily, had the legislature intended a technical or distinctive meaning for "combination" and "series," it would have taken greater pains in specifically providing for it in the law.
As for "pattern," we agree with the observations of the Sandiganbayan 9 that this term is sufficiently defined in Sec. 4, in relation to Sec. 1, par. (d), and Sec. 2 —
“. . . . under Sec. 1 (d) of the law, a 'pattern' consists of at least a combination or series of overt or criminal acts enumerated in subsections (1) to (6) of Sec. 1 (d). Secondly, pursuant to Sec. 2 of the law, the pattern of overt or criminal acts is directed towards a common purpose or goal which is to enable the public officer to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. And thirdly, there must either be an 'overall unlawful scheme' or 'conspiracy' to achieve said common goal. As commonly understood, the term 'overall unlawful scheme' indicates a 'general plan of action or method' which the principal accused and public officer and others conniving with him, follow to achieve the aforesaid common goal. In the alternative, if there is no such overall scheme or where the schemes or methods used by multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of a conspiracy to attain a common goal.”
193 He served as a Senator from 2004 to 2010 and was reelected in 2010. His present term as a Senator will end in 2016.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======79
Second, he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill- gotten wealth.
As disclosed by the evidence, he repeatedly received sums of money from Janet Napoles for endorsing her NGOs to implement the projects to be funded by his PDAF.
Witness Luy claimed in his Affidavit dated 12 September
2013 that Estrada himself transacted with Napoles:
63. T: Nabanggit mo na may mga Chief-of-Staff ng mga Senador na ka-transact ni JANET LIM NAPOLES, maari mo bang pangalanan kung sinu-sino ang mga ito? S: …Kay Senador JINGGOY ESTRADA, siya po mismo ang nakaka-usap ni Madame NAPOLES pero sa mga papel po ang alam ko po ang nagpre-prepare ay si PAULINE LABAYEN… (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)194
Tuason admits having acted as a liaison between Napoles and Senator Estrada. And she confirmed that the modus operandi described by witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas, indeed, applied to the disbursements drawn from the PDAF. Her verified statements, immediately quoted below, is similar to the version espoused by witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas in their respective affidavits:
13. I started to pick up and deliver the share of Senator Jinggoy Estrada in March 2008. I started receiving money as referral commissions from Napoles also at about that time…
194 Id, p. 815.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======80
14. In these transactions, I was a go-between for Janet Napoles and Senator Jinggoy.
15. When I picked up money from the JLN Corp. intended for Senator Jinggoy Estrada, it was Benhur Luy or Janet Napoles who would personally give it to me. 16. When Benhur Luy was the one giving the money to me, he would make me scribble in a piece of paper.
17. I do not count the money received for turn-over to Senator Jinggoy. I just pick it up and deliver it as it is to Senator Jinggoy.
x x x
27. My understanding of PDAF is it is a source of fund coming from a legislator’s budget.
28. My understanding of SARO is pag na-approve yung project, nagseset aside na ang DBM ng pera, as certified by a SARO.
29. My understanding of NCA is the payment is ready.
30. Janet Napoles was the one who explained these things to me. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
As outlined by witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas which
Tuason similarly claimed, once a PDAF allocation becomes available to Senator Estrada, his staff Labayen would inform
Tuason of this development. Tuason, in turn, would relay the information to either Napoles or witness Luy. Napoles or Luy would then prepare a listing195 of the projects available where
Luy would specifically indicate the IAs. This listing would be sent to Labayen who would then endorse it to the DBM under her authority as Deputy Chief-of-Staff of Senator Estrada.
195 This “listing” is a letter from the legislator containing a program or list of implementing agencies and the amount of PDAF to be released as to guide the DBM in its preparation and release of the corresponding SARO. This is also a formal request of the legislator to the DBM for the release of his PDAF.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======81
After the listing is released by the Office of Senator Estrada to the DBM, Napoles would give Tuason196 or Labayen197 a down payment for delivery to Senator Estrada. After the
SARO and/or NCA is released, Napoles would give Tuason the full payment for delivery to Senator Estrada through
Labayen or by Tuason.
It bears noting that money was paid and delivered to
Senator Estrada even before the SARO and/or NCA is released. Napoles would advance Senator Estrada’s down
196 As mentioned above, Tuason alleged in the Counter-Affidavit that she regularly remitted significant portions (around 50%) of the diverted sums to Estrada, which represented his commission in the scheme:
37. In all transactions mentioned, Janet Napoles paid Senator Estrada’s share in cash.
38. I personally delivered Senator Estrada’s share in (sic) his office inside Senate or in his satellite office in Pacific Star or in house in Greenhills, San Juan. I also remember that I delivered Php 1 Million to him in his comedy bar called Zirkoh in Wilson St. Greenhills, San Juan. With me at that time was Janet Napoles and her husband Jimmy.
39. I delivered Senator Estrada’s share immediately after I get the money from Janet Napoles or Benhur Luy. The dates are stated in the accounting record of Benhur Luy.
40. Senator Jinggoy Estrada receives the money that I bring coming from Janet Napoles. When I deliver the money in (sic) the Senate, I no longer pass through the metal detector. An employee of Senator Jinggoy fetches me para tulungan akong magdala ng bag ng pera straight to the office of Senator Jinggoy. Only the two of us are left in his office once the bag of money is placed down his room. His employee puts the money next to where Senator Jinggoy is seated.
41. The payments corresponding to the transactions found in the accounting records of Benhur Luy (Annex A) are not completely listed. As far as I know, Senator Jinggoy received sums bigger than what is indicated in the record of Benhur Luy. Iba kasi yung kay Benhur at iba din yung kay Janet Napoles na minsan ay diretso ng nagbibigay ng pera. Yung nare-receive ni Jinggoy should be bigger kesa dun sa records ni Benhur Luy.
x x x
44. All the deliveries made to Senator Jinggoy Estrada were personally delivered by me and personally received by him. In other words, I give it to Senator Jinggoy himself….
x x x
197 See Luy and Suña’s Affidavit dated 11 September 2013, Records (OMB-C-C-13-0313), p. 609.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======82
payment from her own pocket upon the mere release by his
Office of the listing of projects to the DBM, with the remainder of the amount payable to be given after the SARO representing the legislator’s PDAF allocation is released by the DBM and a copy of the SARO forwarded to Napoles.
Significantly, after the DBM issues the SARO, Senator
Estrada, through Labayen, would then write another letter addressed to the IAs which would identify and indorse
Napoles’ NGOs as his preferred NGO to undertake the PDAF- funded project,198 thereby effectively designating in writing the
Napoles-affiliated NGO to implement projects funded by his
PDAF. Along with the other PDAF documents, the indorsement letter of Senator Estrada is transmitted to the
IA, which, in turn, handles the preparation of the MOA concerning the project, to be entered into by the Senator’s
Office, the IA and the chosen NGO.
Cunanan, in his Counter-Affidavit, claimed that Senator
Estrada confirmed to him that he, indeed, chose the NGOs
198 Upon receipt of the SARO, Janet Napoles would direct her staff, then including witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas, to prepare the PDAF documents for the approval of the legislator and reflecting the preferred NGO to implement the undertaking, including: (a) project proposals by the identified NGO/s; (b) endorsement letters to be signed by the legislator and/or his staff; and (c) project proposals.
Estrada’s trusted staff, Labayen, then signed the endorsement letters and other communications relating to the PDAF disbursements addressed to the DBM and the implementing agencies (NABCOR, TRC and NLDC). She also participated in the preparation and execution of memoranda of agreement with the NGO and the implementing agency, inspection and acceptance reports, disbursement reports and other PDAF documents.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======83
named in the aforementioned letters and insisted that the choice be honored by the TRC:
17.4. … I remember vividly how both Senators Revilla and Estrada admonished me because they thought that TRC was purportedly “delaying” the projects. Both Senators Revilla and Estrada insisted that the TRC should honor their choice of NGO, which they selected to implement the projects, since the projects were funded from their PDAF. They both asked me to ensure that TRC would immediately act on and approve their respective projects. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
As previously discussed, the indorsements enabled
Napoles to gain access199 to substantial sums of public funds.
The collective acts of Senator Estrada, Napoles, et al. allowed the illegal diversion of public funds to their own personal use.
It cannot be gainsaid that the sums of money received by
Senator Estrada amount to “kickbacks” or “commissions” from a government project within the purview of Sec. 1 (d) (2)200 of
199 After endorsement by Senator Estrada and processing by the implementing agencies, the projects are authorized as eligible under the DBM's menu for pork barrel allocations; Napoles, through her employees, would then follow up the release of the NCA with the DBM. After the DBM releases the NCA to the implementing agency concerned, the latter would expedite the processing of the transaction and the release of the corresponding check representing the PDAF disbursement.
Once the funds are deposited in the NGO’s account, Janet Napoles would then call the bank to facilitate the withdrawal thereof. Her staff would then withdraw the funds involved and remit the same to her, thus placing said amount under Napoles’ full control and possession.
From her 50% share, Napoles then remits a portion (around 10%) thereof to officials of the implementing agencies who facilitated the transaction as well as those who served as her liaison with the legislator’s office.
200 Section 1. Definition of terms. - As used in this Act, the term:
d. "Ill-gotten wealth" means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Section two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======84
RA 7080. He repeatedly received commissions, percentage or kickbacks representing his share in the project cost allocated from his PDAF, in exchange for his indorsement of Napoles’s
NGOs to implement his PDAF-funded projects.
Worse, the evidence indicates that he took undue advantage of his official position, authority and influence to unjustly enrich himself at the expense, and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the
Philippines, within the purview of Sec. 1 (d) (6) of RA 7080.201
He used and took undue advantage of his official position, authority and influence as a Senator of the Republic of the
Philippines to access his PDAF and illegally divert the allocations to the possession and control of Napoles and her cohorts, in exchange for commissions, kickbacks, percentages from the PDAF allocations.
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned;
201 Section 1. Definition of terms. - As used in this Act, the term: d. "Ill-gotten wealth" means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Section two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:
6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======85
Undue pressure and influence from Senator Estrada’s
Office, as well as his endorsement of Napoles’ NGOs, were brought to bear upon the public officers and employees of the
IAs.
Figura,202 an officer from the TRC, claimed that the TRC management told him: “legislators highly recommended certain
NGOs/Foundations as conduit implementors and since PDAFs are their discretionary funds, they have the prerogative to choose their NGO’s”; and the TRC management warned him that “if TRC would disregard it (choice of NGO), they (legislators) would feel insulted and would simply take away their PDAF from TRC, and TRC losses (sic) the chance to earn service fees.”
Figura further claimed that he tried his best to resist the pressure exerted on him and did his best to perform his duties faithfully; [but] he and other low-ranking TRC officials had no power to “simply disregard the wishes of
Senator [Estrada],” especially on the matter of public bidding for the PDAF projects.
Cunanan,203 narrates that he met Napoles sometime in
2006 or 2007, who “introduced herself as the representative of certain legislators who supposedly picked TRC as a conduit for
PDAF-funded projects;” at the same occasion, Napoles told him
202 See Figura’s Counter-Affidavit dated 8 January 2014. 203 See Cunanan’s Counter-Affidavit dated 20 February 2014.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======86
that “her principals were then Senate President Juan Ponce
Enrile, Senators Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr., Sen. Jinggoy
Ejercito Estrada;” letters signed by Estrada prove that he
(Estrada) directly indorsed NGOs affiliated with or controlled by Napoles to implement his PDAF projects; in the course of his duties, he “often ended up taking and/or making telephone verifications and follow-ups and receiving legislators or their staff members;” during one of these telephone conversations, Estrada admonished him and
“insisted that the TRC should honor their choice of the
NGO….since the projects were funded from their PDAF;”
“all the liquidation documents and the completion reports of the NGO always bore the signatures of Ms.
Pauline Labayen, the duly designated representative of
Sen. Estrada;” and he occasionally met with witness Luy, who pressured him to expedite the release of the funds by calling the offices of the legislators.
NLDC’s Amata also mentioned about undue pressure surrounding the designation of NLDC as one of the
Implementing Agencies for PDAF.204 Her fellow NLDC employee
Buenaventura205 adds that in accordance with her functions, she “checked and verified the endorsement letters of
204 See her Counter-Affidavit dated 26 December 2013 and 20 January 2014. 205 See her Counter-Affidavit dated 6 March 2014.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======87
Senator [Estrada], which designated the NGOs that would implement his PDAF projects and found them to be valid and authentic;” she also confirmed the authenticity of the authorization given by Estrada to his subordinates regarding the monitoring, supervision and implementation of
PDAF projects; and her evaluation and verification reports were accurate.
Another NLDC officer, Sevidal,206 claimed that Senator
Estrada and Napoles, not NLDC employees, were responsible for the misuse of the PDAF; Senator Estrada, through
Labayen, was responsible for “identifying the projects, determining the project costs and choosing the NGOs” which was “manifested in the letters of Senator Estrada and Ms. Pauline Labayen…that were sent to the NLDC;” and that he and other NLDC employees were victims of the
“political climate” and “bullied into submission by the lawmakers.”
The evidence evinces that Senator Estrada used and took undue advantage of his official position, authority and influence as a Senator to unjustly enrich himself at the
206 See his Counter-Affidavit dated 15 January 2014 and 24 February 2014.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======88
expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
The PDAF was allocated to Senator Estrada by virtue of his position, hence, he exercised control in the selection of his priority projects and programs. He indorsed Napoles’ NGOs in consideration for the remittance of kickbacks and commissions from Napoles. These circumstances were compounded by the fact that the PDAF-funded projects were
“ghost projects” and that the rest of the PDAF allocation went into the pockets of Napoles and her cohorts. Undeniably,
Senator Estrada unjustly enriched himself at the expense, and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the
Republic of the Philippines.
Third, the amounts earned by Senator Estrada through kickbacks and commissions amounted to more than Fifty
Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00).
Witness Luy’s ledger207 shows, among others, that
Senator Estrada received the following amounts as and by way of kickbacks and commissions:208
207 Per Luy, the commissions are based on the JLN Corporation Cash vouchers signed by the legislators or their representatives. This is an accounting record which contains the day-to-day financial transactions 0f the JLN Corporation and/or Napoles.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======89
Year Amount received by Senator Estrada (In PhP) 2004 1,500,000.00 2005 16,170,000.00 2006 12,750,000.00 2007 16,250,000.00 2008 51,250,000.00 2009 2,200,000.00 2010 73,923,750.00 2012 9,750,000.00 Total: Php183,793,750.00
The aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired by Senator Estrada stands at Php183,793,750.00, at the very least.209
The sums were received by the Senator either personally or through his Deputy Chief-Of-Staff, Labayen, as earlier discussed.
Napoles provided those kickbacks and commissions.
Witnesses Luy and Suñas,210 not to mention Tuason, stated that Napoles was assisted in delivering the kickbacks and commissions by her employees and cohorts John Raymond de
Asis, Ronald John Lim and Tuason.
208 See the Business Ledgers attached to Luy, Suñas, Gertrudes Luy, Batal-Macalintal, Abundo and Lingo’s Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 11 September 2013. Records (OMB-C-C-13-0313), p. 625-626.
209 It is noted that Luy and Suñas claimed that the total commissions received by Senator Estrada was PhP375,750,000.00, representing 50% of PhP751,500,000.00 of Estrada’s PDAF allocations. However, Luy was only able to record in his ledger the aggregate amount PhP183,793,750.00. He explained that sometimes transactions are not recorded in his ledger because Napoles herself personally delivers the commissions to the legislators or their representatives outside the JLN Corporation office. Hence, there are no signed vouchers presented to him; nevertheless, in these cases, Napoles merely informs him that the lawmakers commission has been paid completely. Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 11 September 2013, Records, (OMB-C-C-13-0313), pp. 608-609.
210 See Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 11 September 2013, Records, (OMB-C-C-13-0313), p. 604.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======90
Senator Estrada’s commission of the acts covered by
Section 1 (d) (2) and Section 1 (d) (6) of RA No. 7080 repeatedly took place over the years 2004 to 2012. This shows a pattern – a combination or series of overt or criminal acts – directed towards a common purpose or goal, which is to enable Senator
Estrada to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth.
Senator Estrada, taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence as a
Senator acted, in connivance with his subordinate-authorized representative Labayen, to receive commissions and kickbacks for indorsing the Napoles NGOs to implement his PDAF- funded project; and likewise, in connivance with Napoles, with the assistance of her employees and cohorts Tuason, de Asis and Lim who delivered the kickbacks to him. These acts are linked by the fact that they were plainly geared towards a common goal which was to amass, acquire and accumulate ill- gotten wealth amounting to at least Php183,793,750.00 for
Senator Estrada.
Probable cause therefore exists to indict Senator
Estrada, Labayen, Napoles, Tuason, and de Asis for Plunder under RA No. 7080.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======91
Conspiracy is established by the evidence presented.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.211
Direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found because criminals do not write down their lawless plans and plots.
Nevertheless, the agreement to commit a crime may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or inferred from acts that point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.212
Conspiracy exists among the offenders when their concerted acts show the same purpose or common design, and are united in its execution.213
When there is conspiracy, all those who participated in the commission of the offense are liable as principals, regardless of the extent and character of their participation because the act of one is the act of all.214
211 Art. 8 of the Revised Penal Code. 212 People v. Hapa, G.R. No. 125698, July 19, 2001, 361 SCRA 361. 213 People v. Olazo and Angelio, G.R. No. 197540, February 27, 2012, citing People v. Bi-Ay, Jr., G.R. No. 192187, December 13, 2010, 637 SCRA 828, 836. 214 People v. Forca, G.R. No. 134938, June 8, 2000.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======92
As extensively discussed above, the presence of conspiracy among respondents Senator Estrada, Labayen, Javellana,
Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo, Ortiz, Cunanan, Jover, Relevo,
Mendoza, Amata, Buenaventura, Rodriguez, Sevidal,
Jalandoni, Sucgang, Cruz, Espiritu, Relampagos, Nuñez,
Paule, Bare, Lacsamana, Tuason, Napoles and De Asis, is manifest.
To be able to repeatedly divert substantial funds from the
PDAF, access thereto must be made available, and this was made possible by Senator Estrada who chose NGOs affiliated with or controlled by Napoles to implement his PDAF-related undertakings. Labayen prepared the requisite indorsement letters and similar documentation addressed to the DBM and the IAs which were necessary to ensure that the chosen NGO would be awarded the project.
Relampagos, Paule, Bare and Nuñez, as officers of the
DBM, were in regular contact with Napoles and her staff who persistently followed up the release of the coveted SAROs and
NCAs to the concerned IAs.
In turn, Javellana, Mendoza, Cacal, Guañizo, Ortiz,
Cunanan, Jover, Relevo, Mendoza, Amata, Buenaventura,
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======93
Sevidal, Jalandoni, Sucgang, Cruz, Espiritu and Lacsamana, as officers of the IAs, prepared, reviewed and entered into the
MOAs governing the implementation of the projects. And they participated in the processing and approval the PDAF disbursements to the questionable NGOs. The funds in question could not have been transferred to these NGOs if not for their certifications, approvals and signatures found in the corresponding disbursement vouchers and checks.
Once the fund releases were successfully processed by the
IAs, Napoles and her cohorts, in behalf of the NGOs in question and the direction of Napoles, would pick up the corresponding checks and deposit them in accounts under the name of the NGOs. The proceedsof the checks would later be withdrawn from the banks and brought to the offices of
Napoles, who would then proceed to exercise full control and possession over the funds.
Napoles and her staff, again on orders of Napoles, would prepare the fictitious beneficiaries list and other similar documents for liquidation purposes, to make it appear that the projects were implemented.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======94
For their participation in the above-described scheme,
Senator Estrada, Javellana, Ortiz, Cunanan, Amata,
Buenaventura and Sevidal received portions of the subject
PDAF disbursements from Napoles. Senator Estrada’s share or commission was coursed by Napoles through Tuason who delivered the same to Senator Estrada.
ALL TOLD, there is cohesion and interconnection in the above-named respondents’ intent and purpose that cannot be logically interpreted other than to mean the attainment of the same end that runs thru the entire gamut of acts they perpetrated separately. The role played by each of them was so indispensable to the success of their scheme that, without any of them, the same would have failed.
There is no evidence showing that the signatures of respondents Estrada or Labayen in the PDAF documents were forged.
Senator Estrada argues that the signatures appearing in letters, MOAs, liquidation reports and similar PDAF documents attributed to him and Labayen are mere forgeries.
They deny having signed these documents and disclaim any participation in the preparation and execution thereof.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======95
Forgery is not presumed; it must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.215
Estrada’s denial, no matter how vehement, is insufficient to prove that his and Labayen’s signatures that appear in the
PDAF documents are falsified.216 This is true especially in
Labayen’s case. The MOA bearing her purported signatures are notarized documents that enjoy the presumption of regularity and can be overturned only by clear and convincing evidence.217
Any variance between the signatures found in the PDAF documents vis-à-vis Senator Estrada’s or Labayen’s signatures in other documents or records is not controlling. Mere variance of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same were forged. As Rivera v. Turiano218 teaches:
This Court has held that an allegation of forgery and a perfunctory comparison of the signatures by themselves cannot support the claim of forgery, as forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof lies in the party alleging forgery. Even in cases where the alleged forged signature was compared to samples of genuine signatures to show its variance therefrom, this Court still found such evidence insufficient. It must be stressed that the mere
215 JN Development Corporation v. Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation, G.R. No. 151060 and Cruz v. Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation, G.R. No. 151311, August 31, 2005, 468 SCRA 555, 569-570. 216 Supra. Also in Ladignon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122973, July 18, 2000. 217 Delfin, et al. v. Billones, et al., G.R. No. 146550, March 17, 2006. 218 G.R. No. 156249, March 7, 2007.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======96
variance of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same were forged. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
AT ALL EVENTS, this Office, after a prima facie comparison with the naked eyes of the members of the Panel of Investigators between the signatures appearing in the PDAF documents that are attributed to respondents Senator Estrada
(and Labayen), and his signatures found in his counter- affidavit, opines that both sets of signatures appear to have been affixed by one and the same respective hand.219 In the absence of clear and convincing evidence, this Office thus finds that the questioned signatures on the relevant documents belong to Senator Estrada (and Labayen).
The Arias doctrine is not applicable to these proceedings.
Javellana argues that he cannot be held accountable for approving the PDAF releases pertaining to those projects assigned to NABCOR because he only issued such approval after his subordinates, namely, respondents Mendoza, Cacal,
Relevo and other NABCOR officials involved in the processing and/or implementation of PDAF-funded projects, examined the
219 See Fernando v. Fernando, G.R. No. 191889, January 31, 2011,
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======97
supporting documents, assured him of the availability of funds and recommended the approval of the disbursements to him.
Similarly, Cunanan claims that he approved the PDAF releases relating to projects assigned to TRC only after his subordinates at the agency recommended such approval to him.
Simply put, Javellana and Cunanan invoke the ruling in
Arias v. Sandiganbayan.220 Reliance thereon is misplaced.
Arias squarely applies in cases where, in the performance of his official duties, the head of an office is being held to answer for his act of relying on the acts of his subordinate:
We would be setting a bad precedent if a head of office plagued by all too common problems - dishonest or negligent subordinates, overwork, multiple assignments or positions, or plain incompetence - is suddenly swept into a conspiracy conviction simply because he did not personally examine every single detail, painstakingly trace every step from inception, and investigate the motives of every person involved in a transaction before affixing his signature as the final approving authority. x x x
We can, in retrospect, argue that Arias should have probed records, inspected documents, received procedures, and questioned persons. It is doubtful if any auditor for a fairly sized office could personally do all these things in all vouchers presented for his signature. The Court would be asking for the impossible. All heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and on the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations. xxx There has to be some added reason why he should examine each voucher in such detail. Any executive head of even small government agencies or commissions can
220 259 Phil. 794 (1989).
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======98
attest to the volume of papers that must be signed. There are hundreds of documents, letters, memoranda, vouchers, and supporting papers that routinely pass through his hands. The number in bigger offices or departments is even more appalling.
There should be other grounds than the mere signature or approval appearing on a voucher to sustain a conspiracy charge and conviction.221 (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
The above pronouncement readily shows that the Arias doctrine does not help the cause of Javellana and Cunanan.
First, the Arias doctrine applies only if it is undisputed that the head of the agency was the last person to sign the vouchers, which would show that he was merely relying on the prior certifications and recommendations of his subordinates.
It will not apply if there is evidence showing that the head of agency, before a recommendation or certification can be made by a superior, performs any act that would signify his approval of the transaction. In other words, the Arias doctrine is inapplicable in cases where it is the head of agency himself or herself who influences, pressures, coerces or otherwise convinces the subordinate to sign the voucher or recommend the approval of the transaction.
In Javellana’s case, Cacal stated in his Counter-Affidavit, that he signed the DVs pertaining to PDAF disbursements
221 Ibid.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======99
because respondent Javellana directed him to do so. In support of his claim, Cacal submitted a document entitled
“Authorization” issued and signed by Javellana, which states:
In order to facilitate processing of payments and in the exigency of the service, MR. VICTOR ROMAN CACAL, Paralegal, this Office is hereby authorized to sign BOX A of the Disbursement Vouchers of all transactions related to PDAF Project.
This authorization takes effect starting August 20, 2008.
Cacal, in his Supplemental Affidavit, claimed that respondent Javellana, among others, already signed the checks and other documents even before he (Cacal) could sign
Box “A” of the disbursement vouchers.
15. In most instances, Boxes “B” and “C” were already signed wherein the herein Respondent was required to sing (sic) Box “A” of the Disbursement Vouchers. Most of the times the Box “B” and/or Box “C” of the Disbursement Vouchers were already signed ahead by Niñez Guanizo and/or Rhodora B. Mendoza and ALAN A. JAVELLANA respectively.
16. In other instances, the checks for PDAF releases were already prepared and signed by NABCOR President ALAN A. JAVELLANA and VP for Finance RHODORA B. MENDOZA attached to the Disbursement Voucher before the herein Respondent were made signs Box “A” of the said Disbursement Vouchers. This indicative of the target5 (sic) Municipalities and immediately stern instructions of herein Respondent’s superiors to sign the Disbursement Voucher immediately for reasons that it is being followed up by the concerned NGO. Furthermore, the herein Respondent relied on the duly executed Memorandum of Agreement by and between NABCOR, NGO and the Office of the Legislator. According to the said MOA, initial release of funds will be undertaken by NABCOR upon signing thereof. Hence, payment and/or release of fund to the NGO became a lawful obligation of NABCOR.
x x x
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======100
18. On many instances, sternly ordered [sic] the NABCOR VP for Admin. and Finance RHODORA B. MENDOZA to herein Respondent to immediately sign Box “A” of the Disbursement Voucher even if the NGOs have not yet complied with the other documentary requirements to be attached to the said Disbursement Voucher on the basis on [sic] the commitment of the NGO to submit the other required documents (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Cacal added that he was constrained to sign the disbursement vouchers due to pressure exerted by his superiors:
19. … In many instances wherein the Respondent questioned the attachments/documents in the said vouchers regarding the disbursements of the PDAF of legislators the respondent was herein threatened and/or coerced by his superiors. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Since the subordinate himself vehemently disputes having recommended the approval of the fund release to his superior, this Office in not inclined to apply the Arias doctrine. Note that the Arias doctrine is only applied in cases where it is undisputed that the recommendation of the subordinate preceded the superior’s approval, and not in situations where it is the superior who persuades or pressures the subordinate to favourably recommend approval.
Second, the Arias doctrine, even assuming that it is applicable, does not ipso facto free the heads of agencies from
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======101
criminal, civil or administrative charges. The ruling merely holds that the head of agency cannot be deemed to be a co- conspirator in a criminal offense simply because he signed and/or approved a voucher or document that facilitated the release of public funds.222
In the present cases, the liability of Javellana and
Cunanan is not based solely on their approval of the vouchers and other papers relating to PDAF projects implemented by
NABCOR and/or TRC but on their own, overt acts showing their undue interest in the release of PDAF funds. In short,
Javellana and Cunanan’s actions indicate that they wanted the funds released as soon as possible, regardless of whether applicable laws or rules governing such disbursements have been complied with.
As discussed above, Javellana’s own subordinate testified that the latter actually pre-signed the checks pertaining to
PDAF release even before the disbursement vouchers were duly accomplished and signed.
Figura declared in his Counter-Affidavit that Cunanan constantly followed up with him (Figura) the expedited processing of PDAF documents:
222 See Jaca v. People, Gaviosa v. People and Cesa v. People, G.R. Nos. 166967, 166974 and 167167, January 28, 2013.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======102
b) In the course of my review of PDAF documents, DDG Dennis L. Cunanan would frequently personally follow up in my office the review of the MOA or my signature on the checks. He would come down to my office in the third floor and tell me that he had a dinner meeting with the First Gentleman and some legislators so much that he requested me to fast track processing of the PDAF papers. Though I hate name- dropping, I did not show any disrespect to him but instead told him that if the papers are in order, I would release them before the end of working hours of the same day. This was done by DDG many times, but I stood my ground when the papers on PDAF he’s following up had deficiencies…. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Likewise, witness Luy, in his Sworn Statement dated 12
September 2013,223 stated that Javellana and Cunanan were among those he saw receive a percentage of the diverted PDAF sums from Napoles:
126. T: May nabanggit ka na may 10% na napupunta sa president o head ng agency, sino itong tinutokoy mo? S: Ang alam ko nakita kong tumanggap ay sila ALLAN JAVELLANA ng NABCOR, DENNIS CUNANAN at ANTONIO Y. ORTIZ ng TRC…. emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Furthermore, this Office takes note of the fact that witness
Luy, during the legislative inquiry conducted by the Senate
Committee on Accountability of Public Officers & Investigations
(the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee) on 7 November 2014, testified that he personally knew Javellana as among those who received kickbacks from Napoles for his role in the PDAF releases, viz:
223 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0313), p. 828.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======103
Luy said he saw Napoles giving money to officials of implementing agencies at her office.
“When Ms. Napoles gives the instruction to prepare the money and their 10-percent commission, I will so prepare it. I will type the voucher and have it checked by my seniors or by her daughter Jo Christine,” Luy said. “I will bring the money to her office and there are instances when she and I will meet the person and give the money contained in a paper bag.”
Luy said he saw Alan Javellana, a former president of the National Agribusiness Corp., and Antonio Ortiz, former head of the Technology Resource Center, receive their respective payoffs.224 (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
On 6 March 2014, witness Luy again testified before the
Senate Blue Ribbon Committee that Cunanan was among those who received undue benefits from the so-called PDAF scam through kickbacks given by Napoles:
The principal whistleblower in the pork barrel scam Benhur Luy said Thursday that Dennis Cunanan, the former chief of the Technology Resource Center who wants to turn state witness, personally received P960,000 in kickbacks from Janet Lim Napoles, contrary to his claims.
In the continuation of the Blue Ribbon Committee hearings on the pork barrel scam, Luy said he personally saw Cunanan carrying a bagful of money after meeting Napoles at the JLN Corp. office at the Discovery Suites in Ortigas, Pasig City.
Luy said he was instructed by Napoles to prepare the P960,000 intended for Cunanan, representing his commission for the pork barrel coursed through the TRC. He then handed the money to his co-worker, Evelyn De Leon, who was present at the meeting room with Napoles and Cunanan.
224 Norman Bordadora and TJ Burgonio, “Benhur Luy upstages Napoles in Senate hearing,” electronically published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer at its website located at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/522831/benhur-luy-upstages-napoles-in-senate-hearing#ixzz2wqP0PnoP on November 8, 2013
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======104
“When Dencu (referring to Dennis Cunanan) emerged out of the conference room, I saw him carrying the paper bag,” Luy said. Asked if he saw Cunanan receive the money, Luy answered: “After the meeting, I saw the paper bag. He was carrying it.” (emphasis, underscoring and italics supplied)225
The immediately-quoted chronicle of the testimonies of Luy indubitably indicates that respondents Javellana and Cunanan did not approve the PDAF releases because they relied on the recommendation of their subordinates; rather, they themselves wanted the funds released of their own volition.
IN FINE, this Office holds that the Arias doctrine is not applicable to the heads of agencies impleaded in these proceedings including Javellana and Cunanan.
There is no probable cause to indict Encarnacion.
The NBI impleaded Encarnacion in her capacity as president of Countrywide Agri and Rural Economic and
Development Foundation, Inc. (CARED), one of the NGOs affiliated with/controlled by Napoles.226
225 Macon Ramos-Araneta, “Cunanan got pork cuts,” electronically published by Manila Standard Today at its website located at http://manilastandardtoday.com/2014/03/07/-cunanan-got-pork-cuts-i-saw-him-carry- bag-with-p-9m-benhur/ last March 7, 2014 and last accessed on 24 March 2014. 226 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0313), p. 5 and 12.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======105
Records show, however, that CARED was not among those
NGOs involved in the diversion of funds drawn from Senator
Estrada’s PDAF allocation to Napoles. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that Encarnacion was involved in Estrada’s acquisition or accumulation of ill-gotten wealth through kickbacks or commissions paid by Napoles.
As such, this Office dismisses the criminal charges against
Encarnacion for insufficiency of evidence.
Respondents’ defenses are best left to the trial court’s consideration during trial on the merits.
Respondent public officers insist that they were motivated by good faith, and acted in accordance with existing laws and rules, and that the disbursements from the PDAF were all regular and above board.
During preliminary investigation, this Office does not determine if the evidence on record proves the guilt of the person charged beyond reasonable doubt. It merely ascertains whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed; that the respondent charged is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial;
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======106
and that based on the evidence presented, the Office believes that the respondent’s assailed act constitutes the offense charged.227
Public respondents’ claims of good faith and regularity in their performance of official functions thus fail.
As earlier discussed, the sworn statements of witnesses, the disbursement vouchers, the indorsed/encashed checks, the MOAs with NGOs, the written requests, liquidation reports, confirmation letters and other evidence on record indubitably indicate that respondents Senator Estrada,
Labayen, Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Ortiz, Amata,
Javellana, Cacal, Guañizo, Relevo, Johnson, Mendoza,
Lacsamana, Jover, Cunanan, Figura, Sucgang, Jalandoni,
Sevidal and Cruz, as well as respondents Tuason, Napoles and
De Asis, conspired with one another to repeatedly raid the public treasury through what appears to be drawing of funds from the PDAF allocated to respondent Senator Estrada, albeit for fictitious projects.
Consequently, they must be deemed to have illegally conveyed public funds in the amount of PHP278,000,000.00, more or less, to the possession and control of questionable
227 Deloso, et al. v. Desierto, et al., G.R. No. 129939, September 9, 1999.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======107
NGOs affiliated with Napoles, and thereafter allowed Senator
Estrada to acquire and amass ill-gotten proceeds through kickbacks in the sum of PHP183,793,750.00, which is in excess of PHP50,000,000.00.
At any rate, specifically with respect to Plunder, good faith is neither an element or a defense.
AT ALL EVENTS, respondents Senator Estrada, Labayen,
Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Ortiz, Amata, Javellana,
Cacal, Guañizo, Relevo, Johnson, Mendoza, Lacsamana, Jover,
Cunanan, Figura, Sucgang, Jalandoni, Sevidal and Cruz’s claims of good faith and regularity in the performance of their duties are defenses which are best raised during trial proper.
As explained in Deloso, et al. v. Desierto, et al.:228
We agree with public respondents that the existence of good faith or lack of it, as elements of the crimes of malversation and violation of Section 3 (e), R. A. No. 3019, is evidentiary in nature. As a matter of defense, it can be best passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
FINALLY, it bears reiterating that preliminary investigation is a mere inquisitorial mode of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime.229 It is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the parties'
228 Id. 229 Paderanga v. Drilon, G. R. No. 96080 April 19, 1991, 196 SCRA 93, 94.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======108
evidence, including respondents-movants’ respective defenses.230 Precisely, there is trial on the merits for this purpose.
WHEREFORE, this Office, through the undersigned:
(a) FINDS PROBABLE CAUSE to indict:
[PLUNDER- 1 Count]
i. Jose P. Ejercito Estrada, Pauline Therese Mary C.
Labayen, Janet Lim Napoles, Ruby C. Tuason and
John Raymond De Asis, acting in concert, for
PLUNDER (Section 2 in relation to Section 1 (d)
[1], [2] and [6] of R. A. No. 7080, as amended), in
relation to Estrada’s ill-gotten wealth in the sum
of at least PHP183,793,750.00, representing
kickbacks or commissions received by him from
Napoles in connection with Priority Development
Assistant Fund (PDAF)-funded government
projects and by reason of his office or position;
[VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R. A. NO. 3019 – 11 Counts]
i. Jose P. Ejercito Estrada, Pauline Therese Mary C.
Labayen, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario L. Relampagos,
Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare,
230 Drilon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115825, July 5, 1996.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======109
Antonio Y. Ortiz, Dennis L. Cunanan, Francisco B.
Figura, Ma. Rosalinda Lacsamana, Consuelo Lilian
R. Espiritu, Marivic V. Jover, Janet Lim Napoles
and John Raymund De Asis, acting in concert, for
VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019
in relation to fund releases amounting to at least
PHP22,500,000.00 drawn from Estrada’s PDAF
and coursed through the Technology Resource
Center (TRC) and Social Development Program for
Farmers Foundation, Inc. (SDPFFI), as reflected in
Disbursement Vouchers (DV) No. 012008092220,
012007092221, 012008092222 and
012009020257;
ii. Jose P. Ejercito Estrada, Pauline Therese Mary C.
Labayen, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario L. Relampagos,
Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare,
Gondelina G. Amata, Gregoria Buenaventura,
Emmanuel Alexis G. Sevidal, Evelyn Sucgang,
Sofia D. Cruz, Chita C. Jalandoni, Janet Lim
Napoles, and John Raymund De Asis, acting in
concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF
R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases
amounting to at least PHP20,000,000.00 drawn
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======110
from Estrada’s PDAF and coursed through the
National Livelihood Development Corporation
(NLDC) and Masaganang Ani Para sa Magsasaka
Foundation, Inc. (MAMFI), as reflected in DV No.
09050655, 09060701 and 09060783;
iii. Jose P. Ejercito Estrada, Pauline Therese Mary C.
Labayen, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario L. Relampagos,
Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare,
Gondelina G. Amata, Gregoria Buenaventura,
Emmanuel Alexis G. Sevidal, Evelyn Sucgang,
Sofia D. Cruz, Chita C. Jalandoni, Janet Lim
Napoles, and John Raymund De Asis, acting in
concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF
R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases
amounting to at least PHP29,100,000.00 drawn
from Estrada’s PDAF and coursed through the
NLDC and MAMFI, as reflected in DV No.
09121838, 100110005, 10010116 and 10050855;
iv. Jose P. Ejercito Estrada, Pauline Therese Mary C.
Labayen, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario L. Relampagos,
Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare,
Gondelina G. Amata, Gregoria Buenaventura,
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======111
Emmanuel Alexis G. Sevidal, Evelyn Sucgang,
Sofia D. Cruz, Chita C. Jalandoni, Janet Lim
Napoles, and John Raymund De Asis, acting in
concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF
R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases
amounting to at least PHP25,000,000.00 drawn
from Estrada’s PDAF and coursed through the
NLDC and SDPFFI, as reflected in DV No. 10-11-
0135, 10-12-0141 and 10-12-0147;
v. Jose P. Ejercito Estrada, Pauline Therese Mary C.
Labayen, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario L. Relampagos,
Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare,
Gondelina G. Amata, Gregoria Buenaventura,
Emmanuel Alexis G. Sevidal, Evelyn Sucgang,
Sofia D. Cruz, Chita C. Jalandoni, Janet Lim
Napoles, and John Raymund De Asis, acting in
concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A.
NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting
to at least PHP25,000,000.00 drawn from
Estrada’s PDAF and coursed through the NLDC
and SDPFFI, as reflected in DV No. 10020266,
10030353 and 10050821;
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======112
vi. Jose P. Ejercito Estrada, Pauline Therese Mary C.
Labayen, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario L. Relampagos,
Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare,
Gondelina G. Amata, Gregoria Buenaventura,
Emmanuel Alexis G. Sevidal, Evelyn Sucgang,
Sofia D. Cruz, Chita C. Jalandoni, Janet Lim
Napoles, and John Raymund De Asis, acting in
concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A.
NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting
to at least PHP31,000,000.00 drawn from
Estrada’s PDAF and coursed through the NLDC
and MAMFI, as reflected in DV No. 10-09-0099,
10-10-0105 and 10-10-0123;
vii. Jose P. Ejercito Estrada, Pauline Therese Mary C.
Labayen, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario L. Relampagos,
Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Allan
A. Javellana, Rhodora B. Mendoza, Maria Julie A.
Villaralvo-Johnson, Victor Roman C. Cacal, Ma.
Ninez P. Guañizo, Romulo Relevo, Janet Lim
Napoles and John Raymund De Asis, acting in
concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF
R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases
amounting to at least PHP24,250,000.00 drawn
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======113
from Estrada’s PDAF and coursed through the
National Agribusiness Corporation (NABCOR) and
MAMFI, as reflected in DV No. 08-07-02436 and
08-10-3743;
viii. Jose P. Ejercito Estrada, Pauline Therese Mary C.
Labayen, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario L. Relampagos,
Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Allan
A. Javellana, Rhodora B. Mendoza, Maria Julie A.
Villaralvo-Johnson, Victor Roman C. Cacal, Ma.
Ninez P. Guañizo, Romulo Relevo, Janet Lim
Napoles and John Raymund De Asis, acting in
concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF
R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases
amounting to at least PHP18,914,000.00 drawn
from Estrada’s PDAF and coursed through the
NABCOR and MAMFI, as reflected in DV No. 08-
09-03381 and 09-03-1025;
ix. Jose P. Ejercito Estrada, Pauline Therese Mary C.
Labayen, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario L. Relampagos,
Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Allan
A. Javellana, Rhodora B. Mendoza, Maria Julie A.
Villaralvo-Johnson, Victor Roman C. Cacal, Ma.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======114
Ninez P. Guañizo, Romulo Relevo, Janet Lim
Napoles and John Raymund De Asis, acting in
concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF
R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases
amounting to at least PHP23,460,000.00 drawn
from Estrada’s PDAF and coursed through the
NABCOR and MAMFI, as reflected in DV No. 09-
03-0764, 09-04-1395, 09-04-1283 and 09-05-
1735;
x. Jose P. Ejercito Estrada, Pauline Therese Mary C.
Labayen, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario L. Relampagos,
Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Allan
A. Javellana, Rhodora B. Mendoza, Maria Julie A.
Villaralvo-Johnson, Victor Roman C. Cacal, Ma.
Ninez P. Guañizo, Romulo Relevo, Janet Lim
Napoles and John Raymund De Asis, acting in
concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF
R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases
amounting to at least PHP26,190,000.00 drawn
from Estrada’s PDAF and coursed through the
NABCOR and SDPFFI, as reflected in DV No. 09-
06-0762; and
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======115
xi. Jose P. Ejercito Estrada, Pauline Therese Mary C.
Labayen, Ruby C. Tuason, Mario L. Relampagos,
Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Allan
A. Javellana, Rhodora B. Mendoza, Maria Julie A.
Villaralvo-Johnson, Victor Roman C. Cacal, Ma.
Ninez P. Guañizo, Romulo Relevo, Janet Lim
Napoles and John Raymund De Asis, acting in
concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A.
NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting
to at least PHP9,700,000.00 drawn from Estrada’s
PDAF and coursed through the NABCOR and
MAMFI, as reflected in DV No. 10-01-0077 and 10-
03-0824;
and accordingly RECOMMENDS the immediate filing of
the corresponding Informations against them with the
Sandiganbayan;
(b) DISMISSES the criminal charges against Mylene
Encarnacion for insufficiency of evidence;
(c) FURNISHES copies of this instant Resolution to the
Anti-Money Laundering Council for its immediate action
on the possible violations by the above-named
respondents of the Anti-Money Laundering Act,
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======116
considering that Plunder and violation of Section 3 (e) of
R. A. No. 3019 are considered unlawful activities under
this statute;
(d) DIRECTS the Field Investigation Office to conduct
further fact-finding on the criminal, civil and/or
administrative liability of Javellana, Mendoza, Ortiz,
Cunanan, Amata, Sevidal and other respondents who
may have received commissions and/or kickbacks from
Napoles in relation to their participation in the scheme
subject of these proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, 28 March 2014.
SPECIAL PANEL PER OFFICE ORDER NO. 349, SERIES OF 2013 By:
(Sgd.) M.A. CHRISTIAN O. UY Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer IV Chairperson
(Sgd.) RUTH LAURA A. MELLA Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Member
(Sgd.) FRANCISCA M. SERFINO Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Member
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======117
(Sgd.) ANNA FRANCESCA M. LIMBO Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Member
(Sgd.) JASMINE ANN B. GAPATAN Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I Member
APPROVED/DISAPPROVED
(Sgd.) CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Ombudsman
Copy Furnished:
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Complainant NBI Bldg., Taft Avenue, Ermita, Manila
LEVITO D. BALIGOD Complainant Villanueva & Baligod, 3/F The Lydia Bldg, 39 Polaris St., Bel-air, Makati
FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE Complainant 4th Floor, Ombudsman Building, Agham Road, Quezon City 1100
FLAMINIANO, ARROYO & DUEÑAS Counsel for Respondent Jose P. Ejercito Estrada Unit 1002 One Corporate Center, Meralco Ave. cor Julia Vargas Ave., Ortigas Center, Pasig City
PAULINE THERESE MARY C. LABAYEN Respondent 3821 Daffodil St., Sun Valley Subd., Paranaque City
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======118
DE GUZMAN DIONIDO CAGA JUCABAN & ASSOCIATES Counsel for Respondents Mario L. Relampagos, Lalaine Paule, Mario Bare and Rosario Nuñez Rm. 412, Executive Building Center, Gil Puyat Ave cor. Makati Ave., Makati City
ALEJANTAN LAW OFFICE Counsel for Respondent Antonio Y. Ortiz 24 Ilongot St., La Vista, Quezon City
THE LAW FIRM OF CHAN ROBLES AND ASSOCIATES Counsel for Respondent Dennis L. Cunanan Suite 2205, Philippine Stock Exchange Center, East Tower, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
FRANCISCO B. FIGURA Respondent Unit 5-A, 5th Floor, Valero Tower, 122 Valero St., Salcedo Village, Makati City
MARIA ROSALINDA LACSAMANA Respondent Unit 223, Pasig Royale Mansion, Santolan, Pasig City
MARIVIC V. JOVER Respondent 3 Gumamela St., Ciudad Licel, Banaba, San Mateo, Rizal
ACERON PUNZALAN VEHEMENTE AVILA & DEL PRADO LAW OFFICE Counsel for Respondent Allan A. Javellana 31st Floor, Atlanta Center, Annapolis St., Greenhills, San Juan
RHODORA B. MENDOZA Respondent Lot 2, Block 63, Bright Homes Subd., Bgy. Cay Pombo, Sta. Maria, Bulacan
VICTOR ROMAN C. CACAL Respondent 4 Milkyway St., Joliero Compound, Phase 1- D, Moonwalk Village, Talon V, Las Piñas City
MA. JULIE A. VILLARALVO-JOHNSON Respondent 509 Mapayapa St., United San Pedro Subd., San Pedro, Laguna
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======119
MIRANDA, ANASTACIO & LOTERTE LAW OFFICES Counsel for Respondent Ma. Ninez P. Guañizo Penthouse B., Venture Bldg., Prime St., Madrigal Business Park, Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE – QUEZON CITY Counsel for Respondent Romulo Relevo B-29, Quezon City Hall of Justice Bldg., Quezon City
GONDELINA G. AMATA Respondent c/o National Livelihood Development Corporation, 7th Floor, One Corporate Plaza, 845 A. Arnaiz Avenue, Makati City
BALGOS, GUMARU AND JALANDONI Counsel for Respondent Chita C. Jalandoni Unit 1009, West Tektite Tower, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
GEOFFREY D. ANDAWI Counsel for Respondent Emmanuel Alexis G. Sevidal 7D Don Sergio St., Don Antonio Heights, Quezon City
JOSE P. VILLAMOR Counsel for Respondent Gregoria G. Buenaventura Unit 3311 One Corporate Center, Julia Vargas Avenue cor. Meralco Ave., Ortigas Center, Pasig City
CALILUNG LAW OFFICE Counsel for Respondent Sofia D. Cruz 24 J. P. Rizal St., Davsan Subd., Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga
EVELYN SUCGANG Respondent c/o National Livelihood Development Corporation, 7th Floor, One Corporate Plaza, 845 A. Arnaiz Avenue, Makati City
EVITA MAGNOLIA I. ANSALDO Counsel for Respondents Janet Lim Napoles Suite 1905-A, Philippine Stock Exchange Center, West Tower, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0313 OMB-C-C-13-0397 Page ======120
DENNIS P. MANALO Counsel for Respondent Ruby C. Tuason 9-10th Floors, LPL Tower, 112 Legaspi St., Legazpi Village, Makati City
MYLENE T. ENCARNACION Respondent Blk. 4, Lot 18, Almandite St., Golden City, Taytay, Rizal
JOHN RAYMUND DE ASIS Respondent Blk. 20, Lot 9, Phase III, Gladiola St., TS Cruz, Almanza 2, Las Piñas
Republic of the Philippines OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN OMBUDSMAN BLDG., AGHAM ROAD, NORTH TRIANGLE, DILIMAN, QUEZON CITY
NATIONAL BUREAU OF OMB-C-C-13-0316 INVESTIGATION (NBI) FOR:VIOLATION OF RA 7080 REP. BY: (PLUNDER) ASST. DIR. MEDARDO G. (Criminal case) DE LEMOS
ATTY. LEVITO D. BALIGOD Complainants,
- versus -
RAMON REVILLA, JR. Senator Senate of the Philippines
RICHARD CAMBE Director III Office of Senator Revilla, Jr. Senate of the Philippines
ALAN JAVELLANA President (Non- elective) National Agribusiness Corporation
GONDELINA G. AMATA President (Non-elective) National Livelihood Development Corporation
ANTONIO Y. ORTIZ Director General Technology Resource Center
DENNIS L. CUNANAN Deputy Director General Technology Resource Center
VICTOR ROMAN CACAL General Service Supervisor/Paralegal National Agribusiness Corporation
ROMULO M. RELEVO Employee National Agribusiness Corporation JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======2
MARIA NINEZ P. GUAÑIZO Former OIC, Accounting Service Division National Agribusiness Corporation
MA. JULIE A. VILLARALVO-JOHNSON Former Chief Accountant National Agribusiness Corporation
RHODORA B. MENDOZA Head, Administrative and Finance National Agribusiness Corporation
GREGORIA G. BUENAVENTURA Employee National Livelihood Development Corporation
ALEXIS G. SEVIDAL Director IV National Livelihood Development Corporation
SOFIA D. CRUZ Project Development Officer IV National Livelihood Development Corporation
CHITA C. JALANDONI Director IV National Livelihood Development Corporation
FRANCISCO B. FIGURA Former Group Manager Technology Resource Center
MARIVIC V. JOVER Chief Accountant Technology Resource Center
MARIO L. RELAMPAGOS Undersecretary for Operations Department of Budget and Management
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======3
LEAH LALAINE MALOU1 All of the Department of Budget and Management Office of the Undersecretary for Operations
JANET LIM NAPOLES JOCELYN DITCHON PIORATO NEMESIO PABLO, JR. MYLENE T. ENCARNACION JOHN RAYMUND S. DE ASIS EVELYN DITCHON DE LEON RONALD JOHN B. LIM JOHN/JANE DOES Private Respondents. x ------x
FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE OMB-C-C-13-0395 OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR:VIOLATION OF SEC. Complainant, 3(E), RA 3019, and RA 7080 (PLUNDER) (Criminal Case) - versus -
RAMON REVILLA, JR. Senator Senate of the Philippines
RICHARD CAMBE Director III Office of Senator Revilla, Jr. Senate of the Philippines
ANTONIO Y. ORTIZ former Director General Technology Resource Center
DENNIS L. CUNANAN Director General Technology Resource Center
1 See note 195.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======4
FRANCISCO B. FIGURA Former Group Manager Technology Resource Center
MARIVIC V. JOVER Chief Accountant Technology Resource Center
CONSUELO LILIAN R. ESPIRITU Budget Officer IV Technology Resource Center
MARIA ROSALINDA M. LACSAMANA Former Group Manager Technology Resource Center
GONDELINA G. AMATA President (Non-elective) National Livelihood Development Corporation
GREGORIA G. BUENAVENTURA Employee National Livelihood Development Corporation
EMMANUEL ALEXIS G. SEVIDAL Director IV National Livelihood Development Corporation
SOFIA D. CRUZ Project Development Officer IV National Livelihood Development Corporation
CHITA C. JALANDONI Director IV National Livelihood Development Corporation
OFELIA E. ORDOÑEZ Chief Budget Specialist National Livelihood Development Corporation
EVELYN B. SUCGANG Employee National Livelihood Development Corporation
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======5
ALAN A. JAVELLANA Former Director and President National Agribusiness Corporation
VICTOR C. CACAL General Services Supervisor/Paralegal National Agribusiness Corporation
MARIA NINEZ P. GUAÑIZO former OIC, Accounting Service Division National Agribusiness Corporation
MA. JULIE A. VILLARALVO-JOHNSON former Chief Accountant National Agribusiness Corporation
RHODORA B. MENDOZA Head, Administrative and Finance National Agribusiness Corporation
ENCARNITA CHRISTINA P. MUNSOD former Support Services Supervisor National Agribusiness Corporation
JANET LIM NAPOLES EVELYN D. DE LEON NEMESIO PABLO, JR. JOCELYN D. PIORATO MYLA OGERIO JOHN RAYMOND S. DE ASIS EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ LAARNI A. UY Private Respondents. x ------x
JOINT RESOLUTION
For resolution is the preliminary investigation conducted by the Special Panel of Investigators2 constituted on 20
2 Per Office Order No. 349, Series of 2013.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======6
September 2013 by the Ombudsman on: (1) the complaint filed on September 16, 2013 with this Office by the National
Bureau of Investigation and Atty. Levito Baligod (The NBI complaint), for violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 7080 (An Act
Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder), and (2) the complaint filed on November 18, 2013 by the Field
Investigation Office (FIO), Office of the Ombudsman, for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (The Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act) and Plunder, in connection with the alleged anomalous utilization of the Priority Development
Assistance Funds (PDAF) of Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla
(Senator Revilla) for 2006 to 2010.
The NBI complaint for Plunder, docketed as OMB-C-C-
13-0316,3 charges the following respondents:
Name Position/Agency Ramon”Bong” Revilla, Jr. Senator/ Senate of the Philippines (Senator Revilla) Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles) Private Respondent Richard Cambe (Cambe) Employee/Senate of the Philippines Alan A. Javellana (Javellana) Former President/ National Agribusiness Corporation Gondelina G. Amata (Amata) President/National Livelihood Development Corporation Antonio Yrigon Ortiz (Ortiz) Director General/Technology Resource Center
3 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 4-24.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======7
Agricultura Para Sa Magbubukid Jocelyn Ditchon Piorato (Piorato) Foundation, Inc. (APMFI) Nemesio Pablo, Jr. (Pablo) Private Respondent Mylene T. Encarnacion Private Respondent (Encanacion) Countrywide Agri and Rural John Raymund S. de Asis (de Economic Develeopment foundation, Asis) Inc. Evelyn Ditchon de Leon (de Leon) Private Respondent Ronald John B. Lim (Lim) Private Respondent Deputy Director General/Technology Dennis L. Cunanan (Cunanan) Resource Center (TRC) General Service Supervisor/National Victor Roman Cacal (Cacal) Agri-Business Corporation (NABCOR) National Agri-Business Corporation Romulo M. Relevo (Relevo) (NABCOR) Former OIC, Accounting Service Maria Ninez P. Guañizo Division/National Agri-Business (Guañizo) Corporation (NABCOR) Ma. Julie A. Villaralvo-Johnson Former Chief Accountant/ National (Johnson) Agri-Business Corporation (NABCOR) Head, Administrative and Rhodora B. Mendoza (Mendoza) Finance/National Agri-Business Corporation (NABCOR) Gregoria G. Buenaventura Division Chief/National Livelihood (Buenaventura) and Development Corporation (NLDC) Director IV/ National Livelihood and Alexis G. Sevidal (Sevidal) Develoment Corporation (NLDC) Project Development Officer IV/ Sofia D. Cruz (Cruz) National Livelihood and Development Corporation (NLDC) Director IV/National Livelihood and Chita C. Jalandoni (Jalandoni) Development Corporation (NLDC) Former Group Manager/Technology Francisco B. Figura (Figura) Resource Center (TRC) Chief Accountant/ Technology Marivic V. Jover (Jover) Resource Center (TRC) Undersecretary for Mario L. Relampagos Operations/Department of Budget (Relampagos) and Management (DBM) Department of Budget and Rosario Salamida Nuñez4 Management (DBM) Department of budget and Lalaine Narag Paule5 Management (DBM) Department of budget and Marilou Dialino Bare6 Management (DBM) John/Jane Does
4 See note 195 which identifies her as Rosario Nuñez. 5 See Note 195 which identifies her as Lalaine Paule. 6 See Note 195 which identifies her as Marilou Bare.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======8
The FIO complaint, on the other hand, docketed as OMB-
C-C-13-0395,7 charges the following individuals with Plunder and violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act:
Name Position/Agency Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr. Senator/ Senate of the Philippines (Senator Revilla) Richard A. Cambe (Cambe) Director III, Office of Senator Revilla/Senate of the Philippines Antonio Y. Ortiz (Ortiz) Former Director General/Technology Resource Center (TRC) Dennis L. Cunanan (Cunanan) Director General/Technology Resource Center (TRC) Francisco B. Figura (Figura) Former Group Manager/Technology Resource Center (TRC) Marivic V. Jover (Jover) Chief Accountant/ Technology Resource Center (TRC) Consuelo Lilian R. Espiritu Budget Officer IV/Technology Resource (Espiritu) Center (TRC) Maria Rosalinda M. Lacsamana Former Group Manager/Technology (Lacsamana) Resource Center (TRC) Gondelina G. Amata (Amata) President (Non-elective)/National Livelihood and Development Corporation (NLDC) Gregoria G. Buenaventura Division Chief/National Livelihood and (Buenaventura) Development Corporation (NLDC) Emmanuel Alexis G. Sevidal Director IV/ National Livelihood and (Sevidal) Development Corporation (NLDC) Sofia D. Cruz (Cruz) Project Development Officer IV/National Livelihood and Development Corporation (NLDC) Chita C. Jalandoni (Jalandoni) Director IV/National Livelihood and Development Corporation (NLDC) Ofelia E. Ordoñez (Ordoñez) Chief Budget Specialist/National Livelihood and Development Corporation (NLDC) Evelyn C. Sucgang (Sucgang) Employee/ National Livelihood and Development Corporation (NLDC) Alan A. Javellana (Javellana) Former Director and President/ National Agri-Business Corporation (NABCOR) Victor C. Cacal (Cacal) General Services Supervisor/ National Agri-Business Corporation (NABCOR)
7 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 4-158.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======9
Maria Ninez P. Giañizo (Guañizo) Former OIC, Accounting Service Division.National Agri-Business Corporation (NABCOR) Ma. Julie A. Villaralvo-Johnson Former Chief Accountant/National Agri- (Johnson) Business Corporation (NABCOR) Rhodora B. Mendoza (Mendoza) Head, Administrative and Finance.National Agri-Business Corporation (NABCOR) Encarnita Christina P. Munsod Former Support Services (Munsod) Supervisor/National Agri-Business Corporation (NABCOR) Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles) President/ JLN Corporation (Private Respondent) Evelyn D. de Leon (de Leon) President, PSDFI (Private Respondent) Nemesio Pablo, Jr. (Pablo) President, AEPFFI (Private Respondent) Jocelyn D. Piorato (Piorato) President, APMFI (Private Respondent) Myla Ogerio (Ogerio) Employee/JLN Corporation (Private Respondent) John Raymund de Asis (de Asis) Employee/JLN Corporation (Private Corporation) Eulogio Rodriguez (Rodriguez) Employee/JLN Corporation (Private Respondent) Laarni Uy (Uy) Employee/JLN Corporation (Private Respondent)
Having arisen from the same facts and transactions, these cases are resolved jointly.
I. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On March 22, 2013, agents of the NBI, acting on a complaint from the parents of Benhur Luy (Luy) that Luy had been illegally detained, swooped down on the South Wing
Gardens of the Pacific Plaza Tower in Bonifacio Global City,
Taguig City and rescued Luy who claimed to have been illegally detained. A criminal case for Serious Illegal Detention
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======10
was thereafter filed against Reynald Lim8 and his sister, Janet
Lim Napoles9 (Napoles), before the Regional Trial Court of
Makati City where it remains pending.
Before the NBI, Luy claimed that he was detained in connection with the discharge of his responsibilities as the
“lead employee” of the JANET LIM NAPOLES Corporation (JLN) which was involved in overseeing anomalous implementation of several government-funded projects sourced from, among others, the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of several congressmen and senators of the Republic. The NBI thereupon focused on the misuse and irregularities attending the implementation and utilization of the PDAF of certain lawmakers, in connivance with other government employees, private individuals and Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGOs) which had been set up by JLN employees, upon the instructions of Napoles.
In the course of the NBI investigation which included conduct of interviews and taking of sworn statements of Luy along with several other JLN employees including Marina Sula
8 Still at large. 9 Presently detained at Fort Sto. Domingo, Sta. Rosa, Laguna.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======11
(Sula) and Merlina Suñas (Suñas),10 the NBI uncovered the
“scheme” in what has now been commonly referred to as the
PDAF or Pork Barrel Scam, outlined in general as follows:
1. Either the lawmaker or Napoles would commence
negotiations on the utilization of the lawmaker’s PDAF;
2. The lawmaker and Napoles then discuss, and later
approve, the list of projects chosen by the lawmaker,
the corresponding Implementing Agency (IA), namely
the National Agribusiness Corporation (NABCOR), the
National Livelihood Development Corporation (NLDC),
and the Technology Resource Center (TRC [formerly
Technology and Livelihood Resource Center]), through
which the implementation of the projects would be
coursed, and the project cost, as well as the
commission of the lawmaker which would range
between 40%-60% of either the project cost or the
amount stated in the Special Allotment Release Order
(SARO);
10 Luy, Sula and Suñas have been admitted into the Department of Justice’s Witness Protection Program.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======12
3. After the negotiations and upon instructions from
Napoles, Luy prepares the so-called “listing” which
contains the list of projects allocated by the lawmaker
to Napoles and her NGOs, name of the IA and the
project cost;
4. The lawmaker would then adopt the “listing” and write
to the Senate President and the Finance Committee
Chairperson in the case of a Senator, and to the House
Speaker and Chair of the Appropriations Committee
in the case of a Congressman, requesting the
immediate release of his allocation, which letter-
request the Senate President or the Speaker as the
case may be would then endorse to the Department of
Budget and Management (DBM);
5. The DBM soon issues a SARO addressed to the
chosen IA indicating the amount deducted from the
lawmaker’s PDAF allocation, and later a Notice of Cash
Allocation (NCA) given to the IA which would thereafter
issue a check to the Napoles-controlled NGO listed in
the lawmaker’s endorsement;
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======13
6. Napoles, who recommends to the legislator the NGO
which would implement the project, directs her
employee to prepare a letter for the lawmaker’s
signature endorsing the selected NGO to the IA. The IA
later prepares a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
covering the project to be executed by the lawmaker or
his/her authorized staff member, the IA and the
chosen NGO;
7. The Head of the IA, in exchange for a 10% share in the
project cost, subsequently releases the check/s to the
Napoles-controlled NGO from whose bank accounts
Napoles withdraws the proceeds thereof;
8. Succeeding tranche payments are released by the IA
upon compliance and submission by the NGO of the
required documentation which are, however, spurious.
From 2006 to 2010, Senator Revilla, then and presently a senator of the Republic of the Philippines, continuously endorsed the implementation of his PDAF-funded livelihood and agricultural production projects in different parts of the
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======14
country to questionable NGOs associated with or controlled by
Napoles.
From 2007 to 2009, a total amount of P517,000,000.00, covered by twelve (12) SAROs, was taken from Senator
Revilla’s PDAF, to wit:
1. ROCS-07-05486 dated 23 March 2007; 11
2. ROCS-07-08553 dated 30 October 2007;12
3. ROCS-07-08555 dated 30 October 2007;13
4. ROCS-08-05254 dated 18 June 2008;14
5. ROCS-08-05660 dated 8 July 2008;15
6. D-08-09789 dated 12 December 2008;16
7. D-08-09558 dated 20 November 2008;17
8. ROCS-09-04953 dated 9 July 2009;18
9. ROCS-09-02357 dated 14 April 2009;19
10. G-09-07065 dated 25 September 2009;20
11. ROCS-09-00949 dated 24 February 2009;21 and
12. ROCS-09-04973 dated 9 July 2009.22
11 Folder 3 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 560. 12 Id., p. 634. 13 Folder 4 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 805. 14 Id., p. 859. 15 Folder 5 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 1092. 16 Folder 5 (C-C-13-0395), p. 1237 (copy of Notice of Cash Allocation only). 17 Id., p. 1308 (copy of Notice of Cash Allocation only). 18 Folder 6, (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 1409 (copy of Notice of Cash Allocation only). 19 Folder 7 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 1645. 20 Id., p. 1698. 21 Folder 9 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 2227 (copy of Notice of Cash Allocation only).
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======15
After the SAROs were released by the DBM, Senator
Revilla23 identified the following Government Owned and
Controlled Corporations (GOCCs) as the IAs of the projects to be funded by his PDAF: a) NABCOR, b) NLDC, and c) the TRC.
Senator Revilla authorized respondent Cambe of his staff to act for him, deal with, and sign documents necessary for the immediate and timely implementation of his PDAF-funded projects.
The Senator also endorsed24 the following NGOs as
“project partners” in the implementation of the livelihood projects financed by his PDAF, viz:
a. Agri and Economic Program for Farmers Foundation, Inc. (AEPFFI), of which respondent Nemesio C. Pablo, Jr. was President;
b. Agricultura Para sa Magbubukid Foundation, Inc. (APMFI), of which respondent Jocelyn D. Piorato was President;
c. Masaganang Ani Para sa Magsasaka Foundation, Inc. (MAMFI), of which witness Marina Sula was President;
d. Philippine Social Development Foundation, Inc. (PSDFI), of which respondent Evelyn de Leon was President; and
22 Folder 10 (C-C-13-0395), p. 2568 (Notice of Cash Allocation only). 23 Folder 3 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 573; and Folder 4 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 818. 24 Folder 4, p. 862; Folder 5, p. 1249; Folder 6, pp. 1413, 1529; Folder 7, pp. 1653, 1664, 1924; Folder 9, p. 2236; and Folder 10, p. 2575 (OMB-C-C-13-0395).
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======16
e. Social Development Program for Farmer’s Foundation, Inc. (SDPFFI), of which witness Benhur Luy was President.
The following table discloses the details of Senator Revilla’s utilization of his Php517,000,000.00 PDAF:
SARO NO. Projects/ Benficiaries/LGUs Total Implementing Project Activities Projects/Activities Agency Proponent Costs /NGOs (in PHP) 1.ROCS-07- Distribution of Claver, Surigao del 0548625 Livelihood Sur 25,000,000 TLRC/TRC AEPFFI Materials and San Agustin, Surigao Farm Implements del Sur Madrid, Surigao del Sur Socorro, Surigao del
Norte Tubajon, Dinagat Islands 2. ROCS-07- Distribution of Mapandan, 0855326 Agricultural Pangasinan Starter Kits and Sta. Maria, Bulacan Livelihood Pio V. Corpuz, 35,000,000 TLRC/TRC PSDFI Manuals Masbate Doña Remedios Trinidad, Bulacan Tumauini, Isabela 3) ROCS-07- Imus, Cavite Distribution of 0855527 Diffun, Quirino Power Sprayer Piat, Cagayan 22,000,000 NABCOR MAMFI and Agricultural Masantol, Pampanga Production Kits
4) ROCS-08- Agriclutrual Sta. Maria, Bulacan 0525428 Production Mabitac, Laguna Package Doña Remedios (knapsack Trinidad, Bulacan sprayers, liquid Tumauini, Isabela fertilizers, and Cagayan de Oro City, gardening tools) Misamis Oriental Rosales, Pangasinan MAMFI and Plaridel, Quezon 65,000,000 NABCOR Vicenzo A. sagun, SDPFFI Zamboanga del Sur San Juan, Batangas Kidapawan City, North Cotabato Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte Atimonan, Quezon
25 Folder 3 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 561. 26 Id., p. 635. 27 Folder 4 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 806. 28 Id., p. 860.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======17
Sta. Maria, Davao del Sur 5. ROCS-08- Agriclutrual Lupon, Davao del 0566029 Production Sur Package Claver, Surigao del (knapsack Norte 15,000,000 NABCOR MAMFI sprayers, liquid Magpet, North fertilizers, and Cotobato gardening tools) 6) D-08- San Agustin, Surigao 0978930 del Sur Bansalan, Davao del Sur Buldon, Shariff Agricultural Kabunsuan Production Malalag, Davao del Packages Sur (knapsack Gen. Salipada K. 40,000,000 TLRC SDPFFI sprayers, Pendatun, gardening tools Maguindanao and liquid Upi, Shariff fertilizers) Kabunsuan Alubijid, Misamis Oriental Montevista, Compostela Valley 7) D-08- Libungan, North 0955831 Cotobato Antipas, North Cotobato Agricultural Kalamansig, Sultan Production Kudarat Packages Isulan, Sultan (knapsack Kudarat 40,000,000 TLRC SDPFFI sprayers, Katipunan, gardening tools Zamboanga del Norte and liquid Malungon, Sarangani fertilizers) Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental Pigcawayan, North Cotobato 8) ROCS-09- Farm Initiative Jabonga, Agusan del 0495332 Production Norte Package: Nasipit, Agusan del granulated soil Norte conditioner, working gloves, poncho, 50,000,000 NLDC APMFI lightweight knapsack sprayer, heavy duty shovel and heavy duty pick mattock Distribution of Madrid, Surigao del Agricultural Sur NLDC MAMFI Starter Kits Cortes, Surigao del
29 Folder 5 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 1093. 30 Id., pp. 1244 and 1252. 31 Id., p. 1309. 32 Folder 6 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 1410 and 1516.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======18
Sur Kibungan, Benguet Tuba, Benguet Luna, La Union 9. ROCS-09- Gen. Salipada K. 0235733 Pendatun, Maguindanao Distribution of Datu Odin Sinsuat, Agricultural Maguindanao Starter Kits: Upi, Maguindanao 40,000,000 NLDC MAMFI vegetable seeds, Datu Blah T. production tools Sinsuat, and accessories Maguindanao Buldon, Maguindanao Barira, Maguindanao 10.G-09- Natividad, 0706534 Pangasinan Balungao, Pangasinan Distribution of Marilao, Bulacan Livelihood Kits Alcala, Pangasinan AEPFFI and And Conduct of San Quintin, 80,000,000 NLDC Practical Skills Pangasinan APMFI Training San Nicolas, Pangasinan San Manuel, Pangasinan Tayug, Pangasinan 11.ROCS-09- Mabitac, Laguna Distribution of 0094935 San Juan, Batangas, Agricultural Atimonan, Quezon Production and 20,000,000 NLDC SDPFFI Doña Remedios Livelihood Trinidad, Bulacan Packages
12.ROCS-09- Dapa, Surigao del 0497336 Norte Malimono, Surigao del Norte Socorro, Surigao del Distribution of Norte Livelihood Cagwait, Davao del Packages: Sur Planting Cantilan, Davao del Materials, Tools 85,000,000 NLDC SDPFFI Sur for Backyard Glan, Sarangani Gardening and Alabel, Sarangani Agricultural Santol, La Union Chemicals Talaingod, Davao del Norte Lantawan, Basilan Pikit, Cotobato
TOTAL 517,000,000
33 Folder 7 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 1660. 34 Id., p. 1700. 35 Folder 9 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 2228. 36 Folder 10 9OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 2578; 2047-2049.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======19
The funds representing the project costs were transferred from the IAs to the NGOs/project partners pursuant to several
MOAs signed by the following individuals:
SARO No. Office of the Implementing NGO Senator Agency (Signatory) (Signatory) (Signatory) ROCS-07-04586 Cambe TLRC- Ortiz AEPFFI-Pablo (1 MOA)37 ROCS-07-08553 Cambe TRC-Ortiz PSDFI-de Leon (5 MOAs)38 ROCS-07-08555 (none) NABCOR- MAMFI-Sula (1 MOA)39 Javellana ROCS-08-05254 (none) NABCOR- MAMFI-Sula (2 MOAs)40 Javellana SDPFFI-Luy ROCS08-05660 (none) NABCOR- MAMFI-Sula (1 MOA)41 Javellana D-08-09789 Cambe TRC-Ortiz SDPFFI-Luy (1 MOA)42 D-08-09558 Cambe TRC-Ortiz SDPFFI-Luy (8 MOAs)43 ROCS-09-04953 Cambe NLDC-Amata APMFI-Piorato (2 MOAs)44 MAMFI-Sula ROCS-09-02357 Cambe NLDC-Amata MAMFI-Sula (1 MOA)45 G-09-07065 Cambe NLDC-Amata AEPFFI-Pablo (2 MOAs)46 APMFI-Piorato
37 Folder 3 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 574-577. 38 Id., pp. 650-674. 39 Folder 4 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 819-821. 40 Id., pp. 869-870; 914-915. 41 Folder 5 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 1101-1102. 42 Id., pp. 1238-1242. 43 Id., pp. 1310-1349. 44 Folder 6 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 1415-1419; 1532-1537. 45 Folder 7 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 1665-1668.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======20
ROCS-09-00949 Cambe NLDC-Amata SDPFFI-Luy (1 MOA)47 ROCS-09-04973 Cambe NLDC-Amata SDPFFI-Luy (2 MOAs)48 AEPFFI-Pablo
After execution of the MOAs, the agricultural and
livelihood assistance kits/packages were supposed to be
delivered by the NGOs to identified
beneficiaries/municipalities in different parts of the country,
but, as will be stated later, no deliveries were made.
The NGOs/ project partners were later paid in full by the
IAs upon the NGO’s submission of Disbursement, Progress,
Accomplishment, Fund Utilization, Inspection, and Delivery
Receipts and Delivery Reports, as well as the Certificates of
Acceptance. The details of payments to the NGOs/project
partners are reflected in the table below:
Paying Disbursement Amount SARO No. Date of DV Agency/ Voucher No. (PhP) Check No. Claimant/Payee ROCS-07-05486 12007040728 undated 5,000,000 850467 (LBP) TLRC/AEPFFI 12007040729 undated 5,000,000 850468 (LBP) TLRC/AEPFFI 12007040730 undated 5,000,000 850469 (LBP) TLRC/AEPFFI 12007040731 undated 5,000,000 850471 (LBP) TLRC/AEPFFI 12007040732 undated 5,000,000 850470 (LBP) TLRC/AEPFFI
46 Id., pp. 1711-1715; Folder 8 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 1929-1933. 47 Folder 9 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 2237-2241. 48 Folder 10 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 2584-2589; 2614-2619.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======21
ROCS-07-08553 012007122114 undated 10,000,000 885608 (LBP) TLRC/PSDFI 012007122124 undated 10,000,000 885609 (LBP) TLRC/PSDFI 012007122127 undated 5,000,000 885610 (LBP) TLRC/PSDFI undated 012007122126 undated 5,000,000 885611 (LBP) TLRC/PSDFI 012007122125 undated 5,000,000 885612 (LBP) TLRC/PSDFI 012008051146 undated 3,500,000 866710 (LBP) TLRC/PSDFI ROCS-07-08555 08-01-0036 01-08-08 10,476,000 407790 (UCPB) NABCOR/MAMFI
08-05-01695 05-19-08 1,164,000 416925 (UCPB) NABCOR/MAMFI
ROCS-08 -05254 08-09-03208 09-02-08 21,825,000 437080 (UCPB) NABCOR/MAMFI 09-05-1732 05-22-09 2,425,000 455991 (UCPB) NABCOR/MAMFI 08-08-03128-A 08-28-08 34,920,000 437045 (UCPB) NABCOR/SDPFFI 09-05-1682 05-19-09 3,880,000 455974 (UCPB) NABCOR/SDPFFI ROCS-08-05660 08-09-03486 09-19-08 13,095,000 437191 (UCPB) NABCOR/MAMFI 09-04-1626 05-14-09 1,455,000 455915 (UCPB) NABCOR/MAMFI D-08-09789 012009010006 undated 40,000,000 890033 (LBP) TLRC/SDPFFI 012009030675 undated 4,000,000 890081 (LBP) TLRC/SDPFFI D-08-09558 12008122862 undated 5,000,000 890025 (LBP) TLRC/SDPFFI 12008122861 undated 5,000,000 890026 (LBP) TLRC/SDPFFI 12008122863 undated 5,000,000- 890027 (LBP) TLRC/SDPFFI 12008122864 undated 5,000,000 890028 (LBP) TLRC/SDPFFI 12008122865 undated 5,000,000 890029 (LBP) TLRC/SDPFFI 12008122866 undated 5,000,000 890030 (LBP) TLRC/SDPFFI 12008122867 undated 5,000,000 890031 (LBP) TLRC/SDPFFI 12008122868 undated 5,000,000 890032 (LBP) TLRC/SDPFFI 12009020441 undated 4,000,000 890076 (LBP) TLRC/SDPFFI ROCS-09-04953 (600,000) 09091357 09-23-09 5,400,000 244556 (LBP) NLDC/APMFI 09101442 10-06-09 10,000,000 244569 (LBP) NLDC/APMFI 09101539 10-27-09 4,000,000 244591 (LBP) NLDC/APMFI 09091356 09-18-09 9,000,000 244555 (LBP) NLDC/MAMFI 09101441 10-11-09 15,000,000 244568 (LBP) NLDC/MAMFI 09101533 10-26-09 6,000,000 244586 (LBP) NLDC/MAMFI ROCS-09-02357 09081192 08-24-09 12,000,000 244529 (LBP) NLDC/MAMFI 09091256 09-04-09 20,000,000 244541 (LBP) NLDC/MAMFI 09091320 09-18-09 8,000,000 244547 (LBP) NLDC/MAMFI G-09-07065 09111698 11-04-09 12,000,000 244605 (LBP) NLDC/AEPFFI 09121746 12-03-09 20,000,000 244612 (LBP) NLDC/AEPFFI 10010010 01-06-10 8,000,000 244636 (LBP) NLDC/AEPFFI 10050748 05-07-10 4,000,000 260951 (LBP) NLDC/AEPFFI 09111664 11-03-09 12,000,000 0244606 (LBP) NLDC/APMFI 09121745 12-03-09 20,000,000 024611 (LBP) NLDC/APMFI 10040679 04-29-10 4,000,000 0260936 (LBP) NLDC/APMFI ROCS-09-00949 09040435 04-14-09 6,000,000 918439 (LBP) NLDC/SDPFFI 09040486 04-23-09 10,000,000 918442 (LBP) NLDC/SDPFFI 09050583 05-13-09 4,000,000 918448 (LBP) NLDC/SDPFFI ROCS-09-04973 09081193 08-24-09 12,000,000 244530 (LBP) NLDC/SDPFFI 09091255 09-04-09 20,000,000 244540 (LBP) NLDC/SDPFFI 09091324 09-18-09 8,000,000 244551 (LBP) NLDC/SDPFFI
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======22
244528 (LBP) 09081196 08-24-09 13,500,000 NLDC/AEPFFI 09091254 09-04-09 22,500,000 244539 (LBP) NLDC/AEPFFI 09091321 09-18-09 9,000,000 244548 (LBP) NLDC/AEPFFI TOTAL 515,740,000
Signatories to all the Disbursement Vouchers (DVs)
covering payment by the IAs for the agricultural and livelihood
projects who are respondents herein are indicated in the table
below:
Signatories of the DV BOX B BOX A Supporting Documents (Expenses/Advances Disbursement Complete and SARO necessary, lawful, and Certified BOX C Voucher No. proper/Budget by/supporting (Approved for incurred under my Utilization/Verification documents attached Payment) direct supervision /Certification
as to Cash/Fund Availability ROCS-07- 1200704072849 Figura Baysa Jover Ortiz 05486 1200704072950 Figura Baysa Jover Ortiz
1200704073051 Figura Baysa Jover Ortiz
1200704073152 Figura Baysa Jover Ortiz
1200704073253 Figura Baysa Jover Ortiz
ROCS-07- 01200712211454 Cunanan Espiritu Jover Ortiz 08553
01200712212455 Cunanan Espiritu Jover Ortiz
01200712212756 Cunanan Espiritu Jover Ortiz
49 Folder 3 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 563. 50 Id., p. 565. 51 Id., p. 567. 52 Id., p. 571. 53 Id., p. 569. 54 Id., p. 638. 55 Id., p. 640. 56 Id., p. 642.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======23
01200712212657 Cunanan Espiritu Jover Ortiz
01200712212558 Cunanan Espiritu Jover Ortiz
01200805114659 Cunanan Espiritu Jover Ortiz
ROCS-07- 08-01-003660 Munsod Johnson (none) Javellana 08555
08-05-0169561 Munsod Johnson (none) Javellana
ROCS-08- 08-09-0320862 (none) Javellana 05254 Cacal Guañizo
09-05-173263 (none) Javellana Cacal Guañizo 08-08-03128-A64 Calcal Guañizo (none) Javellana
Cacal 09-05-168265 Guañizo (none) Javellana
ROCS-08- 08-09-0348666 Cacal Guañizo (none) Javellana 05660
09-04-162667 Cacal Guañizo (none) Javellana
D-08- 01200901000668 Lacsamana Espiritu Jover Cunanan 09789
01200903067569 Lacsamana Espiritu Jover Cunanan
D-08- 1200812286270 Lacsmana Espiritu Jover Cunanan 09558
1200812286171 Lacsamana- Espiritu Jover Cunanan
1200812286372 Lacsamana Espiritu Jover Cunanan
1200812286473 Lacsamana Espiritu Jover Cunanan
1200812286574 Lacsamana Espiritu Jover Cuananan
57 Id., p. 644. 58 Id., p. 646. 59 Id., p. 648. 60 Folder 4 (0MB-C-C-13-0395), p. 812. 61 Id., p. 815. 62 Id., p. 863. 63 Id., p. 866. 64 Id., p. 910. 65 Id., p. 912. 66 Folder 5 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 1095. 67 Id., 1098. 68 Id., p. 1245. 69 Id., p. 1247. 70 Folder “D-08-09588” (OMB-C-C-13-0316), p. 3513. 71 Id., at p. 3528. 72 Id., at p. 3539. 73 Id., p. 1053. 74 Folder “D-08-09588” (OMB-C-C-13-0316), p. 3561.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======24
1200812286675 Lacsamana Espiritu Jover Cunanan
1200812286776 Lacsamana Espiritu Jover Cunanan
1200812286877 Lacsamana Espiritu Jover Cunanan
1200902044178 Lacsamana Espiritu Jover Cunanan
ROCS-09- 0909135779 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata 04953
0910144280 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata
0910153981 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata
0909135682 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata
0910144183 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata
0910153384 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata
ROCS-09- 0908119285 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz 02357 Amata
0909125686 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata
0909132087 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata G-09- 0911169888 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata 07065 0912174689 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata 1001001090 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata
75 Id., at p. 3572. 76 Id., p. 1087. 77 Id., p. 1098. 78 Folder “d-08-09558”, (OMB-C-C-13-0316), p. 3606. 79 Folder 6 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 1428. 80 Id., p. 1436. 81 Id., p. 1445. 82 Id., p. 1518. 83 Id., p. 1520. 84 Id., p. 1522. 85 Folder 7 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 1647. 86 Id., p. 1649. 87 Id., p. 1651. 88 Id., p. 1702. 89 Id., p. 1704. 90 Id., p. 1706.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======25
1005074891 Sevidal Filipina Rodriguez Cruz Amata 0911166492 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata 0912174593 Sevidal Ordoñez (none) (none) 1004067994 Sevidal Filipina Rodriguez (none) Amata
ROCS-09- 0904043595 Sevidal Ordoñez (none) Amata 00949
0904048696 Sevidal Ordoñez (none) Amata 0905058397 Sevidal Ordoñez (none) Amata ROCS-09- 04973 0908119398 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata
Sevidal 0909125599 Ordoñez Cruz Amata Sevidal 09091324100 Ordoñez Cruz Amata 09081196101 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata 09091254102 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata 09091321103 Sevidal Ordoñez Cruz Amata
Details of the checks issued by the IAs in payment of the
projects, and the signatories thereto are indicated in the
following table:
91 Id., p. 1708. 92 Folder 8 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 1943. 93 Id., 1953. 94 Id., p. 2000. 95 Folder 9 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 2230. 96 Id., p. 2232. 97 Id., p. 2234. 98 Folder 10 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 2569. 99 Id., p. 2571. 100 Id., p. 2573. 101 Id., p. 2606. 102 Id., p. 2608. 103 Id., p. 2610.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======26
SARO Disbursement Net Amount Implementing Official Received No. Voucher No. Check No. (Php) Agency/ies & Receipt Payment (After Signatories of Issued (see DV) deducting the Check 3%-10% management fee) ROCS- 07- 05486 12007040728 850467104 4,800,000 TLRC 0201 Suñas 12007040729 850468105 4,800,000 TLRC 0202 Suñas 12007040730 850469106 4,800,000 TLRC 0203 Suñas 12007040731 850471107 4,800,000 TLRC 0205 Suñas 12007040732 850470108 4,800,000 TLRC 0204 Suñas ROCS- 07- 08553 012007122114 885608109 8,000,000 TRC-Ortiz - De Leon 012007122124 885609110 8,000,000 TRC-Ortiz - De Leon 012007122127 885610111 4,000,000 TRC-Ortiz - De Leon 012007122126 885611112 4,000,000 TRC-Ortiz - De Leon 012007122125 885612113 4,000,000 TRC-Ortiz - De Leon 012008051146 866710114 3,500,000 TRC-Ortiz - De Leon ROCS- 07- 08555 08-01-0036 407790115 10,476,000 NABCOR- 3551 Sula Mendoza & Javellana 08-05-01695 416925116 1,164,000 NABCOR- 3608 Rodriguez Mendoza & Javellana ROCS- 08- 05254 08-09-03208 437080117 21,825,000 NABCOR- 3614 Sula Mendoza & Javellana 09-05-1732 455991118 2,425,000 NABCOR- 3630 Sula Mendoza & Javellana
104 Folder 3 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 564. 105 Id., p. 566. 106 Id., p. 568. 107 Id., p. 572. 108 Id., p. 570. 109 Id., p. 639. 110 Id., p. 641. 111 Id., p. 643. 112 Id., p. 645. 113 Id., p. 647. 114 Id., p. 649. 115 Folder 4 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 813. 116 Id., p. 816. 117 Id., p. 864. 118 Id., p. 867.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======27
08-08-0318 437045119 39,920,000 NABCOR- 211 Luy Mendoza & Javellana 09-05-1682 455974120 3,880,000 NABCOR- 270 Rodriguez Mendoza & Javellana ROCS- 08- 05660 08-09-03486 437191121 13,095,000 NABCOR- 3564 Sula Mendoza & Javellana 09-04-1626 455915122 1,455,000 3624 Rodriguez
D-08- 09789 012009010006 890033123 32,000,000 TRC-Cunanan 247 Suñas
012009030675 890081124 4,000,000 TRC-Ortiz 257 De Asis
D-08- 09558 12008122862 890025125 4,000,000 - 12008122861 890026126 4,000,000 - 12008122863 890027127 4,000,000 12008122864 890028128 4,000,000 238 12008122865 890029129 4,000,000 - 12008122866 890030130 4,000,000 - 12008122867 890031131 4,000,000 241 12008122868 890032132 4,000,000 248 12009020441 890076133 4,000,000 - ROCS- 09- 04953 09091357 244556134 5,400,000 NLDC-Amata 410 Uy &Jalandoni 09101442 244569135 10,000,000 NLDC-Amata 413 Uy &Jalandoni 09101539 244591136 4,000,000 NLDC-Amata 414 Uy &Jalandoni 09091356 244555137 8,100,000 NLDC-Amata - Rodriguez
119 Id., p. 911. 120 Id., p. 913. 121 Folder 5 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 1096. 122 Id., p. 1099. 123 Id., p. 1246. 124 Id., p. 1248. 125 Folder “D-08-09558”, (OMB-C-C-13-0316), p. 3510. 126 Id., p. 3525. 127 Id., p. 3537. 128 Id., p. 3548. 129 Folder 5 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 1360. 130 Folder “D-08-09558”, (OMB-C-C-13-0316), P. 3570. 131 Id., p. 3582. 132 Folder 5 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 1365. 133 Id., p. 1370. 134 Folder 6 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 1430. 135 Id., p. 1438. 136 Id., p. 1446.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======28
&Jalandoni 09101441 244568138 15,000,000 NLDC-Amata - Rodriguez & Jalandoni 09101533 244586139 6,000,000 NLDC-Amata - Rodriguez & Jalandoni ROCS- 09- 02357 09081192 244529140 10,800,000 NLDC-Amata 3592 Rodriguez &Jalandoni 09091256 244541141 20,000,000 NLDC-Amata 3594 Rodriguez &Jalandoni 09091320 244547142 8,000,000 NLDC-Amata - Rodriguez &Jalandoni G-09- 07065 09111698 244605143 10,800,000 NLDC-Amata 0258 Suñas &Jalandoni 09121746 244612144 20,000,000 NLDC-Amata 0259 Suñas &Jalandoni 10010010 244636145 4,000,000 NLDC-Amata 0262 Suñas &Jalandoni 10050748 260951146 4,000,000 NLDC-Amata 0275 Suñas &Jalandoni 09111664 0244606147 10,800,000 NLDC-Amata 416 Uy &Jalandoni 09121745 0244611148 20,000,000 NLDC-Amata 417 Uy &Jalandoni 10040679 0260936149 4,000,000 NLDC-Amata 452 Uy &Jalandoni ROCS- 09- 00949 09040435 918439150 5,400,000 NLDC- - De Leon Sugcang &Amata 09040486 918442151 10,000,000 NLDC- - De Leon Sugcang & Amata 09050583 918448152 4,000,000 NLDC- - De Leon Sugcang & Amata ROCS- 09-
137 Id., p. 1519. 138 Id., p. 1521. 139 Id., p. 1523. 140 Folder 7 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 1648. 141 Id., p, 1650. 142 Id., p. 1652. 143 Id., p. 1703. 144 Id., p. 1705. 145 Id., p. 1707. 146 Id., p. 1709. 147 Folder 8 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 1944. 148 Id., p. 1955. 149 Id., p. 2002. 150 Folder 9 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 2231. 151 Id., p. 2233. 152 Id., p. 2235.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======29
04973 09081193 244530153 10,800,000 NLDC-Amata 321 De Leon & Jalandoni 09091255 244540154 20,000,000 NLDC-Amata 323 De Leon & Jalandoni 09091324 244551155 8,000,000 NLDC-Amata 324 De Leon & Jalandoni 09081196 244528156 12,150,000 NLDC-Amata - Suñas & Sucgang 09091254 244539157 22,500,000 NLDC-Amata - Suñas & Sucgang 09091321 244548158 9,000,000 NLDC-Amata - Suñas & Sucgang TOTAL 480,090,000
Field verifications conducted by complainant FIO revealed that the amount of Php517,000,000.00 PDAF of
Senator Revilla was never used for the intended projects. It appears that the documents submitted by the NGOs/project partners to the IAs such as, Disbursement, Progress,
Accomplishment, Fund Utilization, Inspection, Delivery
Receipts and Delivery Reports, as well as the Certificates of
Acceptance, were all fabricated.
The livelihood and agricultural production kits/packages never reached the intended beneficiaries, i.e., either there were no projects or goods were never delivered. The Mayors and the
Municipal Agriculturists, who had reportedly received the
153 Folder 10 (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 2570. 154 Id., p. 2572. 155 Id., p. 2574. 156 Id., p. 2607. 157 Id., p. 2609. 158 Id., p. 2611.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======30
livelihood assistance kits/packages for their respective municipalities, denied having received anything from the
Office of Senator, the IA, or any of the project partners. The mayors or municipal agriculturists were not even aware of the projects.
As reflected above, the signatures on the Certificates of
Acceptance and Delivery Reports were forged, and the farmers- recipients enumerated on the lists of beneficiaries denied having received any livelihood assistance kits/packages. In fact, many of the names appearing on the lists as farmer- recipients were neither residents nor registered voters of the place where they were listed as beneficiaries; were fictitious; had jumbled surnames; while others were already deceased. In other words, these purported livelihood projects were “ghost projects.”
The Commission on Audit (COA), through its Special
Audits Office, conducted an audit of the PDAF allocations and disbursements covering the period 2007-2009, its findings of
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======31
which are found in the COA Special Audits Office Report (the
“2007-2009 COA Report”).159
The observations of the COA were: (a) the IAs, including
NABCOR, NLDC and TRC, did not actually implement the
PDAF-funded projects; instead, the IAs released the funds to the NGOs, albeit charging a “management fee” therefor; (b) the direct releases by the IAs of PDAF to NGOs contravened the
DBMs regulations considering that the same were not preceded by endorsements from the executive departments exercising supervisory powers over the IAs; (c) worse, the releases were made essentially at the behest of the sponsoring legislator; (d) almost all of the NGOs that received PDAF releases did not have a track record on implementation of government projects, and their addresses were dubious; (e) the selection of the NGOs, as well as the procurement of the goods for distribution to the beneficiaries, did not undergo public bidding; and (f) some of the suppliers who allegedly provided the goods to the NGOs denied ever having dealt with this NGOs, contrary to the NGOs’ claims.
159 SAOR No. 2012-13, Folder 2 (OMB-C-C-13-0396).
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======32
The COA also found that the selections of the NGO were not compliant with the provisions of COA Circular No. 2007-
001 and GPPB Resolution No. 12-2007; the suppliers and reported beneficiaries were unknown or could not be located at their given addresses; the NGOs had provided non-existent addresses or their addresses were traced to mere shanties or high-end residential units without any signages; and the
NGOs submitted questionable documents, or failed to liquidate or fully document the utilization fof funds.
Verily, the findings in the the 2007-2009 COA Report jibe with the whitleblowers’ testimonies and are validated by the results of the FIO’s on-site field verification.
IN FINE, the PDAF-funded projects of Senator Revilla were “ghost” or inexistent.
Complainants contend that the amount of
Php517,000,000.00 allotted for livelihood and agricultural production projects was, instead, misappropriated and converted to the personal use and benefit of Senator Revilla and Napoles in conspiracy with the rest of the respondents.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======33
Witnesses Luy, Sula, and Suñas claimed that the foundation-NGOs endorsed by Senator Revilla were all dummies of Napoles who operated them from her JLN office at
Unit 2502, Discovery Center Suites, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, and were created for the purpose of funnelling his PDAF through NABCOR, NLDC, and TRC/TLRC; the majority of the incorporators, officers, and members of these NGOs are household helpers, relatives, employees and friends of
Napoles; some incorporators/coporators of the NGOs were aware of their involvement in the creation thereof while others were not; and for those unaware of their involvement, their signatures in the Articles of Incorporation of the NGOs were forged.
Luy, Sula and Suñas add that the pre-selected president of each of the NGOs, in addition to being required to furnish the names of at least five persons to complete the incorporators, were obliged to sign an application for opening bank accounts in the name of the NGO, and to pre-sign blank withdrawal slips; the NGOs maintained bank accounts with either METROBANK, Magdalena Branch or LANDBANK of the
Philippines, EDSA-Greenhills Branch, from which Napoles
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======34
would withdraw and/or cause the withdrawal of any and all amounts paid by the IAs to the NGOs involved.
Per Luy’s records, Senator Revilla received, through
Cambe, total commissions, rebates, or kickbacks amounting to at least P224,512,500: P10,000,000.00 for 2006;160
P61,000,000.00 for 2007;161 P80,000,000.00 for 2008;162
P40,000,000.00 for 2009;163 and P33,512,500.00 for 2010.164
The “pay offs” usually took place at the JLN office in Ortigas.
Luy, Sula and Suñas often heard Napoles refer to Senator
Revilla by his code name “Pogi”165 and saw Napoles hand over the money meant for the Senator to Cambe at the premises of
JLN. The cash would come either from Luy’s vault or from
Napoles herself.
On the other hand, Napoles’ share of the money from
Senator Revilla’s PDAF was delivered in cash by witnesses
Luy, Suñas and Sula, and respondents Encarnacion and de
Asis either at the JLN office or at her residence at 18B, 18th
Floor, North Wing Pacific Plaza Tower Condominium, Taguig
160 Sworn Statements (OMB-C-C-13-0316), p. 609; p. 629. 161 Id. 162 Id. 163 Id., p. 630 164 Id. 165 Id., p. 814.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======35
City. In the event of space constraints at her residence,
Napoles would deposit some of the money into the bank accounts of the following companies which she owned:166
Registered Owner Bank Account Number of the Account JO-CHRIS Trading Metrobank 7255-50955-8 JO-CHRIS Trading Metrobank 007-026-51152-2 (Checking) JO-CHRIS Trading Metrobank 3600024885
JLN Corporation Metrobank 073-3-07352390-8 JLN Corporation Metrobank 007-073-50928-5 (Checking) JCLN Global Metrobank 007-035-52543-9 Properties Development Corporation
II. THE CHARGES
The NBI thus charges Senator Revilla with PLUNDER for acquiring/receiving on various occasions, in conspiracy with his co-respondents, commissions, kickbacks, or rebates, in the total amount of at least Php224,512,500.00 from the
“projects” financed by his PDAF from 2006 to 2010.
166 Id., p. 389.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======36
The FIO, on the other hand, charges Senator Revilla and the rest of the respondents with violating SECTION 3(E) of RA
3019, as amended, for giving unwarranted benefits to Napoles and SDPFFI, APMFI, PSDFI, MAMFI and AEPFFI in the implementation of his PDAF-funded projects, thus, causing undue injury to the government in the amount of
Php517,000,000.00.
By Orders dated 19 and 29 November 2013, this Office directed respondents to file their respective counter-affidavits in these cases. Despite notice of the Orders dated 19 and 29
November 2013, Napoles, Ortiz, Jalandoni, Relevo, De Leon,
Piorato, Lim, and Encarnacion failed to file any counter- affidavits, prompting this Office to consider them having waived their right to file the same.
Despite earnest efforts, copies of the same Orders could not be served on Lacsamana, Uy, Rodriguez and Ogerio they being said to be unknown at their last known address.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======37
III. THE RESPONDENTS’ COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
SENATOR REVILLA, in his Counter-Affidavit167 dated 16
January 2014, denies the accusations against him, alleging that: the signatures in the PDAF documents submitted by the
NBI and FIO that supposedly belong to him and Cambe are forgeries; in so far as he is concerned, his office’s utilization of the PDAF had “always been regular and above-board;” even if there are irregularities in the PDAF use, he “should not be held liable as [his] involvement in the PDAF released (sic) is limited;” there is no “credible proof” showing that he committed the offenses imputed to him; he did not conspire with anyone to commit Plunder, Malversation or violation of Section 3 (e) of R.
A. No. 3019; his “mere position as a Senator cannot, and should not, be equated to a specific act in furtherance of the crime of Plunder;” and he neither acquired nor amassed ill- gotten wealth.
In his Counter-Affidavit168 dated 20 January 2014 and
Supplemental Counter-Affidavit169 dated 12 March 2014,
CAMBE alleges that: he did not commit any illegal or
167 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 1-45; Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 1-68. 168 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 146-172. 169 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 870-877.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======38
prohibited act in relation to the PDAF projects; his purported signatures in letters and reports relating to the PDAF transactions which mention IAs and NGOs allegedly tasked to implement the projects are forgeries; he did not receive any amount from the PDAF nor did he connive with any of his co- respondents to acquire, amass or accumulate ill-gotten wealth; none of the “overt or criminal acts” constitutive of
Plunder has been shown to be present; and he did not take advantage of his official position as, on the contrary, he performed his duties in good faith.
Senator Revilla and Cambe, in their separate Motions dated 15 January 2014170 and 20 January 2014, moved for suspension of the preliminary investigation on the ground of prejudicial question. This Office, however, ruled that the suspension of the preliminary investigation was unwarranted in its Joint Order171 dated 28 January 2014.
Senator Revilla’s Motion for Reconsideration dated 3
February 2014172 and Cambe’s Motion for Reconsideration
170 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 3257-3293. 171 Id., pp. 3492-3506. 172 Id., pp. 3306-3332.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======39
dated 17 February 2014173 respecting the above ruling was likewise denied by Order dated 3 March 2014.174
Cambe’s Second Motion to Suspend Proceedings175 dated 12
March 2014 was denied by Order dated March 14, 2014.176
NATIONAL LIVELIHOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (NLDC) RESPONDENTS
Denying any involvement in the misuse of the PDAF or of having profited from it, AMATA, NLDC’s President, avers in her 20 January 2014 Counter-Affidavit177 that, because of the
“possibility of political pressure,” she “manifested…her discomfort from (sic) the designation of NLDC as one of the
Implementing Agencies for PDAF” and “did not want to be involved in the distribution of PDAF,” kept a distance from the solons anf the NGOs” involved in PDAF-related transactions, and had repeatedly requested the DBM in writing to exclude her agency from those authorized to implement PDAF-related projects; save for these instant complaints, she has not been formally charged with any administrative or criminal case in
173 Id., pp. 3421-3431. 174 Id., pp. 3478-3491. 175 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 870-877. 176 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 3539-3543. 177 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 1164-1231; Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 681-698.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======40
her more than 25 years in the civil service; and to ensure transparency, she “caused the preparation of standard
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for PDAF transactions providing the safety nets for NLDC, as well as a Process Flow
Chart to clearly identify the responsibilities and accountabilities of the Solons, the NGOs and the NLDC PDAF internal processors for easy tracking of liabilities and irregularities that may be committed.”
BUENAVENTURA, then a regular employee of the NLDC, avers in her Counter-Affidavit178 dated 6 March 2014, that in her processing of documents relating to PDAF projects, she
“did not do anything illegal or violate the instructions of (her) immediate superior;” in accordance with her functions, she
“checked and verified the endorsement letters of Senator”
Ramon Revilla, Jr., “which designated the NGOs that would implement his PDAF projects and found them to be valid and authentic;” and she also confirmed the authenticity of the authorization given by Senator Revilla to his subordinates regarding the monitoring, supervision and implementation of
PDAF projects.
178 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 473-488; Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 320-335.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======41
Denying any participation in the implementation of the
PDAF projects or having received any personal benefit in relation to PPDAF projects, she maintains that her evaluation and verification reports were accurate, and she was never a party to the purported anomalies arising from PDAF-related transactions.
In his Counter-Affidavit179 dated 15 January 2014,
SEVIDAL, NLDC Director IV, denies having committed the offenses charged. He alleges that complainant FIO submitted a false certificate of non-forum shopping, the NBI having already filed an earlier criminal complaint against him arising from the same set of facts averred in the FIO’s criminal complaint; the filing of the criminal charges was premature because the disallowances issued by the COA are not yet final and executory; he was not among those NLDC employees identified by complainants’ witnesses who supposedly planned and implemented PDAF-funded projects and points to Senator
Revilla and Napoles, not NLDC employees, as the parties responsible for the misuse of the PDAF. He insists that
Senator Revilla, through Cambe, were responsible for
“identifying the projects, determining the project costs and
179 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 975-1032; Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 481-547.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======42
choosing the NGOs” which was “manifested in the letters of
Senator Revilla;” he and other NLDC employees were merely victims of the “political climate” and “bullied into submission by the lawmakers;” and he never derived any personal benefit from the purported misuse of the PDAF.
CRUZ, in her Counter-Affidavit180 dated 31 January 2014, also denied the charges against her, claiming that: (a) she only certified the existence, not the authenticity, of PDAF documents in the exercise of her duties; (b) her having certified that the PDAF documents were attached to the corresponding disbursement vouchers does not constitute
Plunder, Malversation or violation of Section 3 (e) of R. A. No.
3019; (c) she did not conspire with anyone to commit the offenses charged; (d) she did not receive anything in relation to the PDAF projects implemented by her office; and (e) she does not know whether the PDAF was abused by any or all of her co-respondents.
In her Counter-Affidavit181 dated 27 January 2014,
ORDOÑEZ, NLDC Cashier IV, argues that her participation in
180 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 280-401. 181 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 401-434.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======43
the PDAF projects implemented by her office was limited to her having certified that “budgets and funds were available” in the corresponding disbursement vouchers; the filing of the complaints “may be premature because of failure to observe provisions of the 2009 COA Rules of Procedure,” considering that the COA has not yet disallowed the PDAF-related expenditures; and she never misappropriated, converted, misused, or malversed public funds drawn from the PDAF nor did she take advantage of her position to process the release of
PDAF sums let alone personally benefit from these releases.
Claiming to have never met respondents Napoles or
Senator Revilla let alone conspire with them, Ordoñez claims that as far as she is concerned “the PDAF transaction was known to the NLDC Board of Trustees and top management;” she and her co-respondents, “lowly Government employees who were dictated upon,” were mere victims “bullied into submission by the lawmakers;” despite their pleas, the DBM refused to help in getting the NLDC removed from the list of agencies authorized to implement PDAF projects; and she performed her duties in good faith and was “not in a position to negate or defy these actions of the Lawmakers, DBM and the
NLDC Board of Trustees.”
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======44
In her Counter-Affidavit182 dated 11 February 2014,
SUCGANG refuted the accusation against her, arguing that: (a) as co-signatory to checks relating to PDAF disbursements, she
“would see to it that the following are in order and in accordance with NLDC’s established systems and procedures;”
(b) she processed the PDAF documents “in conformity with
NLDC’s systems and procedures;” and (c) she did not commit the offense imputed to her.
NATIONAL AGRIBUSINESS CORPORATION (NABCOR) RESPONDENTS
Denying the charges against him in his Counter-Affidavit183 dated 6 February 2014, JAVELLANA, NABCOR President, states in essence that he did not personally prepare the checks, vouchers, memoranda of agreement and other similar documents pertaining to NABCOR-implemented projects funded by PDAF as he merely signed and approved the PDAF documents in good faith, after his subordinates had signed and recommended the approval to him; and he did not conspire with anyone to defraud the Government.
182 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 939-945. 183 Folder (OMB-C-C-130316), pp. 929-946; Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 435-452.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======45
In his Counter-Affidavit184 dated 11 December 2013 and
Supplemental Counter-Affidavit185 dated 22 January 2014,
CACAL, NABCOR Paralegal, refutes the charges against him, which to him are unsupported by the evidence. He claims that he signed Box “A” of the DVs relating to SARO Nos. ROCS-08-
01347, ROCS-08-05216, ROCS-08-07211 and ROCS-09-
00804 in compliance with his official functions and pursuant to the stern directives of his superiors, namely, Javellana and
Mendoza; by the time the vouchers are presented to him for signature, Javellana and Guañizo have already signed Boxes
“B” and “C” therein and Mendoza and Javellana have “already prepared and signed” the corresponding checks drawn from
PDAF funds, which is “indicative of their interest to fast track the transaction;” he never met with the legislators or respondent Napoles, his interaction in relation to PDAF-related projects having been limited to Luy; he always examined the voucher’s supporting documents before issuing the aforementioned certification; he previously recommended to his superiors that the agency observe COA Memorandum
Circular No. 2007-001 and revise the draft MOA used in
PDAF-related transactions but was yelled at and berated by
184 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 761-770; Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 202-217 185 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 803-816.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======46
his superior Javellana whenever he would question some of the apparent irregularities in the PDAF documents. He maintains that he did not personally benefit from the implementation of the PDAF projects.
In her 14 March 2014 Counter-Affidavits186, JOHNSON,
NABCOR former Chief Accountant, points out that there is nothing in the complaint “that would show, or even minutely imply that (she) was part of an express conspiracy” to commit the offenses charged; the complaints do not specifically allege the wrongful acts or omissions she committed as her participation in the PDAF transactions was merely ministerial in nature, limited to a verification of “whether or not the documents enumerated on the face of the disbursement voucher were attached to that disbursement voucher;” and her job did not include examining the authenticity of the vo uchers or the signatures thereon.
MENDOZA, in her Counter-Affidavit187 dated 6 March
2014, alleges that being a mere employee of NABCOR, she
“acted only upon stern instructions and undue pressure exerted
186 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 403-419; Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 303-319. 187 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 946-982; (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 3081-3117.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======47
upon us by our agency heads;” she signed checks relating to
PDAF disbursements, specifically those covered by SARO Nos.
ROCS 08-01347, 08-05216, 08-07211, 09-00804, because she was “designated and authorized to sign” by Javellana and these checks “were already signed by NABCOR President …
JAVELLANA prior to the signing of the herein Respondent …. and checks were released upon the instruction of …
JAVELLANA;” she “was given instruction to process payments to suppliers and NGOs, without proper bidding and without complete documentary requirements;” and sometime in 2011,
Javellana terminated her services from NABCOR “due to her knowledge of irregularities in NABCOR;” she denies having obtained anypersonal benefit from the alleged misuse of the
PDAF.
Refuting the charges against her in her Counter-Affidavit188 filed on 28 January 2014, GUAÑIZO, Bookeeper/OIC
Accounting Division, claims that the complaint did not specify the extent of her participation in the assailed scheme; no substantial evidence exists to support the charges, hence, the lack of probable cause; and she still has remedies within the
COA rules to question the agency’s report.
188 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 850-868; Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 169-196.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======48
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCE CENTER (TRC) RESPONDENTS
JOVER, TRC Chief Accountant, alleges in her Counter-
Affidavit189 dated 9 December 2013, that, she was implicated in the instant complaints for “having certified in the
Disbursement Vouchers for the aforestated project xxx that adequate funds/budgetary allotment of the amount is properly certified, supported by documents;” her issuance of a certification was ministerial in nature, considering other TRC officials already certified, in the same vouchers, that
“expenses/cash advance is necessary, lawful and incurred under direct supervision” and “expenses/cash advance is within budget”, when these documents were referred to her; her duty was limited to verifying if the voucher was supported by the requisite documents; it was “beyond (her) duty to personally have an actual field validation and confirmed (sic) deliveries to beneficiaries or to go on the details of the delivered items or make a rigid inspection of the PDAF project;” she signed the vouchers “for no dishonest purpose, nor being bias and no intent on any negligence;” and she had nothing to do with “non-delivery or under delivery of PDAF project.”
189 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 420-424; Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 235-239.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======49
In his Counter-Affidavit190 dated 20 February 2014,
CUNANAN, Deputy Director General of the TRC at the time material to the complaints, refutes the accusations against him, stating that to his recollection, TRC began receiving
PDAF-related disbursements sometime in 2005; it was his previous superior, then TRC Director General Ortiz, “who directly dealt with and supervised the processing of all PDAF related projects of the TRC;” Lacsamana, then TRC Group
Manager, assisted Ortiz in the implementation of PDAF projects and “reported directly to Director General Ortiz’s Office in this regard;” he and other colleagues from TRC “assumed
PDAF funded projects to be regular and legitimate;” because of measures instituted by Ortiz, he (Cunanan), then Deputy
Director General of TRC, “did not participate in the processing of said projects except in the performance of (his) ministerial duty as a co-signatory of vouchers, checks and other financial documents of TRC;” and Ortiz, Lacsamana and Figura, TRC
Department Manager III, were “the ones who actually dealt with the Offices of the Legislators concerned as well as the
NGOs, which supposedly implemented the projects;”
190 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 554-592.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======50
He relates that he met Napoles sometime in 2006 or 2007, who “introduced herself as the representative of certain legislators who supposedly picked TRC as a conduit for PDAF- funded projects;” at the same occasion, Napoles told him that
“her principals were then Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile,
Senators Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr., Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito
Estrada;” in the course of his duties, he “often ended up taking and/or making telephone verifications and follow-ups and receiving legislators or their staff members;” he occasionally met with witness Luy, who pressured him to expedite the release of the funds by calling the offices of the legislators; and that after he was appointed as TRC’s Director General in 2010, he exerted all efforts to have his agency removed from the list of agencies authorized to implement PDAF projects. He maintains he did not benefit from the alleged misuse of the
PDAF.
In his Counter-Affidavit191 dated 8 January 2014, FIGURA,
TRC Department Manager III, denies the charges against him, stating that he does not personally know Napoles or the legislators “who had their PDAF’s (sic) coursed through TRC as implementing agency;” he “talked to [witness Luy] once over the
191 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 817-828.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======51
telephone .. and vividly remember berating (sic) him as he was name-dropping people from DBM and Malacañang just to compel [him] to release from the Legal Department the MOA of his foundation which was being reviewed by [his] office;” when
TRC began implementing PDAF projects in 2007, he and other
TRC colleagues welcomed this development because “it would potentially generate income for TRC which does not receive any subsidy from the National Government” but the service fee of
1% earned by TRC from implementing PDAF projects “was too negligible;” he was told by the TRC’s management that
“legislators highly recommended certain
NGO’s(sic)/Foundations as conduit implementors and since
PDAF’s (sic) are their discretionary (sic) funds, they have the prerogative to choose their NGO’s (sic);” TRC’s management also warned him that “if TRC would disregard [the choice of
NGO], they (legislators) would feel insulted and would simply take away their PDAF from TRC, and TRC losses (sic) the chance to earn service fees;” and Cunanan was among those who objected to his (Figura) proposal that TRC increase its service fee from 1% to 10%, by claiming that “if we imposed a
10% service fee, we would totally drive away the legislators and their PDAF’s (sic);”
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======52
Figura adds that Ortiz issued Office Circular 000P0099 directing him (Figura) to sign checks representing PDAF releases sometime in 2007; Ortiz, however, subsequently issued Office Circular 000P0100, which increased TRC’s service fee to 5% but limited his (Figura) office’s participation in PDAF projects to reviewing MOA; his having signed checks and other PDAF documents were in good faith and in compliance with his designated tasks; he did not personally benefit from the TRC’s implementation of PDAF projects; he is uncertain if Cunanan or Ortiz benefitted from the projects but to his recollection, they repeatedly expressed undue interest in the transactions; Cunanan “would frequently personally follow up in my office the review of the MOA or my signature on the checks,” even name-dropping then First Gentleman Jose
Miguel Arroyo whenever “he requested me to fast track processing of the PDAF documents;” as regards Ortiz, “his office would sometimes inquire on the status of a particular
PDAF;” he tried his best to resist the pressure exerted on him and did his best to perform his duties faithfully; (o) he and other low-ranking TRC officials had no power to “simply disregard the wishes of Senator” Revilla especially on the matter of public bidding for the PDAF projects.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======53
ESPIRITU, TRC Budget Officer IV, in her Counter-
Affidavit192 dated 10 January 2014, denies the charges against her and asserts that her participation in the PDAF-related transactions covered by SARO No. ROCS-07-8553, D-08-9789 and D-08-9558 was limited to her having certified in the corresponding disbursement vouchers that “the amount is certified within budget, supported by documents;” she issued the certification in accordance with her functions as a budget officer and because the vouchers were, indeed, within the budget provided to her agency and supported by documents; and the certification was issued only after her superiors, TRC’s
Director General and Deputy Director General, certified in the same vouchers that the expenses were lawful, necessary and incurred under their direct supervision.
Munsod, in her Counter-Affidavit193 dated 27 December
2013, alleges that: (a) she was impleaded for having signed
Disbursement Voucher No. 08-04-0129 in 2008, pertaining to a PDAF-related project implement by POPDI; (b) her certification in the voucher that the expense was necessary and lawful was issued in the exercise of her ministerial
192 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 266-270. 193 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 298-301.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======54
function; (c) she issued the certification only after examining the voucher and the supporting documents because she “did
NOT find any irregularity on the face thereof that would create in my mind any doubt as to the legality and integrity of the said
Voucher;” and (d) she did not “know any agreement or arrangement on the disbursement of the funds mentioned in the
Voucher.“
DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT (DBM) RESPONDENTS
In their Joint Counter-Affidavit194 dated 13 December
2013, Rosario NUÑEZ, Lalaine PAULE and Marilou BARE195 admitting that they are the DBM personnel being alluded to as
Leah, Lalaine and Malou, respectively, and named as such in the caption of the NBI and Baligod Complaint state their names are not specifically mentioned in the NBI complaint as among those who allegedly participated in or abated the misuse of the PDAF; and that no probable cause exists to indict them for the offenses charged.
194 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp. 451-459. 195 Were not originally impleaded in the caption of the complaints as respondents by the NBI and Baligod. In the course of the preliminary investigation, the Panel of Investigators ordered them to submit counter- affidavits in light of the impression that they were the parties to the scheme.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======55
RELAMPAGOS, DBM Undersecretary for Operations, in his Counter-Affidavit196 dated 13 December 2013, contends that the complaint “is insufficient in form and substance;” there is neither factual nor legal basis to indict him for Plunder as the complaint and sworn statements of witnesses do not mention his name as among those who supposedly misused the PDAF; and he performed his duties in good faith.
Other Respondents
Private Respondent DE ASIS, in his Counter-Affidavit197 dated 16 January 2014, admits having being an employee
(driver/bodyguard/messenger) of JLN Group of Companies from 2006-2010 and that he received a salary of
PHP10,000/month for serving as the driver and “errand boy” of respondent Janet Napoles. He also alleges that: (a) he did pick up checks for Napoles-affiliated non-government organizations because he was instructed to do so; (b) he has no knowledge in setting up or managing corporations such as
CARED, which he allegedly helped incorporate; and (c) he did not personally benefit from the supposed misuse of the PDAF.
196 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0316), pp, 460-472. 197 Folder (OMB-C-C-13-0395), pp. 197-201.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======56
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
Relampagos, Bare, Nuñez and Paule were properly impleaded.
Relampagos, Bare, Nuñez and Paule all insist that they should be dropped from these proceedings because they were not specifically named as respondents in the criminal complaints filed by the NBI and the FIO.
This Office is unconvinced.
One of the documents attached to and made an integral part of the NBI’s complaint is Luy’s Affidavit dated 12
September 2013198 in which he identified Relampagos, Bare,
Nuñez and Paule as Napoles’ “contacts” within the DBM who helped expedite the release of SAROs and NCAs relating to the
PDAF:
82: T: Mapunta naman tayo sa pagproseso ng transaction ni JANET LIM NAPOLES sa mga government projects, gaano naman katagal magpropeso ng mga ito? S: Mabilis lang po kung ikukumpara natin sa normal na transaction sa mga government agencies.
83. T: Alam mo ba kung paano naman ito nagagawang mapabilis ni JANET LIM NAPOLES?
198 Sworn Statements (OMB-C-C-13-0316), p. 776-777.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======57
S: Opo, may mga contact persons na siya kasi sa DBM. Inuutusan po kami ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES na i- follow up sa kanila iyong mga dokumento para mapabilis ang pagpoproseso nito.
84. T: Kilala mo ba kung sinu-sino naman itong mga contact persons ni JANET LIM NAPOLES sa DBM? S: Sa DBM po ay sa opisina ni Usec MARIO RELAMPAGOS kami pinagpa-follow up ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES. Ang mga tinatawagan po namin ay sina LEA, MALOU at LALAINE na naka-assign sa office ni USEC RELAMPAGOS.
85. T: Bakit doon kayo nagfo-follow up sa office ni USEC RELAMPAGOS? S: Sa pagkaka-alam ko po, doon ginagawa ang SARO. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
In other words, complainants’ witness Luy underscores that Relampagos, Bare, Nuñez and Paule’s participation in the misuse or diversion of the PDAF pertains to their expedited preparation and release of the SAROs covering PDAF projects, on account of the ministrations of Napoles and her staff. It was for this reason that this Office ordered said public respondents to submit their counter-affidavits so that they may shed light on their supposed involvement in the so-called PDAF scam.
After all, preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial, and it is often the only means of discovering whether a person may be reasonably charged with a crime, and to enable the prosecutor to prepare his complaint or information.199
199 Pilapil v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101978. April 7, 1993.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======58
Notably, respondents Relampagos, Bare, Nuñez and paule did not categorically deny witness Luy’s claims of follows-up made with the DBM. Instead, they simply deny, in general terms, having committed the offenses charged.
The FIO did not submit a false certificate of non-forum shopping.
Sevidal claims that the FIO submitted a false certificate of non-forum shopping in OMB-C-C-13-0395. According to him, the FIO failed to disclose, in said certificate, that the NBI earlier filed a criminal complaint for Plunder against him and his co-respondents, docketed as OMB-C-C-13-0316, and the charges alleged therein arose from the same set of facts set forth in the FIO’s complaint.
His contention fails to persuade.
Rule 7, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, which suppletorily applies to these proceedings,200 requires the complainant’s
200 Rule V, Section 3 of Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1990.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======59
submission of a valid, duly-accomplished certificate of non- forum shopping:
Certification against forum shopping. — The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
x x x
Based on the above provision, the complainant or initiating party is duty-bound only to disclose the existence of an earlier action or claim filed by him or her, and which involves the same issues. He or she is not required to disclose the existence of pending suits or complaints previously filed by another party.
In this case, the FIO had no obligation to disclose the existence of OMB-C-C-13-0316 for the simple reason that it was not the initiating party of this complaint. Rather, as
Sevidal admits, the NBI, and not the FIO, is the complainant in OMB-C-C-13-0316. The FIO is not even a party to OMB-C-
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======60
C-13-0316. This Office fails to see why the FIO should be faulted for not mentioning the existence of this particular complaint.
The filing of the complaints was not premature.
Sevidal and Ordoñez proceed to argue that the filing of the criminal charges against them and their co-respondents is premature because the COA had yet to issue notices of disallowances (NDs) on disbursements drawn from the PDAF.
The above contention, however, has been rendered moot by the well-publicized fact that the COA already issued several
NDs covering disbursements relating to PDAF-funded projects of Senator Revilla, among other persons, from the period 2007 to 2009.201
They, however, insist that the filing of the complaint remains premature even if the COA did issue NDs. According to them, the NDs are still appealable under the 2009 Revised
201 TJ Burgonio, “Return pork, 4 solons told,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, electronically published on February 1, 2014 at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/572215/return-pork-4-solons-told and last accessed on March 18, 2014.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======61
Rules of Procedure (the 2009 COA Rules) and no administrative or criminal complaint arising from the NDs may be instituted until and unless the issuances have become final and executory. In other words, Sevidal and Ordoñez assume that the NDs, at the least, give rise to a prejudicial question warranting the suspension of the instant preliminary investigation.
This argument cannot be sustained.
Under Rule 111, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, a prejudicial question exists when the following elements are present:
The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. (underscoring supplied)
As reflected in the above elements, the concept of prejudicial question involves both a civil and a criminal case.
There can be no prejudicial question to speak of if, technically, no civil case is pending.202
202 Trinidad v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 166038, December 4, 2007.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======62
Proceedings under the 2009 COA Rules, including those pertaining to the NDs, are administrative in nature.
Consequently, any appeal or review sought by any of herein respondents with the COA in relation to the NDs will not give rise to a prejudicial question.
Significantly, Reyna and Soria v. Commission on Audit203 teaches that an administrative proceeding pertaining to a COA disallowance is distinct and separate from a preliminary investigation in a criminal case which may have arisen from the same set of facts. Both proceedings may proceed independently of each another. Thus, Reyna and Soria declares:
On a final note, it bears to point out that a cursory reading of the Ombudsman's resolution will show that the complaint against petitioners was dismissed not because of a finding of good faith but because of a finding of lack of sufficient evidence. While the evidence presented before the Ombudsman may not have been sufficient to overcome the burden in criminal cases of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it does not, however, necessarily follow, that the administrative proceedings will suffer the same fate as only substantial evidence is required, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
An absolution from a criminal charge is not a bar to an administrative prosecution or vice versa. The criminal case filed before the Office of the Ombudsman is distinct and separate from the proceedings on the disallowance before the COA. So also, the dismissal by Margarito P. Gervacio, Jr., Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, of the
203 G.R. No. 167219, February 8, 2011.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======63
criminal charges against petitioners does not necessarily foreclose the matter of their possible liability as warranted by the findings of the COA. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Moreover, nothing in existing laws or rules expressly states that a disallowance by the COA is a pre-requisite for the filing of a criminal complaint for Plunder,204 Malversation205 or violation of Section 3 (e) of R. A. No. 3019.206 In fact, an audit disallowance is not even an element of any of these offenses.
Sevidal and Ordoñez’s reference to Rule XIII, Section 6 of the 2009 COA Rules also fails to persuade. This provision states:
Referral to the Ombudsman. - The Auditor shall report to his Director all instances of failure or refusal to comply with the decisions or orders of the Commission contemplated in the preceding sections. The COA Director shall see to it that the report is supported by the sworn statement of the Auditor concerned, identifying among others, the persons liable and describing the participation of each. He shall then refer the matter to the Legal Service Sector who shall refer the matter to the Office of the Ombudsman or other appropriate office for the possible filing of appropriate administrative or criminal action. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Evidently, the aforementioned section pertains to the possible filing of administrative or criminal action in relation to
204 As defined and penalized by Republic Act No. 7080, as amended. 205 As defined and penalized by Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. 206 Otherwise known as the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.”
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======64
audit disallowance. It bears noting that the tenor of the provision is permissive, not mandatory. As such, an audit disallowance may not necessarily result in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions or criminal prosecution of the responsible persons. Conversely, therefore, an administrative or criminal case may prosper even without an audit disallowance. Verily, Rule XIII, Section 6 is consistent with the ruling in Reyna and Soria that a proceeding involving an audit disallowance is distinct and separate from a preliminary investigation or a disciplinary complaint.
AT ALL EVENTS, Rule XIII, Section 6 pertains to the COA’s filing of administrative and/or criminal cases against the concerned parties. It has no bearing on any legal action taken by other agencies not subject of the 2009 COA Rules, such as the NBI or the FIO.
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
The diversion or misuse of the PDAF was coursed through a complex scheme involving participants from the legislator’s office, the DBM, implementing agencies
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======65
and NGOs controlled by Napoles.
Based on the testimonial and documentary evidence presented, the widespread misuse of the subject PDAF allotted to a legislator was coursed through a complex scheme basically involving "ghost” or inexistent projects allegedly funded by said PDAF. The funds intended for the implementation of the PDAF-funded project are diverted to the possession and control of Napoles and her co-horts, as well as to the legislator to whom the funds were allotted and his staff, and other participants from the government agencies tasked to implement said inexistent projects.
Modus operandi
Basically, Napoles would first meet with a legislator and offer to “acquire” his or her PDAF allocation in exchange for a
“commission” or kickback amounting to a certain percentage of the PDAF.
Once an agreement is reached, Napoles would then advance to the legislator a down payment representing a
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======66
portion of his or her kickback. For his or her part, the legislator will formally request in writing the DBM for the release of his or her PDAF.207 This initial letter contains a program or list of implementing agencies and the amount of
PDAF to be released in order to guide the DBM in its preparation and release of the corresponding SARO.
The kickbacks, around 50% of the PDAF amount involved, are received by legislators personally or through their duly authorized representatives, and in the form of cash, fund transfer, manager’s check or personal check issued by
Napoles.208
After the DBM issues the SARO representing the legislator’s PDAF allocation, the legislator forwards a copy of said issuance to Napoles. She, in turn, will then remit the remaining portion of the kickback due the legislator. 209
The legislator would soon write another letter addressed to the IAs which would identify his or her preferred NGO to undertake the PDAF funded project. However, the NGO
207 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0316), p. 601. 208 Id, p. 605. 209 Id, p. 602.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======67
endorsed by the legislator would be among those organized and controlled by Napoles. In fact, these NGOs were specifically set by Napoles for the aforementioned purpose.210
Likewise, upon receipt of the SARO, Napoles would direct her staff, then including Luy, Sula and Suñas, to prepare the
PDAF documents for the approval of the legislator and reflecting the preferred NGO to implement the undertaking including: (a) project proposals by the identified NGO/s; (b) indorsement letters to be signed by the legislator and/or his staff; and (c) project proposals. Once signed by the legislator or his staff, the aforementioned PDAF documents are transmitted to the IA which, in turn, handles the preparation of the MOA relating to the project, to be executed by the legislator’s office, the IA and the NGO concerned.
The projects are authorized as eligible under the DBM's menu for pork barrel allocations. It bears noting that the NGO is directly endorsed by the legislator. No public bidding or negotiated procurement takes place.
210 Id.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======68
Napoles, through her employees, would then follow up the release of the NCA with the DBM.211
After the DBM releases the NCA to the IA concerned, the latter would expedite the processing of the transaction and the release of the corresponding check representing the PDAF disbursement. Among those tasked by Napoles to pick up the checks and deposit the same in bank accounts in the name of the NGO concerned were Luy and Suñas as well as respondents De Leon and De Asis.212
Once the funds are deposited in the NGO’s account,
Napoles would then call the bank to facilitate the withdrawal thereof. Napoles’ staff would then withdraw the funds involved and remit the same to her, thus placing said amount under her full control and possession.213
To liquidate the disbursements, Napoles and her staff would manufacture fictitious lists of beneficiaries, liquidation reports, inspection reports, project activity reports and similar
211 Id, p. 602. 212 Id. 213 Id.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======69
documents that would make it appear that, indeed, the PDAF- funded project was implemented.
PDAF allocation of Senator Revilla
Based on the records, the repeated diversions of PDAF allocated to Senator Revilla, during the period 2006 to 2010, were coursed through the above-described scheme.
In the case of Senator Revilla, the NGOs affiliated and/or controlled by Napoles that undertook to implement the projects to be funded by his PDAF were, among others,
AEPFFI, APMFI, MAMFI, PSDFI and SDPFFI.214 These organizations transacted through persons known to be employees, associates or relatives of Napoles, including witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas, as well as respondents De
Leon, Piorato, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez, Lim and Uy.
Similarly, Cambe, acting on Senator Revilla’s behalf, prepared and executed communications with the DBM and IAs, as well as other PDAF-related papers such as MOA and project proposals.
214 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0316), p. 10.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======70
During the time material to the charges, Senator Revilla issued several endorsement letters to NABCOR, TRC and
NLDC, expressly naming them as his chosen contractor for his
PDAF projects.
Luy also confirmed in his Affidavit dated 12 September
2013 that Senator Revilla himself, indeed, transacted with
Napoles:
63. T: Nabanggit mo na may mga Chief-of-Staff ng mga Senador na ka-transact ni JANET LIM NAPOLES, maari mo bang pangalanan kung sinu-sino ang mga ito? S: …Kay Senador BONG REVILLA, kung hindi po siya mismo ang nakaka-usap ni Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES ay si Atty. RICHARD A. CAMBE ang kinakausap… (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)215
Furthermore, Cunanan, in his Counter-Affidavit, claimed that Senator Revilla confirmed to him that he, indeed, chose the NGOs named in the aforementioned letters and even admonished him for supposedly delaying the release of PDAF allocations to his (Revilla) chosen NGOs:
17. 1 In particular, I distinctly remember a certain occasion when we tried to verify a PDAF-funded project initiated by the Office of Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr., by calling the officially listed telephone number of his office to check if a certain Atty. Richard A. Cambe is indeed an authorized signatory for and in behalf of Senator Revilla.
215 Id, pp. 772-773.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======71
Said verification turned out “positive” because not only was I able to talk to Atty. Cambe, Senator Revilla himself even took the call at that instance and confirmed to me that he authorized Atty. Richard A. Cambe to coordinate and facilitate the implementation of his PDAF-funded projects. He likewise confirmed to me the fact that he picked and endorsed the NGOs which will implement his PDAF-funded Projects, and he even admonished me that now that I have been able to talked to him, the PDAF- funded projects of said NGO should now proceed expeditiously from then on. I did not expect the said admonition by Sen. Revilla, however, I merely replied to him that I am just doing my job. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Cunanan’s testimony jibe with Luy, Sula and Suñas’ assertion that Senator Revilla’s office participated in the complex scheme to improperly divert PDAF disbursements from designated beneficiaries to NGOs affiliated with or controlled by Napoles.
Luy, Sula and Suñas’ version of events is supported by: (a) the business ledgers prepared by Luy, showing the amounts received by Senator Revilla as his “commission” from the so- called PDAF scam;216 (b) the 2007-2009 COA Report documenting the results of the special audit undertaken on
PDAF disbursements which found that there were serious irregularities relating to the implementation of PDAF-funded
216 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0316), p. 626-627.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======72
projects, including those sponsored by Senator Revilla;217 and
(c) the results of the independent field verification conducted by the FIO in 2013, which were consistent with the COA’s findings and showed that the projects supposedly funded by
Senator Revilla’s PDAF and implemented by NGOs affiliated with or controlled by Napoles were “ghost” or inexistent.218
Section 3 (e) of R. A. No. 3019 was violated.
Under Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019 a person becomes criminally liable if three (3) elements are satisfied, viz.:
1. He or she must be a officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions;
2. He or she must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and
3. His or her action: (a) caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government; or (b) gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his or her functions.219
The presence of the foregoing is evident from the records.
First, Senator Revilla, Cambe, Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule,
217 Id, p. 841-1056. 218 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0395), p. 4, et seq. 219 Catacutan v. People, G.R. No. 175991, August 31, 2011.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======73
Bare, Ortiz, Cunanan, Figura, Jover, Espiritu, Lacsamana,
Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Cruz, Jalandoni, Ordoñez,
Sucgang, Javellana, Cacal, Guañizo, Relevo, Johnson,
Mendoza and Munsod, were all public officers at the time material to the charges. Their respective roles in the processing and release of PDAF disbursements were in the exercise of their administrative and/or official functions.
Senator Revilla endorsed, in writing, the Napoles-affiliated
NGO to implement projects funded by his PDAF. His trusted staff, Cambe, then prepared indorsement letters and other communications relating to the PDAF disbursements addressed to the DBM and the IAs (NABCOR, TRC and NLDC).
On occasions, he allowed Napoles’ employees to prepare these documents and sign for him. Cambe also participated in the preparation and execution of the MOA with the NGO and the
IA, inspection and acceptance reports, disbursement reports and other PDAF documents.
The DBM, through Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule and Bare, then processed the SAROs and NCAs pertaining to Senator
Revilla’s PDAF projects.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======74
In turn, the heads of the IAs, NABCOR, NLDC and TRC, as well as their respective staff members participated in the preparation and execution of MOA governing the implementation of the projects. They also facilitated, processed and approved the PDAF disbursements to the questionable NGOs. Their respective acts/participations are indicated in the in the table below:
NABCOR
RESPONDENT PARTICIPATION Alan A. Javellana Signatory to MOAs with MAMFI and SDPFFI; approved disbursement vouchers relating to PDAF disbursements; and co-signed the corresponding checks issued to the NGOs. Rhodora B. Mendoza Co-signatory to checks issued to the NGOs; and attended inspection of livelihood kits. Victor Roman Cacal Assisted in the preparation/review of memoranda of agreement with NGOs; and certified in disbursement vouchers that the PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision. Encarnita Cristina P. Certified in disbursement vouchers Munsod that the PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under her direct supervision. Ma. Ninez P. Guañizo Certified in disbursement vouchers that funds were available and supporting documents were complete and proper. Ma. Julie V. Johnson Certified in disbursement vouchers
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======75
that funds were available and supporting documents were complete and proper. Romulo Relevo Certified in disbursement vouchers that the PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision.
NLDC
RESPONDENT PARTICIPATION Gondelina G. Amata Signatory to MOAs with MAMFI, APMFI, AEPFFI and SDPFFI; approved disbursement vouchers relating to PDAF disbursements; and co-signed the corresponding checks issued to the NGOs. Chita C. Jalandoni Co-signed the corresponding checks issued to the NGOs. Emmanuel Alexis G. Certified in disbursement vouchers Sevidal that the PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision. Ofelia E. Ordoñez Certified in disbursement vouchers that funds were available. Sofia D. Cruz Certified in disbursement vouchers that supporting documents were complete and proper. Gregoria Checked and verified the endorsement Buenaventura letters of Senator Revilla; confirmed the authenticity of the authorization given by Revilla to his subordinates regarding the monitoring, supervision and implementation of PDAF projects; and prepared evaluation and verification reports. Evelyn Sucgang Co-signed the corresponding checks issued to the NGOs.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======76
TRC
RESPONDENT PARTICIPATION Antonio Y. Ortiz Signatory to MOAs with AEPFFI, PDSFI and SDPFFI; approved disbursement vouchers relating to PDAF disbursements; and co-signed the corresponding checks issued to the NGOs. Dennis L. Cunanan Certified in disbursement vouchers that the PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision. Francisco B. Figura Assisted in the preparation/review of memoranda of agreement with NGOs; certified in disbursement vouchers that the PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under his direct supervision; and co-signed the corresponding checks issued to the NGOs. Marivic Jover Certified in disbursement vouchers that funds were available and supporting documents were complete and proper. Ma. Rosalinda Oversaw the processing of PDAF Lacsamana releases to NGOs; and assisted in the preparation/review of memoranda of agreement with NGOs Consuelo Lilian Certified in disbursement vouchers Espiritu that funds were available.
On the other hand, respondent public officers acted in concert with Napoles and her accomplices.
De Leon, Piorato, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy were working for Napoles and served as officers of the NGOs
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======77
endorsed by Senator Revilla to implement his projects. They executed the pertinent MOAs in behalf of the organizations and acknowledged receipt of the checks issued by NLDC,
NABCOR and TRC which represented the PDAF releases.
Second, respondent public officers were manifestly partial to Napoles, her staff and the NGOs affiliated with/controlled by her.
In Sison v. People,220 the Supreme Court held that:
“Partiality” is synonymous with “bias,” which “excites a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as they are.”
To be actionable under Section 3 (e), however, partiality must be manifest. There must be a clear, notorious and plain inclination or predilection to favor one side rather than other.
Simply put, the public officer or employee’s predisposition towards a particular person should be intentional and evident.
That respondent public officers intentionally favored
Napoles and the NGOs affiliated with/controlled by her is undeniable. Senator Revilla, for one, repeatedly and directly
220 G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 670.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======78
endorsed the NGOs to implement his projects without the benefit of a public bidding and without having been authorized by an appropriation law or ordinanceas legally mandated.
As correctly pointed out by the FIO, the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of R. A. No. 9184221 states that an NGO may be contracted only when so authorized by an appropriation law or ordinance:
53.11. NGO Participation. When an appropriation law or ordinance earmarks an amount to be specifically contracted out to Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs), the procuring entity may enter into a Memorandum of Agreement in the NGO, subject to guidelines to be issued by the GPPB.
And National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 476,222 as amended by NBC No. 479, provides that PDAF allocations should be directly released only to those government agencies identified in the project menu of the pertinent General
Appropriations Act (GAAs). The GAAs which were in effect at the time material to the charges, however, did not authorize the direct release of funds to NGOs, let alone the direct contracting of NGOs to implement government projects. This,
221 Otherwise known as the “Government Procurement Reform Act.” 222 Otherwise known as “Guidelines for the Release and Utilization of the PDAF for FY 2001 and thereafter.”
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======79
however, did not appear to have impeded Senator Revilla’s endorsement of the Napoles-affiliated or controlled NGOs, which move was accepted in toto by the IAs.
Even assuming arguendo that the GAAs allowed the engagement of NGOs to implement PDAF-funded projects, such engagements remain subject to public bidding requirements. Consider GPPB Resolution No. 012-2007:
4.1 When an appropriation law or ordinance specifically earmarks an amount for projects to be specifically contracted out to NGOs, the procuring entity may select an NGO through competitive bidding or negotiated procurement under Section 53.11 of the IRR. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
The aforementioned laws and rules, however, were disregarded by public respondents. Such blatant disregard of public bidding requirements is highly suspect, especially in light of the ruling in Alvarez v. People:223
The essence of competition in public bidding is that the bidders are placed on equal footing. In the award of government contracts, the law requires a competitive public bidding. This is reasonable because “[a] competitive public bidding aims to protect the public interest by giving the public the best possible advantages thru open competition. It is a mechanism that enables the government agency to avoid or preclude anomalies in the execution of public contracts. (underscoring supplied)
223 G.R. No. 192591, June 29, 2011.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======80
Notatu dignum is the extraordinary speed attendant to the
NABCOR, NLDC and TRC officers’ examination, processing and approval of the PDAF releases to the Napoles affiliated or controlled NGOs. In most instances, the DVs were accomplished, signed and approved on the same day.
Certainly, the required, careful examination of the transaction’s supporting documents could not have taken place if the disbursement voucher was processed and approved in one day.
Moreover, Javellana, Mendoza and Cunanan were categorically identified by their subordinates as among those who consistently pressed for the immediate processing of
PDAF releases.
In his Supplemental Counter-Affidavit, Cacal pointed to
Javellana and Mendoza as having pressured him to expedite the processing of the disbursement vouchers:
15. In all instances wherein the herein Respondent was required to sign Box “A” of the Disbursement Vouchers, the ordinary course or procedure was not observed. Since all the Disbursement Vouchers were in printed form and prepared with all the attachments by the NABCOR Accounting Division to which respondent NINEZ P. GUANIZO belongs to, most of the times the Box “B” and/or Box “C” of the Disbursement Vouchers were already signed ahead by NINEZ P. GUANIZO and ALLAN A. JAVELLANA
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======81
respectively. There are also instances that the checks were already signed by the NABCOR President ALAN A. JAVELLANA and VP for FINANCE RHODORA B. MENDOZA before the herein Respondent signs DVs.
x x x
18. … In many instances, wherein respondent questioned the attachments/documents in the said vouchers regarding the disbursement of the PDAF of legislators the respondent was herein threatened and/or coerced by his superiors to sign Box “A” of the Disbursement Vouchers, otherwise he would be charged for insubordination. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
In his Counter-Affidavit, Figura claimed that:
b) In the course of my review of PDAF documents, DDG Dennis L. Cunanan would frequently personally follow up in my office the review of the MOA or my signature on the checks. He would come down to my office in the third floor and tell me that he had a dinner meeting with the First Gentleman and some legislators so much that he requested me to fast track processing of the PDAF papers. Though I hate name-dropping, I did not show any disrespect to him but instead told him that if the papers are in order, I would release them before the end of working hours of the same day. This was done by DDG many times, but I stood my ground when the papers on PDAF he’s following up had deficiencies…. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Luy and Suñas positively attest that the DBM’s expedited processing of the requisite SAROs and NCAs was made possible through the assistance provided by Nuñez, Paule and
Bare. Considering that Relampagos was their immediate superior, they could not have been unaware of the follows-up made by Napoles’ staff with regard to the SARO and NCA.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======82
Furthermore, the concerned officials of NABCOR, NLDC and TRC did not even bother to conduct a due diligence audit on the selected NGO and the supplier chosen by the latter to provide the livelihood kits, again without the benefit of public bidding and in contravention of existing procurement laws and regulations.
In addition to manifest partiality on the part of the above- named respondent public officers, evident bad faith is likewise present.
Evident bad faith connotes not only bad judgment but also palpably and patently fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliquity or conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will. It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or with some motive of self- interest or ill will or for ulterior purposes.224
That several respondent public officers unduly benefitted from the diversion of the PDAF is borne by the records.
Based on Luy’s testimony, supported by his business
224 People v. Atienza, G.R. No. 171671, June 18, 2012.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======83
ledgers225 prepared during his tenure at Napoles’ organization,
Senator Revilla received kickbacks from the scheme in the aggregate sum of PHP242,512,500.00, mostly coursed through his duly authorized staff, Cambe.
Luy also declared having seen Ortiz, Javellana, Cunanan as among those who received portions of the diverted amounts:226
126. T: May nabanggit ka na may 10% na napupunta sa president o head ng agency, sino itong tinutokoy mo? S: Ang alam ko nakita kong tumanggap ay sila ALLAN JAVELLANA ng NABCOR, DENNIS CUNANAN at ANTONIO Y. ORTIZ ng TRC…. Nasabi din sa akin ni EVELYN DE LEON na may inaabot din kina GIGI BUENAVENTURA at ALEXIS SEVIDAL ng NLDC. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Sula, in her Affidavit dated 12 September 2013,227 also identified Amata as one of those who benefitted from the PDAF disbursements:
k) Ms. GONDELINA AMATA (NLDC) – Nakilala ko siya noong may sakit ang kanyang asawa na nagpapagamot sa NKTI Hospital. Silang mag-asawa ay nagpunta din sa office sa 2502 Discovery Center, Ortigas. Ako rin ang nagdala ng pera para sa pambayad ng gamot. May tatlong (3) beses ko po silang dinalhan ng pera sa hospital. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
225 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0316), p. 626-627. 226 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0316), p. 786. 227 Id, p. 665.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======84
Indubitably, repeatedly receiving portions of sums wrongfully diverted from public coffers constitutes evident bad faith.
Third, the assailed PDAF-related transactions caused undue injury to the Government in the aggregate amount of
PHP517,000,000.00
Based on the 2007-2009 COA Report as well as on the independent field verification conducted by the FIO, the projects supposedly funded by Senator Revilla’s PDAF were
“ghost” or inexistent. There were no livelihood kits distributed to beneficiaries. In fact, Luy, Sula and Suñas testified that, per directive given by Napoles, they made up lists of fictitious beneficiaries to make it appear that the projects were implemented, when, in fact, none such took place.
Instead of using the PDAF disbursements received by them to implement the livelihood projects, De Leon, Lim,
Piorato, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy as well as Luy,
Sula and Suñas, all acting for Napoles, continuously diverted these sums amounting to PHP517,000,000.00 to the pocket of
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======85
Napoles.
Certainly, these repeated, illegal transfers of public funds to Napoles’ control part of which funds was given to Senator
Revilla and some of his co-respondents public officers while the rest went to Napoles and some of the private respondents, resulted in quantifiable, pecuniary losses to the Government, thus constituting undue injury within the context of Section 3
(e) of R. A. No. 3019.228
Fourth, Senator Revilla, Cambe, Relampagos, Nuñez,
Paule, Bare, Ortiz, Cunanan, Figura, Jover, Espiritu,
Lacsamana, Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Cruz, Jalandoni,
Ordoñez, Sucgang, Javellana, Cacal, Guañizo, Relevo,
Johnson, Mendoza and Munsod granted Napoles, De Leon,
Lim, Piorato, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy unwarranted benefits.
Jurisprudence teaches that unwarranted benefits or privileges refer to those accommodations, gains or perquisites that are granted to private parties without proper
228 Llorente v. Sandiganbayan, 350 Phil. 820 (1998).
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======86
authorization or reasonable justification.229 In order to be found guilty under the second mode of violating Section 3 (e) of R. A. No. 3019, it suffices that the offender has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in the exercise of his official, administrative or judicial functions.230
Senator Revilla, Cambe, Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule, Bare,
Ortiz, Cunanan, Figura, Jover, Espiritu, Lacsamana, Amata,
Buenaventura, Sevidal, Cruz, Jalandoni, Ordoñez, Sucgang,
Javellana, Cacal, Guañizo, Relevo, Johnson, Mendoza and
Munsod, did just that. The fact that they repeatedly failed to follow the requirements of R. A. No. 9184 as well as its implementing rules and regulations, GPPB regulations and national budget circulars shows that unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference was given to herein private respondents. The NGOs represented by them were appointed to undertake the implementation of PDAF projects without the benefit of a fair system in determining the best possible offer for the Government. Napoles, who controlled the NGOs endorsed by Senator Revilla unduly profited from the fictitious transactions.
229 Gallego v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-57841, July 30, 1982 and Cabrera, et. al. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 162314-17, October 25, 2004. 230 Sison v. People, G.R. No. 170339, 170398-403, March 9, 2010.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======87
Moreover, the NGOs selected by Senator Revilla did not appear to have the capacity to implement the undertakings to begin with. At the time material to the charges, these entities did not possess the required accreditation to transact with the
Government, let alone possess a track record in project implementation to speak of.
In spite of the above deficiencies, Relampagos, Nuñez,
Paule, Bare, Ortiz, Cunanan, Figura, Jover, Espiritu,
Lacsamana, Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Cruz, Jalandoni,
Ordoñez, Sucgang, Javellana, Cacal, Guañizo, Relevo,
Johnson, Mendoza and Munsod, with indecent haste, processed the SAROs and NCAs needed to facilitate the release of the funds, as well as expedited the release of the PDAF disbursements to the NGOs affiliated with or controlled by
Napoles. There were obvious efforts to accommodate her NGOs and allow her to repeatedly receive unwarranted benefits from inexistent projects.
Therefore, probable cause exists to indict the following respondents for 16 counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of R. A.
No. 3019, the material details of which are indicated in the table below:
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======88
IMPLEMENTING DISBURSEMENT TOTAL RESPONDENTS AGENCY/NGOs VOUCHERS NO. AMOUNT
12007040728 Revilla, Cambe, 12007040729 Relampagos, Nuñez, TRC-AEPFFI 12007040730 25,000,000 Bare, Paule, Ortiz, 12007040731 Cunanan, Figura, Jover, 12007040732 Lacsamana, Napoles, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy. 012007122114 Revilla, Cambe, 012007122124 Relampagos, Nuñez, TRC-PSDFI 012007122127 38,500,000 Bare, Paule, Ortiz, 012007122126 Cunanan, Figura, Jover, 012007122125 Espiritu, Lacsamana, 012008151146 Napoles, De Leon, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy. Revilla, Cambe, 08-01-0036 11,640,000 Relampagos, Nuñez, NABCOR-MAMFI 08-05-1695 Bare, Paule, Javellana, Mendoza, Munsod, Johnson, Cacal, Guañizo, Relevo, Napoles, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy. Revilla, Cambe, NABCOR-MAMFI 08-09-3208 24,250,000 Relampagos, Nuñez, 09-05-1732 Bare, Paule, Javellana, Mendoza, Munsod, Johnson, Cacal, Guañizo, Relevo, Napoles, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy. 08-08-3218-A Revilla, Cambe, NABCOR-SDPFFI 09-05-1682 38,800,000 Relampagos, Nuñez, Bare, Paule, Javellana, Mendoza, Cacal, Relevo, Guañizo, Napoles, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy. NABCOR-MAMFI 08-09-3486 14,550,000 Revilla, Cambe, 09-04-1626 Relampagos, Nuñez, Bare, Paule, Javellana, Mendoza, Guañizo, Relevo, Napoles, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy. Revilla, Cambe, 012009010006 44,000,000 Relampagos, Nuñez, TRC-SDPFFI 012009030675 Bare, Paule Ortiz, Cunanan, Figura, Jover, Espiritu, Lacsamana,
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======89
Napoles, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy. 12008122862 Revilla, Cambe, TRC-SDPFFI 12008122861 Relampagos, Nuñez, 12008122863 44,000,000 Bare, Paule Ortiz, 12008122864 Cunanan, Figura, Jover, 12008122865 Espiritu, Lacsamana, 12008122866 Napoles, Ogerio, De 12008122867 Asis, Rodriguez and Uy. 12008122868 12009020441 09091357 Revilla, Cambe, NLDC-APMFI 09101442 20,000,000 Relampagos, Nuñez, 09101539 Bare, Paule, Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Ordoñez, Cruz, Jalandoni, Napoles, Piorato, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy. 09091356 Revilla, Cambe, 09101441 Relampagos, Nuñez, NLDC-MAMFI 09101533 30,000,000 Bare, Paule, Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Ordoñez, Cruz, Jalandoni, Napoles, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy. Revilla, Cambe, 09081192 Relampagos, Nuñez, NLDC-MAMFI 09091256 40,000,000 Bare, Paule, Amata, 09091320 Buenaventura, Sevidal, Ordoñez, Cruz, Jalandoni, Napoles, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy. 09111698 Revilla, Cambe, NLDC-AEPFFI 09121746 44,000,000 Relampagos, Nuñez, 10010010 Bare, Paule, Amata, 10050748 Buenaventura, Sevidal, Ordoñez, Cruz, Jalandoni, Napoles, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy. 09111664 Revilla, Cambe, NLDC-APMFI 09121745 36,000,000 Relampagos, Nuñez, 10040679 Bare, Paule, Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Ordoñez, Cruz, Jalandoni, Napoles, Piorato, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy. 09040435 Revilla, Cambe, 09040486 Relampagos, Nuñez,
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======90
NLDC-SDPFFI 09050583 20,000,000 Bare, Paule, Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Ordoñez, Cruz, Jalandoni, Sucgang, Napoles, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy. 09081193 Bare, Paule, Amata, NLDC-SDPFFI 09091255 40,000,000 Buenaventura, Sevidal, 09091324 Ordoñez, Cruz, Jalandoni, Sucgang, Napoles, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy. 09081196 Revilla, Cambe, NLDC-AEPFFI 09091254 45,000,000 Relampagos, Nuñez, 09091321 Bare, Paule, Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Ordoñez, Cruz, Sucgang, Napoles, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy.
There is probable cause for Plunder.
The crime of Plunder is defined and penalized under
Section 2 of R.A. No. 7080,231 as amended, thus:
Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. - Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d)232 hereof in the aggregate amount or total value
231 Republic Act No. 7080, July 12, 1991, as amended by R.A 7659, December 13, 1993. 232 Section 1 (d) of the same statute stated in Section 2 above reads: d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Section Two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:
1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======91
of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited in favor of the State.
As laid down in Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs.
Sandiganbayan,233 the elements of Plunder are:
1. That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons;
2. That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill- gotten wealth through a combination or series of the following overt or criminal acts:
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned;
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or -controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or
6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
233 G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======92
(a) through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
(b) by receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback or any other form of pecuniary benefits from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer;
(c) by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of Government owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries;
(d) by obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;
(e) by establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or
(f) by taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines; and,
3. That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired is at least P50,000,000.00.234 (Emphasis supplied)
234 The terms “combination,” “series,” and “pattern” were likewise defined in Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, supra, as follows:
Thus when the Plunder Law speaks of "combination," it is referring to at least two (2) acts falling under different categories of enumeration provided in Sec. 1, par. (d), e.g., raids on the public treasury in Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1), and fraudulent conveyance of assets belonging to the National Government under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (3).
On the other hand, to constitute a "series" there must be two (2) or more overt or criminal acts falling under the same category of enumeration found in Sec. 1, par. (d), say, misappropriation, malversation and raids on the public treasury, all of which fall under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1). Verily, had the legislature intended a technical or distinctive meaning for "combination" and "series," it would have taken greater pains in specifically providing for it in the law.
As for "pattern," we agree with the observations of the Sandiganbayan 9 that this term is sufficiently defined in Sec. 4, in relation to Sec. 1, par. (d), and Sec. 2 —
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======93
The presence of the foregoing elements has been established in the records.
First, it is undisputed that Senator Revilla was a public officer at the time material to the charges.235
Second, he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill- gotten wealth.
As disclosed above, he repeatedly received sums of money from Janet Napoles for endorsing her NGOs to implement the projects to be funded by his PDAF.
Witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas asserted that Revilla’s office participated in the complex scheme to improperly divert
PDAF disbursements from designated beneficiaries to NGOs affiliated with or controlled by Napoles. As borne by their
“. . . . under Sec. 1 (d) of the law, a 'pattern' consists of at least a combination or series of overt or criminal acts enumerated in subsections (1) to (6) of Sec. 1 (d). Secondly, pursuant to Sec. 2 of the law, the pattern of overt or criminal acts is directed towards a common purpose or goal which is to enable the public officer to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth. And thirdly, there must either be an 'overall unlawful scheme' or 'conspiracy' to achieve said common goal. As commonly understood, the term 'overall unlawful scheme' indicates a 'general plan of action or method' which the principal accused and public officer and others conniving with him, follow to achieve the aforesaid common goal. In the alternative, if there is no such overall scheme or where the schemes or methods used by multiple accused vary, the overt or criminal acts must form part of a conspiracy to attain a common goal.”
235 He served as a Senator from 2004 to 2010 and was reelected in 2010. His present term as a Senator will end in 2016.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======94
testimony and supported by the records, Senator Revilla and
Napoles agreed that Napoles would “acquire” his PDAF allocation in exchange for a “commission” or kickback amounting to a certain percentage of the PDAF.
Senator Revilla then authorized in writing his Chief of
Staff Cambe to act for, deal with, and sign documents necessary for the immediate and timely implementation of his
PDAF-funded projects.236 From 2006 to 2012, Senator Revilla, through Cambe, issued several indorsement letters to
NABCOR, TRC and NLDC, expressly naming the following
NGOs to carry out his PDAF projects: AEPFFI, APMFI, MAMFI,
PSDFI and SDPFFI.
Once a PDAF allocation becomes available to Senator
Revilla, his office or staff would advise Napoles or her employees or cohorts about it. Napoles or witness Luy would
236 It is to be noted that in a letter dated 8 July 2011, the Commission on Audit (the COA) informed respondent Revilla of the existence of documents submitted by several non-government organizations and people’s organizations in relation to projects funded by his PDAF, earlier referred to as the PDAF documents, and requested him to confirm if the signatures in the PDAF documents which allegedly belonged to him and respondent Richard Cambe, then a member of his staff, were authentic.
But, as shown in a copy of respondent Revilla’s Letter dated 20 July 2011 in reply to the 8 July 2011 COA letter, which was submitted by the FIO as part of its evidence, he confirmed that the signatures appearing in the PDAF documents belonged to him and respondent Cambe:
After going through these documents and initial examination, it appears that the signatures and/or initials on these documents are my signatures or that of my authorized representative. (Emphasis supplied)
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======95
then prepare a listing237 of the projects available indicating the
IAs. This listing would be sent to Cambe who would sign and indorse the same to the DBM under his authority as Chief-of-
Staff of Senator Revilla. After the listing is released to the
DBM, the Office of Senator Revilla then formally requests the
DBM to release his PDAF; Napoles in the meantime would advance to Revilla, through Cambe, a down payment representing a portion of his commission or kickback. After the SARO and/or NCA is released, Napoles would give the full payment for delivery to Senator Revilla through
Cambe.
It bears noting that money was paid to Senator Revilla even before the SARO and/or NCA is released. Napoles would advance Senator Revilla’s down payment from her own pocket upon the mere release by his Office of the listing of projects to the DBM. The remainder of the kickback is paid after the SARO representing the legislator’s PDAF allocation is released by the DBM and a copy thereof is forwarded to
Napoles.
237 This “listing” is a letter from the legislator containing a program or list of implementing agencies and the amount of PDAF to be released as to guide the DBM in its preparation and release of the corresponding SARO. This is also a formal request of the legislator to the DBM for the release of his PDAF.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======96
Significantly, after the DBM issues the SARO, Senator
Revilla, through Cambe, would then write another letter addressed to the IAs which would identify and indorse
Napoles’ NGOs as his preferred NGO to undertake the PDAF- funded project.238 In effect, Revilla specifically designated in writing the Napoles-affiliated NGO to implement projects funded by his PDAF. Along with the other PDAF documents, the indorsement letter of Senator Revilla is transmitted to the IA, which, in turn, handles the preparation of the MOA concerning the project to be executed by the Senator’s Office, the IA and the NGO concerned.
Cunanan, in his Counter-Affidavit, claimed that Revilla confirmed to him that he, indeed, chose the NGOs named in the aforementioned letters and even admonished him for supposedly delaying the release of PDAF allocations to his
(Revilla) chosen NGOs:
238 Upon receipt of the SARO, Janet Napoles would direct her staff, then including witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas, to prepare the PDAF documents for the approval of the legislator and reflecting the preferred NGO to implement the undertaking, including: (a) project proposals by the identified NGO/s; (b) indorsement letters to be signed by the legislator and/or his staff; and (c) project proposals.
Revilla’s trusted staff, Cambe, then signed the indorsement letters and other communications relating to the PDAF disbursements addressed to the DBM and the implementing agencies (NABCOR, TRC and NLDC). He also participated in the preparation and execution of memoranda of agreement with the NGO and the implementing agency, inspection and acceptance reports, disbursement reports and other PDAF documents.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======97
17. 1 In particular, I distinctly remember a certain occasion when we tried to verify a PDAF-funded project initiated by the Office of Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr., by calling the officially listed telephone number of his office to check if a certain Atty. Richard A. Cambe is indeed an authorized signatory for and in behalf of Senator Revilla. Said verification turned out “positive” because not only was I able to talk to Atty. Cambe, Senator Revilla himself even took the call at that instance and confirmed to me that he authorized Atty. Richard A. Cambe to coordinate and facilitate the implementation of his PDAF-funded projects. He likewise confirmed to me the fact that he picked and indorsed the NGOs which will implement his PDAF-funded Projects, and he even admonished me that now that I have been able to talked to him, the PDAF- funded projects of said NGO should now proceed expeditiously from then on. I did not expect the said admonition by Sen. Revilla, however, I merely replied to him that I am just doing my job. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
As discussed previously, the indorsements enabled
Napoles to gain access239 to substantial sums of public funds, which she unduly diverted to her own personal use by way of fictitious/ “ghost” projects.
The sums received by Senator Revilla, therefore, are
“kickbacks” or “commissions” from a government project
239 After indorsement by Senator Revilla and processing by the implementing agencies, the projects are authorized as eligible under the DBM's menu for pork barrel allocations; Napoles, through her employees, would then follow up the release of the NCA with the DBM. After the DBM releases the NCA to the implementing agency concerned, the latter would expedite the processing of the transaction and the release of the corresponding check representing the PDAF disbursement.
Once the funds are deposited in the NGO’s account, Janet Napoles would then call the bank to facilitate the withdrawal thereof. Her staff would then withdraw the funds involved and remit the same to her, thus placing said amount under Napoles’ full control and possession.
From her 50% share, Napoles then remits a portion (around 10%) thereof to officials of the implementing agencies who facilitated the transaction as well as those who served as her liaison with the legislator’s office.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======98
within the purview of Sec. 1 (d) (2)240 of R.A. No. 7080. He repeatedly received from Napoles or her employees commissions, percentage or kickbacks representing his share in the project cost allocated from his PDAF in exchange for his indorsement of Napoles’ NGOs to implement his PDAF-funded projects.
Moreover, he took undue advantage of his official position, authority and influence to unjustly enrich himself at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines, within the purview of Sec. 1 (d) (6) of R.A. No. 7080.241 He used and took undue advantage of his official position, authority and influence as a
Senator of the Republic of the Philippines to gain access to,
240 Section 1. Definition of terms. - As used in this Act, the term:
d. "Ill-gotten wealth" means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Section two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the public officer concerned;
241 Section 1. Definition of terms. - As used in this Act, the term: d. "Ill-gotten wealth" means any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of Section two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:
6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======99
and secure the release of his PDAF and illegally divert the allocations to the possession and control of Napoles and her cohorts, in exchange for commissions, kickbacks, percentages from the PDAF allocations. He was aware that as a high- ranking official, a Senator at that, his indorsement of Napoles’
NGOs would not be questioned or scrutinized.
It cannot be overemphasized that undue pressure and influence from his Office, as well as his indorsement of
Napoles’ NGOs, were brought to bear upon the public officers and employees of the implementing agencies.
For instance, Figura, an officer from TRC, asserted that the TRC management told him: “legislators highly recommended certain NGOs/Foundations as conduit implementors and since PDAFs are their discretionary funds, they have the prerogative to choose their NGO’s”; and the TRC management warned him that “if TRC would disregard it
(choice of NGO), they (legislators) would feel insulted and would simply take away their PDAF from TRC, and TRC losses (sic) the chance to earn service fees.” Figura further claimed that he tried his best to resist the pressure exerted on him and did his best to perform his duties faithfully; [but] he and other
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======100
low-ranking TRC officials had no power to “simply disregard the wishes of Senator [Revilla],” especially on the matter of public bidding for the PDAF projects.242
As mentioned above, TRC’s Cunanan243 claimed that
Revilla confirmed to him that he endorsed the NGOs named in the aforementioned letters and even admonished him for supposedly delaying the release of PDAF allocations to his
(Revilla) chosen NGOs. He further narrated that he met
Napoles sometime in 2006 or 2007 who “introduced herself as the representative of certain legislators who supposedly picked
TRC as a conduit for PDAF-funded projects;” at the same meeting, Napoles told him that “her principals were then
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, Senator Ramon “Bong”
Revilla, Jr., Sen. Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada;” letters signed by
Revilla and bearing the bar code of his office prove that Revilla directly indorsed NGOs affiliated with or controlled by
Napoles to implement his PDAF projects; in the course of his duties, he “often ended up taking and/or making telephone verifications and follow-ups and receiving legislators or their staff members;” during his telephone verifications, he was
242 See Figura’s Counter-Affidavit dated 8 January 2014. 243 See Cunanan’s Counter-Affidavit dated 20 February 2014.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======101
able to speak with Cambe and Revilla himself, who confirmed to him (Cunanan) that Cambe was “authorized…to coordinate and facilitate the implementation of his PDAF-funded projects” and “he (Revilla) picked and indorsed the NGOs which will implement his PDAF-funded Projects;” Revilla then admonished him and said that “the PDAF-funded projects of said NGO should now proceed expeditiously from then on;”; and he occasionally met with witness Luy, who pressured him to expedite the release of the funds by calling the offices of the legislators.
NLDC’s Amata also alluded to the political pressure surrounding the designation of NLDC as one of the
Implementing Agencies for PDAF.244 Her fellow NLDC employee
Buenaventura,245 further claimed that in accordance with her functions, she “checked and verified the indorsement letters of Senator Revilla, which designated the NGOs that would implement his PDAF projects and found them to be valid and authentic;” she also confirmed the authenticity of the authorization given by Revilla to his subordinates regarding the monitoring, supervision and implementation of
244 See her Counter-Affidavit dated 20 January 2014. 245 See her Counter-Affidavit dated 6 March 2014.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======102
PDAF projects; and that her evaluation and verification reports were accurate.
Another NLDC officer, Sevidal,246 claimed that it was
Revilla and Napoles, not NLDC employees, who were responsible for the misuse of the PDAF; Senator Revilla, through Cambe, was responsible for “identifying the projects, determining the project costs and choosing the
NGOs” which was “manifested in the letters of Senator
Revilla;” and that he and other NLDC employees were victims of the “political climate” and “bullied into submission by the lawmakers.”
NLDC’s Ordoñez247 averred that NLDC “entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the selected NGOs upon the direct order or instruction of Senator Revilla for the eventual transfer of funds to Napoles”. She claimed that as far as she was concerned, she and her co-respondents, “lowly
Government employees who were dictated upon,” were victims
“bullied into submission by the lawmakers;” and she performed her duties in good faith and was “not in a position
246 See his Counter-Affidavit dated 15 January 2014 and 24 February 2014. 247 See her Counter-Affidavit dated 27 January 2014.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======103
to negate or defy these actions of the Lawmakers, DBM and the NLDC Board of Trustees.”
All these evince that Revilla used and took undue advantage of his official position, authority and influence as a
Senator to unjustly enrich himself at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines. The PDAF was allocated to him by virtue of his position as a Senator, and therefore he exercises control in the selection of his priority projects and programs. He indorsed Napoles’ NGOs in consideration for the remittance of kickbacks and commissions from Napoles. Compounded by the fact that the PDAF-funded projects turned out to be “ghost projects,” and that the rest of the PDAF allocation went into the pockets of Napoles and her cohorts, Revilla thus unjustly enriched himself at the expense and to the damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the
Philippines.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======104
Third, the amounts earned by Senator Revilla through kickbacks and commissions and, undue advantage of his official position, authority and influence amounted to more than Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00).
Witness Benhur Luy’s ledger248 shows, among others, that Senator Revilla received the following amounts as and by way of kickbacks or commissions:249
Year Amount received by Senator Revilla (In PhP) 2006 10,000,000.00
2007 61,000,000.00 2008 80,000,000.00 2009 40,000,000.00 2010 33, 512,500.00 Total: Php224,512,500.00
Thus, the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired by Revilla from
2006 to 2010 is at least PhP 224,512,500.00.250
248 Per Luy, the commissions are based on the JLN Corporation Cash vouchers signed by the legislators or their representatives. This is an accounting record which contains the day-to-day financial transactions 0f the JLN Corporation and/or Napoles.
249 See the Business Ledgers attached to Luy, Suñas, Gertrudes Luy, Batal-Macalintal, Abundo and Lingo’s Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 11 September 2013. Records (OMB-C-C-13-0316).
250 It is noted that Luy and Suñas claimed that the total commissions received by Senator Revilla was PhP326,000,000.00, representing 50% of PhP652,000,000.00 of Revilla’s PDAF allocations. However, Luy was only able to record in his ledger the aggregate amount PhP 224,512,500.00. He explained that sometimes transactions are not recorded in his ledger because Napoles herself personally delivers the commissions to the legislators or their representatives outside the JLN Corporation office. Hence, there are no signed vouchers presented to him; nevertheless, in these cases, Napoles merely informs him that the
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======105
As asserted by witnesses Luy and Suñas and borne by Luy’s business ledgers,251 Cambe receieved the sums for and in behalf of his boss, Senator Revilla.
Napoles provided those kickbacks and commissions.
According to witnesses Luy and Suñas,252 Napoles would instruct her staff, including John Raymund de Asis and
Ronald John Lim along with witnesses Luy and Suñas, to prepare and deliver Senator Revilla’s kickback.
Senator Revilla’s repeated commission of the acts covered by Section 1 (d) (2) and Section 1 (d) (6) of RA No. 7080 took place in 2006 up to 2012. This evidences a pattern – a combination or series of overt or criminal acts – directed towards a common purpose or goal, which is to enable Senator
Revilla to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth.
In fine, Revilla, taking undue advantage of his official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence as a
Senator, acted in connivance with his subordinate and authorized representative Cambe to receive commissions and
lawmakers commission has been paid completely. See pages 7-8 of Luy and Sunas’ Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 11 September 2013,Records, (OMB-C-C-13-0316).
251 Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 11 September 2013, Records, (OMB-C-C-13-0316). 252 See par. 4.1, p. 3 of Luy and Sunas’ Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 11 September 2013, Records, (OMB-C-C-13-0316).
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======106
kickbacks for endorsing the Napoles NGOs to implement his
PDAF-funded project, and in unison with Napoles, with assistance of her employees and cohorts John Raymund de
Asis and Ronald John Lim who prepared and delivered these kickbacks to him. These acts were linked by the fact that they were plainly geared towards a common goal which was to amass, acquire and accumulate ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least PhP224,512,500.00 for Senator Revilla.
Probable cause therefore exists to indict Senator
Revilla, Cambe, Napoles, de Asis and Lim for Plunder under RA No. 7080.
Conspiracy is proven by the evidence presented.
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.253
However, direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found because criminals do not write down their lawless plans and
253 Art. 8 of the Revised Penal Code.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======107
plots. Nevertheless, the agreement to commit a crime may be deduced from the mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or inferred from acts that point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. 254
Conspiracy exists among the offenders when their concerted acts show the same purpose or common design, and are united in its execution.255
When there is conspiracy, all those who participated in the commission of the offense are liable as principals, regardless of the extent and character of their participation because the act of one is the act of all.256
As extensively discussed above, the presence of conspiracy among Senator Revilla, Cambe, Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule,
Bare, Ortiz, Cunanan, Figura, Jover, Espiritu, Lacsamana,
Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Cruz, Jalandoni, Ordoñez,
Sucgang, Javellana, Cacal, Guañizo, Relevo, Johnson,
Mendoza, Munsod, Napoles, De Leon, Piorato, Ogerio, De Asis,
Rodriguez, Lim and Uy cannot be denied.
254 People v. Hapa, G.R. No. 125698, July 19, 2001, 361 SCRA 361. 255 People v. Olazo and Angelio, G.R. No. 197540, February 27, 2012, citing People v. Bi-Ay, Jr., G.R. No. 192187, December 13, 2010, 637 SCRA 828, 836. 256 People v. Forca, G.R. No. 134938, June 8, 2000.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======108
In order to repeatedly divert substantial funds from the
PDAF, access thereto must be made available. This was made possible by Senator Revilla, who chose NGOs affiliated with or controlled by Napoles to implement his PDAF-related undertakings. Cambe then prepared the indorsement letters and similar documentation addressed to the DBM and the implementing agencies which were necessary to ensure that the chosen NGO will, indeed, be awarded the project.
Relampagos, Paule, Bare and Nuñez, as officers of the
DBM, were in regular contact with Napoles and her staff. This familiarity between them, combined with consistent follows up, ensured that the requisite SAROs and NCAs were immediately released by the DBM to the concerned implementing agencies.
In turn, Ortiz, Cunanan, Figura, Jover, Espiritu,
Lacsamana, Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Cruz, Jalandoni,
Ordoñez, Sucgang, Javellana, Cacal, Guañizo, Relevo,
Johnson, Mendoza and Munsod, as officers of the implementing agencies involved, prepared, reviewed and executed the memoranda of agreement governing the implementation of the projects. They also participated in the
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======109
processing and approval the PDAF disbursements to the questionable NGOs. The funds in question could not have been transferred to these entities if not for their certifications, signatures and approvals found in the corresponding disbursement vouchers and checks.
Once the fund releases have been successfully processed by the IAs, De Leon, Piorato, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez, Lim and Uy, in behalf of the NGOs in question and under the direction of Napoles, would pick up the corresponding checks and deposit them in bank accounts under the name of these entities and over which Napoles had complete and utter control. These sums would later be withdrawn from the banks and brought to the offices of Napoles, who would proceed to exercise full control and possession over such.
De Leon, Piorato, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez and Uy, again per the direction of Napoles, would prepare the fictitious beneficiaries list and other similar documents for liquidation purposes, that is, to make it appear that the projects were implemented, when, in fact, they were not.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======110
For their participation in the above-described scheme,
Senator Revilla, Javellana, Cunanan, Amata, Buenaventura and Sevidal received portions of the subject PDAF disbursements from Napoles.
All told, there was cohesion and interconnection in these respondents’ attitude, intent and purpose that cannot be logically interpreted other than to mean the attainment of the same end that runs thru the entire gamut of acts separately perpetrated by them. The role played by each of them is so indispensable to the success of their scheme that, without any of them, the same would have failed.
There is no evidence showing that the signatures of Senator Revilla or Cambe in the PDAF documents were forged.
Senator Revilla and Cambe argue that the signatures appearing in letters, memoranda of agreement, liquidation reports and similar PDAF documents and allegedly theirs are mere forgeries. They deny having signed these papers and disclaim any participation in the preparation and execution thereof.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======111
Senator Revilla and Cambe’s argument fails to convince.
Forgery is not presumed; it must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.257
It bears stressing that Senator Revilla, in his Letter dated
21 March 2012,258 confirmed to the COA that: (a) he authorized Cambe to sign letters, MOA and other PDAF documents in his behalf; and (b) the signatures appearing in the PDAF documents as belonging to him and Cambe are authentic. The pertinent portion of the letter states:
After going through these documents and initial examination, it appears that the signatures and/or initials on these documents are my signatures or that of my authorized representative. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Senator Revilla’s confirmation letter was made two years before the filing of the present complaints.
257 JN Development Corporation v. Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation, G.R. No. 151060 and Cruz v. Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation, G.R. No. 151311, August 31, 2005, 468 SCRA 555, 569-570. 258 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0318), p. 1073.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======112
As pointed out by Cunanan, the confirmation letter appeared to have originated from Senator Revilla’s office because it was issued bar code/reference no. 0-2011-
13079.259
Senator Revilla maintained, though, that his signature in the same letter was forged, in support of which he submitted, among other things: (a) an Examination Report dated 16
August 2013 prepared by handwriting expert Rogelio Azores
(Azores), which stated that the signature appearing in Revilla’s
Letter dated 20 July 2011 to the COA (the COA Letter) was not written by Senator Revilla; (b) a Report dated 3 December
2013 prepared by his handwriting expert Desiderio A. Pagui
(Pagui), which also stated that the signature appearing in the
COA Letter was not written by him; and (c) witness Azores’
Examination Reports dated 23 August 2013, 27 August 2013,
30 August 2013, 4 September 2013, in which he claimed that the signatures appearing in the PDAF documents allegedly belong to Senator Revilla and Cambe were not written by them.
259 Id.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======113
This Office cannot readily credit the putative findings of the handwriting experts.
Azores and Pagui admittedly used, in their handwriting analysis/examination, mere photocopies of the PDAF documents. Heirs of Gregorio v. Court of Appeals260 teaches that a handwriting comparison on the basis of mere photocopies of the assailed instrument is unreliable:
The best evidence of a forged signature in an instrument is the instrument itself reflecting the alleged forged signature. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized upon to have been forged. Without the original document containing the alleged forged signature, one cannot make a definitive comparison which would establish forgery. A comparison based on a mere xerox copy or reproduction of the document under controversy cannot produce reliable results.
At this junction, emphasis is made that there is no showing that Senator Revilla’s handwriting experts exerted reasonable efforts to obtain original copies of the PDAF documents for their examination/analysis, which are in the
COA’s custody, as Director Susan P. Garcia, in her Affidavit dated 12 September 2013, confirms:261
260 G.R. No. 117609, December 29, 1998. 261 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0316), p. 671-672.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======114
08. Q: What was the basis of your Audit Report? A: The basis of our audit are (sic) documents submitted by different implementing agencies subject of our audit such as, but not limited to the following:
A. Legislator’s endorsement letters; B. Memorandum of Agreement between Legislator, Implementing Agencies and NGOs; C. Project Proposals; D. Project Activity Reports; E. Project Profiles; F. Inspection and Acceptance Reports; G. Special Allotment Release Orders (SAROs); H. Notice of Cash Allocations (NCAs); I. Disbursement Reports; J. Disbursement Vouchers; K. Accomplishment Reports; L. Acknowledgment Receipts; M. Delivery Reports; N. Certificates of Acceptance; O. Photocopy of checks issued to NGOs; and P. Official Receipts issued by NGOs.
09. Q: Are these documents you are referring to in your possession right now? A: Yes sir, we have them in our office. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Moreover, in its Order dated 28 January 2014,262 this
Office observed that Senator Revilla only questioned the authenticity of the COA Letter two years after the date appearing thereon and during the height of reports on the so- called PDAF scam:
x x x
As early as July 2011, respondent Revilla already knew about the PDAF documents and that signatures
262 Pages 8-9.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======115
supposedly belonging to be him and respondent Cambe appeared thereon.
In a Letter dated 8 July 2011, the Commission on Audit (the COA) informed respondent Revilla of the existence of documents submitted by several non-government organizations and people’s organizations in relation to projects funded by his PDAF, earlier referred to as the PDAF documents, and requested him to confirm if the signatures in the PDAF documents which allegedly belonged to him and respondent Richard Cambe, then a member of his staff, were authentic. Receipt of this COA letter was confirmed by respondent Revilla in the Revilla Complaint:
2.11 On 11 July 2011, the Office of Plaintiff Revilla received the COA letter dated 8 July 2011 requesting Plaintiff Revilla to confirm whether the signatures appearing on the PDAF documents are his or those of his staff, Atty. Cambe. (underscoring supplied)
Respondent Revilla did not, then and there, question the authenticity of his signature or the genuineness of the documents, or seek the assistance of the NBI or an independent handwriting expert in ascertaining the same. In the Revilla Complaint filed on 13 September 2013, however, he alleged:
2.12 Recently, due to news reports that signatures of legislators are being forged in relation to the release of the PDAF, Plaintiff Revilla engaged the services of a licensed and reputable handwriting expert, Mr. Rogelio Azores, whose examination of the PDAF Documents reveal that the signature appearing above Plaintiff Revilla’s name and the name of Atty. Cambe were not written by them. Thus, the PDAF documents are absolutely fictitious and simulated.
But, as shown in a copy of respondent Revilla’s Letter dated 20 July 2011 in reply to the 8 July 2011 COA letter, which was submitted by the FIO as part of its evidence, he confirmed that the signatures appearing in the PDAF documents belonged to him and respondent Cambe:
After going through these documents and initial examination, it appears that the signatures and/or initials on these documents are my signatures or that of my authorized representative. (emphasis, underscoring and italics supplied)
It bears noting that respondent Revilla’s 20 July 2011 letter to the COA is not mentioned in the Revilla Complaint as among those documents purported to be forgeries. In fine,
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======116
respondent Revilla only disputed the authenticity of the documents subject of the 8 July 2011 COA letter in his Counter-Affidavits dated 15 January 2014, about four (4) months after he filed the civil suit (Revilla Complaint) on 13 September 2013.
x x x
Senator Revilla and Cambe strongly deny having signed the PDAF documents, insisting that they did not participate in their preparation or execution. Mere denial, no matter how vehement, is insufficient, however, to prove that their signatures appearing in the PDAF documents are falsified.263
This is true especially in Cambe’s case. The MOAs are notarized documents that enjoy the presumption of regularity and can be overturned only by clear and convincing evidence.264 This he failed to discharge.
Witnesses Azores and Pagui’s assertion that the signatures of Senator Revilla and Cambe in the PDAF documents were forgeries because they vary with the sample signatures provided by them deserves scant consideration.
263 Supra, JN Development Corporation v. Philippine Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corporation. Also in Ladignon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122973, July 18, 2000. 264 Delfin, et al. v. Billones, et al., G.R. No. 146550, March 17, 2006.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======117
Mere variance of signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that one is forged. As Rivera v. Turiano265 teaches:
This Court has held that an allegation of forgery and a perfunctory comparison of the signatures by themselves cannot support the claim of forgery, as forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof lies in the party alleging forgery. Even in cases where the alleged forged signature was compared to samples of genuine signatures to show its variance therefrom, this Court still found such evidence insufficient. It must be stressed that the mere variance of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same were forged. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Moreover, the observations of witnesses Azores and Pagui do not meet the criteria for identification of forgery enunciated in Ladignon v. Court of Appeals:266
The process of identification, therefore, must include the determination of the extent, kind, and significance of this resemblance as well as of the variation. It then becomes necessary to determine whether the variation is due to the operation of a different personality, or is only the expected and inevitable variation found in the genuine writing of the same writer. It is also necessary to decide whether the resemblance is the result of a more or less skillful imitation, or is the habitual and characteristic resemblance which naturally appears in a genuine writing. When these two questions are correctly answered the whole problem of identification is solved.
265 G.R. No. 156249, March 7, 2007. 266 G.R. No. 122973. July 18, 2000.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======118
In his Examination Reports, Azores merely concluded that the signatures in the PDAF documents and Senator Revilla and Cambe’s sample signatures “were not written by one and the same person.”
At all events, the Special Panel members, after a prima facie comparison with their naked eyes of the questioned signatures appearing in the PDAF documents and the original signatures of Senator Revilla and Cambe in their respective counter-affidavits, opine that both sets of signatures, which bear the same style and flourish,267 were written by one and the same hands.
The Arias doctrine is inapplicable to these proceedings.
Javellana argues that he cannot be held accountable for approving the PDAF releases pertaining to those projects assigned to NABCOR because he only issued such approval after his subordinates, namely, Mendoza, Cacal and other
NABCOR officials involved in the processing and/or implementation of PDAF-funded projects, examined the
267 See Fernando v. Fernando, G.R. No. 191889, January 31, 2011,
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======119
supporting documents, assured him of the availability of funds and recommended the approval of the disbursements to him.
Similarly, Cunanan claims that he approved the PDAF releases relating to projects assigned to TRC only after his subordinates at the agency recommended such approval to him. Simply put, they invoke the ruling in Arias v.
Sandiganbayan.268
These above arguments fail to persuade.
Arias squarely applies in cases where, in the performance of his official duties, the head of an office is being held to answer for his act of relying on the acts of his subordinate:
We would be setting a bad precedent if a head of office plagued by all too common problems - dishonest or negligent subordinates, overwork, multiple assignments or positions, or plain incompetence - is suddenly swept into a conspiracy conviction simply because he did not personally examine every single detail, painstakingly trace every step from inception, and investigate the motives of every person involved in a transaction before affixing his signature as the final approving authority.
x x x
We can, in retrospect, argue that Arias should have probed records, inspected documents, received procedures, and questioned persons. It is doubtful if any auditor for a fairly sized office could personally do all these things in all vouchers presented for his signature. The Court would be asking for the impossible. All heads of offices have to rely
268 259 Phil. 794 (1989).
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======120
to a reasonable extent on their subordinates and on the good faith of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or enter into negotiations. xxx There has to be some added reason why he should examine each voucher in such detail. Any executive head of even small government agencies or commissions can attest to the volume of papers that must be signed. There are hundreds of documents, letters, memoranda, vouchers, and supporting papers that routinely pass through his hands. The number in bigger offices or departments is even more appalling.
There should be other grounds than the mere signature or approval appearing on a voucher to sustain a conspiracy charge and conviction.269 (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
A cursory reading of the above pronouncement readily shows that the Arias doctrine does not help Javellana and
Cunanan’s cause.
First, the Arias doctrine applies only if it is undisputed that the head of the agency was the last person to sign the vouchers, which would show that he was merely relying on the prior certifications and recommendations of his subordinates.
The Arias doctrine is inapplicable in cases where it is the head of agency himself or herself who influences, pressures, coerces or otherwise convinces the subordinate to sign the document or recommend the approval of the transaction.
269 Id.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======121
In Javellana’s case, Cacal stated in his Counter-Affidavit that he signed the disbursement vouchers pertaining to PDAF disbursements because Javellana directed him to do so. In support of his claim, Cacal submitted a document entitled
“Authorization” issued and signed by respondent Javellana reading:
In order to facilitate processing of payments and in the exigency of the service, MR. VICTOR ROMAN CACAL, Paralegal, this Office is hereby authorized to sign BOX A of the Disbursement Vouchers of all transactions related to PDAF Project.
This authorization takes effect starting August 20, 2008.
Cacal’s claim that he was constrained to sign the DVs due to pressure exerted by his superiors is thus not difficult to believe.
Second, the Arias doctrine, assuming the same to be applicable, does not ipso facto exonerate the heads of agencies from criminal, civil or administrative charges. Rather, the doctrine merely holds that the head of agency cannot be deemed to be a co-conspirator in a criminal offense simply
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======122
because he signed and/or approved a voucher or document that facilitated the release of public funds.270
In the present cases, the liability of Javellana and
Cunanan is based not solely on their approval of the DVs and other papers relating to PDAF projects implemented by
NABCOR and/or TRC, for by their own overt acts, they showed their undue interest in the release of funds drawn from the
PDAF. In short, Javellana and Cunanan’s actions indicate that they wanted the funds released as soon as possible, regardless of whether applicable laws or rules governing such disbursements had been complied with.
As stated above, Javellana’s own subordinate stated that
Javellana actually pre-signed the checks pertaining to PDAF release even before the DVs were duly accomplished and signed.
In Cunanan’s case, Figura stated in his Counter-Affidavit that Cunanan constantly followed up with him the expedited processing of PDAF documents.
270 See Jaca v. People, Gaviosa v. People and Cesa v. People, G.R. No. 166967, G.R. No. 166974 and G. R. No. G.R. No. 167167, January 28, 2013.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======123
Luy in his Sworn Statement dated 12 September 2013271 declared that he saw Javellana and Cunanan receive a percentage of the diverted PDAF sums from Napoles:
126. T: May nabanggit ka na may 10% na napupunta sa president o head ng agency, sino itong tinutokoy mo? S: Ang alam ko nakita kong tumanggap ay sila ALLAN JAVELLANA ng NABCOR, DENNIS CUNANAN at ANTONIO Y. ORTIZ ng TRC…. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
More. This Office takes note of the published account of
Luy’s testimony during the legislative inquiry conducted by the
Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers &
Investigations (the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee) on 7
November 2013 that he personally knew respondent Javellana as one of those who received kickbacks from Napoles for his role in the releases of PDAF:
Luy said he saw Napoles giving money to officials of implementing agencies at her office.
“When Ms. Napoles gives the instruction to prepare the money and their 10-percent commission, I will so prepare it. I will type the voucher and have it checked by my seniors or by her daughter Jo Christine,” Luy said. “I will bring the money to her office and there are instances when she and I will meet the person and give the money contained in a paper bag.”
271 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0318), p. 392.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======124
Luy said he saw Alan Javellana, a former president of the National Agribusiness Corp., and Antonio Ortiz, former head of the Technology Resource Center, receive their respective payoffs.272 (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
This Office takes note too of the published account of
Luy’s testimony on 6 March 2014 before the Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee that Cunanan was one of those who received undue benefits from the so-called PDAF scam through kickbacks allegedly given by Napoles:
THE principal whistleblower in the pork barrel scam Benhur Luy said Thursday that Dennis Cunanan, the former chief of the Technology Resource Center who wants to turn state witness, personally received P960,000 in kickbacks from Janet Lim Napoles, contrary to his claims.
In the continuation of the Blue Ribbon Committee hearings on the pork barrel scam, Luy said he personally saw Cunanan carrying a bagful of money after meeting Napoles at the JLN Corp. office at the Discovery Suites in Ortigas, Pasig City.
Luy said he was instructed by Napoles to prepare the P960,000 intended for Cunanan, representing his commission for the pork barrel coursed through the TRC. He then handed the money to his co-worker, Evelyn De Leon, who was present at the meeting room with Napoles and Cunanan.
“When Dencu (referring to Dennis Cunanan) emerged out of the conference room, I saw him carrying the paper bag,” Luy said. Asked if he saw Cunanan receive the money, Luy answered: “After the meeting, I saw the
272 Norman Bordadora and TJ Burgonio, “Benhur Luy upstages Napoles in Senate hearing,” electronically published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer at its website located at http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/522831/benhur-luy-upstages-napoles-in-senate-hearing#ixzz2wqP0PnoP on November 8, 20
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======125
paper bag. He was carrying it.” (emphasis, underscoring and italics supplied)273
The above-quoted report of Luy’s testimonies confirm that
Javellana and Cunanan approved the PDAF releases not because they relied on the recommendation of their subordinates; but because they, on their own volition, wanted the funds released.
There is no probable cause to indict Encarnacion
The NBI impleaded Encarnacion in her capacity as president of Countrywide Agri and Rural Economic and
Development Foundation, Inc. (CARED), one of the NGOs affiliated with/controlled by Napoles.274
Records show, however, that CARED was not among the
NGOs involved in the diversion of funds drawn from Senator
Revilla’s PDAF allocation to Napoles. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that Encarnacion was involved in Senator
273 Macon Ramos-Araneta, “Cunanan got pork cuts,” electronically published by Manila Standard Today at its website located at http://manilastandardtoday.com/2014/03/07/-cunanan-got-pork-cuts-i-saw-him-carry- bag-with-p-9m-benhur/ last March 7, 2014 and last accessed on 24 March 2014. 274 Records (OMB-C-C-13-0316), p. 5 and 9.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======126
Revilla’s acquisition or accumulation of ill-gotten wealth through kickbacks or commissions paid by Napoles.
Respondents’ defenses are best left to the trial court’s consideration during trial on the merits.
Some of the respondent public officers insist that they were motivated by good faith and acted in accordance with existing laws and rules, and the disbursements from the PDAF were regular and above board.
During preliminary investigation, the ionvestigator does not determine if the evidence gathered or on record proves the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The investigator merely ascertains whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed, and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should, therefore, be held for trial. This preliminary investigation is not an inquiry on whether there is sufficient evidence to secure respondents’ conviction for
Plunder or violation of Section 3 (e) of R. A. No. 3019. It is enough that based on the evidence presented, the Office
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======127
believes that respondents’ questioned acts constitute the offense charged.275
Respondent public officers’ claims of good faith, as well as regularity in their performance of official functions, fails vis-à- vis the evidence presented.
As earlier discussed, the sworn statements of witnesses, the DVs, the indorsed/encashed checks, the MOAs with the
NGOs and IAs, the written requests, liquidation reports, confirmation letters and other evidence on record indubitably indicate that Senator Revilla, Cambe, Relampagos, Nuñez,
Paule, Bare, Ortiz, Cunanan, Figura, Jover, Espiritu,
Lacsamana, Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Cruz, Jalandoni,
Ordoñez, Sucgang, Javellana, Cacal, Guañizo, Relevo,
Johnson, Mendoza and Munsod, as well as Napoles, De Leon,
Piorato, Ogerio, De Asis, Rodriguez, Lim and Uy, conspired with one another to repeatedly raid the public treasury through what appears to be drawing funds from the PDAF allocated to Senator Revilla, albeit for fictitious projects.
Consequently, they illegally conveyed public funds in the aggregate amount of PHP517,000,000.00, more or less, to the
275 Deloso, et al. v. Desierto, et al., G.R. No. 129939, September 9, 1999.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======128
possession and control of questionable NGOs affiliated with
Napoles, thereby allowing Senator Revilla to illegally acquire and amass portions the PDAF through kickbacks in the sum of PHP224,512,500.00.
AT ALL EVENTS, Senator Revilla, Cambe, Relampagos,
Nuñez, Paule, Bare, Ortiz, Cunanan, Figura, Jover, Espiritu,
Lacsamana, Amata, Buenaventura, Sevidal, Cruz, Jalandoni,
Ordoñez, Sucgang, Javellana, Cacal, Guañizo, Relevo,
Johnson, Mendoza and Munsod’s claims of good faith, not to mention regularity in the performance of their duties, is not element of Plunder. It is best ventilated during trial proper.
Deloso, et al. v. Desierto, et al.276 enlightens:
We agree with public respondents that the existence of good faith or lack of it, as elements of the crimes of malversation and violation of Section 3 (e), R. A. No. 3019, is evidentiary in nature. As a matter of defense, it can be best passed upon after a full-blown trial on the merits. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
WHEREFORE, this Office, through the undersigned:
(a) FINDS PROBABLE CAUSE to indict:
for PLUNDER- 1 Count
276 Id.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======129
i. Ramon M. Revilla, Jr., Richard A. Cambe, Janet Lim Napoles, Ronald John Lim and John Raymund De Asis, acting in concert, for PLUNDER (Section 2 in relation to Section 1 (d) [1], [2] and [6] of R. A. No. 7080, as amended), in relation to Revilla’s ill-gotten wealth in the sum of at least PHP242,512,500.00, representing kickbacks or commissions received by him from Napoles in connection with Priority Development Assistant Fund (PDAF)-funded government projects and by reason of his office or position;
for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R. A. NO. 3019 – 16 Counts
i. Ramon M. Revilla, Jr., Richard A. Cambe, Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Antonio Y. Ortiz, Dennis L. Cunanan, Francisco B. Figura, Ma. Rosalinda Lacsamana, Marivic V. Jover, Janet Lim Napoles, Myla Ogerio, Eulogio D. Rodriguez, John Raymund De Asis and Laarni A. Uy, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting to at least PHP25,000,000.00 drawn from Revilla’s PDAF and coursed through the Technology Resource Center (TRC) and Agri and Economic Program for Farmers Foundation, Inc. (AEPFFI), as reflected in Disbursement Vouchers (DV) No. 12007040728, 12007040729, 12007040730, 12007040731 and 12007040732;
ii. Ramon M. Revilla, Jr., Richard A. Cambe, Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Antonio Y. Ortiz, Dennis L. Cunanan, Francisco B. Figura, Ma. Rosalinda Lacsamana, Consuelo Lilian R. Espiritu, Marivic V. Jover, Janet Lim Napoles, Evelyn D. De Leon, Myla Ogerio, John Raymund De Asis, Eulogio D. Rodriguez and Laarni A. Uy, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting to at least PHP38,500,000.00 drawn from Revilla’s PDAF and
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======130
coursed through the TRC and Philippine Social Development Foundation, Inc. (PSDFI), as reflected in DV No. 012007122114, 012007122124, 012007122127, 012007122126, 012007122125 and 012008151146;
iii. Ramon M. Revilla, Jr., Richard A. Cambe, Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Allan A. Javellana, Rhodora B. Mendoza, Encarnita Christina P. Munsod, Maria Julie A. Villaralvo-Johnson, Victor Roman C. Cacal, Ma. Ninez P. Guañizo, Romulo Relevo Janet Lim Napoles, Myla Ogerio, John Raymund De Asis, Eulogio D. Rodriguez and Laarni A. Uy, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting to at least PHP11,640,000.00 drawn from Revilla’s PDAF and coursed through the National Agribusiness Corporation (NABCOR) and Masaganang Ani Para sa Magsasaka Foundation, Inc. (MAMFI), as reflected in DV No. 08-01-0036, and 08-05-1695;
iv. Ramon M. Revilla, Jr., Richard A. Cambe, Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Allan A. Javellana, Rhodora B. Mendoza, Encarnita Christina P. Munsod, Maria Julie A. Villaralvo-Johnson, Victor Roman C. Cacal, Ma. Ninez P. Guañizo, Romulo Relevo Janet Lim Napoles, Myla Ogerio, John Raymund De Asis, Eulogio D. Rodriguez and Laarni A. Uy, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting to at least PHP24,250,000.00 drawn from Revilla’s PDAF and coursed through the NABCOR and MAMFI, as reflected in DV No. 08- 09-3208 and 09-05-1732;
v. Ramon M. Revilla, Jr., Richard A. Cambe, Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Allan A. Javellana, Rhodora B. Mendoza, Romulo Relevo, Victor Roman C. Cacal, Ma. Ninez P. Guañizo, Janet Lim Napoles, Myra Ogerio, John Raymund De Asis, Eulogio D. Rodriguez and Laarni A. Uy, acting in concert, for
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======131
VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting to at least PHP38,800,000.00 drawn from Revilla’s PDAF and coursed through the NABCOR and Social Development Program for Farmers Foundation, Inc. (SDPFFI), as reflected in DV No. 08-08-3218- A and 09-05-1682;
vi. Ramon M. Revilla, Jr., Richard A. Cambe, Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Allan A. Javellana, Rhodora B. Mendoza, Romulo Relevo, Ma. Ninez P. Guañizo, Janet Lim Napoles, Myla Ogerio, John Raymund De Asis, Eulogio Rodriguez and Laarni A. Uy, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting to at least PHP14,550,000.00 drawn from Revilla’s PDAF and coursed through the NABCOR and MAMFI, as reflected in DV No. 08- 09-3486 and 09-04-1626;
vii. Ramon M. Revilla, Jr., Richard A. Cambe, Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Antonio Y. Ortiz, Dennis L. Cunanan, Francisco B. Figura, Marivic V. Jover, Ma. Rosalinda Lacsamana, Consuelo Lilian R. Espiritu, Janet Lim Napoles, Myla Ogerio, John Raymund De Asis, Eulogio Rodriguez and Laarni A. Uy, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting to at least PHP44,000,000.00 drawn from Revilla’s PDAF and coursed through the TRC and SDPFFI, as reflected in DV No. 012009010006 and 012009030675;
viii. Ramon M. Revilla, Jr., Richard A. Cambe, Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Antonio Y. Ortiz, Dennis L. Cunanan, Francisco B. Figura, Marivic V. Jover, Ma. Rosalinda Lacsamana, Consuelo Lilian R. Espiritu, Janet Lim Napoles, Myla Ogerio, John Raymund De Asis, Eulogio Rodriguez and Laarni A. Uy, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting to at least
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======132
PHP44,000,000.00 drawn from Revilla’s PDAF and coursed through the TRC and SDPFFI, as reflected in DV No. 12008122862, 12008122861, 12008122863, 12008122864, 12008122865, 12008122866, 12008122867, 12008122868 and 12009020441;
ix. Ramon M. Revilla, Jr., Richard A. Cambe, Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Gondelina G. Amata, Gregoria Buenaventura, Emmanuel Alexis G. Sevidal, Ofelia E. Ordoñez, Sofia D. Cruz, Chita C. Jalandoni, Janet Lim Napoles, Jocelyn Piorato, Myla Ogerio, John Raymund De Asis, Eulogio D. Rodriguez and Laarni A. Uy, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting to at least PHP20,000,000.00 drawn from Revilla’s PDAF and coursed through the National Livelihood Development Corporation (NLDC) and Agricultura Para sa Magbubukid Foundation, Inc. (APMFI), as reflected in DV No. 09091357, 09101442 and 09101539;
x. Ramon M. Revilla, Jr., Richard A. Cambe, Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Gondelina G. Amata, Gregoria Buenaventura, Emmanuel Alexis G. Sevidal, Ofelia E. Ordoñez, Sofia D. Cruz, Chita C. Jalandoni, Janet Lim Napoles, Jocelyn Piorato, Myla Ogerio, John Raymund De Asis, Eulogio D. Rodriguez and Laarni A. Uy, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting to at least PHP30,000,000.00 drawn from Revilla’s PDAF and coursed through the NLDC and MAMFI, as reflected in DV No. 09091356, 09101441 and 09101533; xi. Ramon M. Revilla, Jr., Richard A. Cambe, Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Gondelina G. Amata, Gregoria Buenaventura, Emmanuel Alexis G. Sevidal, Ofelia E. Ordoñez, Sofia D. Cruz, Chita C. Jalandoni, Janet Lim Napoles, Jocelyn Piorato, Myla Ogerio, John Raymund De Asis, Eulogio D.
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======133
Rodriguez and Laarni A. Uy, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting to at least PHP40,000,000.00 drawn from Revilla’s PDAF and coursed through the NLDC and MAMFI, as reflected in DV No. 09081192, 09091256 and 09091320;
xii. Ramon M. Revilla, Jr., Richard A. Cambe, Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Gondelina G. Amata, Gregoria Buenaventura, Emmanuel Alexis G. Sevidal, Ofelia E. Ordoñez, Sofia D. Cruz, Chita C. Jalandoni, Janet Lim Napoles, Jocelyn Piorato, Myla Ogerio, John Raymund De Asis, Eulogio D. Rodriguez and Laarni A. Uy, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting to at least PHP44,000,000.00 drawn from Revilla’s PDAF and coursed through the NLDC and AEPFFI, as reflected in DV No. 09111698, 09121746, 10010010 and 10050748;
xiii. Ramon M. Revilla, Jr., Richard A. Cambe, Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Gondelina G. Amata, Gregoria Buenaventura, Emmanuel Alexis G. Sevidal, Ofelia E. Ordoñez, Sofia D. Cruz, Chita C. Jalandoni, Janet Lim Napoles, Jocelyn Piorato, Myla Ogerio, John Raymund De Asis, Eulogio D. Rodriguez and Laarni A. Uy, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting to at least PHP36,000,000.00 drawn from Revilla’s PDAF and coursed through the NLDC and APMFI, as reflected in DV No. 09111664, 09121745 and 10040679; xiv. Ramon M. Revilla, Jr., Richard A. Cambe, Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Gondelina G. Amata, Gregoria Buenaventura, Emmanuel Alexis G. Sevidal, Ofelia E. Ordoñez, Sofia D. Cruz, Chita C. Jalandoni, Evelyn Sucgang, Janet Lim Napoles, Myra Ogerio, John Raymund De Asis, Eulogio D. Rodriguez and Laarni A. Uy, acting in concert, for
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======134
VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting to at least PHP20,000,000.00 drawn from Revilla’s PDAF and coursed through the NLDC and SDPFFI, as reflected in DV No. 09040435, 09040486 and 09050583;
xv. Ramon M. Revilla, Jr., Richard A. Cambe, Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Gondelina G. Amata, Gregoria Buenaventura, Emmanuel Alexis G. Sevidal, Ofelia E. Ordoñez, Sofia D. Cruz, Chita C. Jalandoni, Evelyn Sucgang, Janet Lim Napoles, Myra Ogerio, John Raymund De Asis, Eulogio D. Rodriguez and Laarni A. Uy, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting to at least PHP40,000,000.00 drawn from Revilla’s PDAF and coursed through the NLDC and SDPFFI, as reflected in DV No. 09081193, 09091255 and 09091324; and
xvi. Ramon M. Revilla, Jr., Richard A. Cambe, Mario L. Relampagos, Rosario Nuñez, Lalaine Paule, Marilou Bare, Gondelina G. Amata, Gregoria Buenaventura, Emmanuel Alexis G. Sevidal, Ofelia E. Ordoñez, Sofia D. Cruz, Evelyn Sucgang, Janet Lim Napoles, Myla Ogerio, Eulogio D. Rodriguez, John Raymund De Asis and Laarni A. Uy, acting in concert, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (E) OF R.A. NO. 3019 in relation to fund releases amounting to at least PHP45,000,000.00 drawn from Revilla’s PDAF and coursed through the NLDC and SDPFFI, as reflected in DV No. 09081196, 09091254 and 09091321; and
and accordingly RECOMMENDS the immediate filing of the corresponding Informations against them with the Sandiganbayan;
(b) DISMISSES the criminal charges against Mylene Encarnacion for insufficiency of evidence;
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======135
(c) FURNISHES copies of this JOINT RESOLUTION to the Anti-Money Laundering Council for its immediate action on possible violations by the above-named respondents of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, Plunder and violation of Section 3 (e) of R. A. No. 3019 being considered unlawful activities under this statute;
(d) DIRECTS the FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE to conduct further fact-finding on the criminal, civil and/or administrative liability of Javellana, Mendoza, Ortiz, Cunanan, Amata, Sevidal and other respondents who may have received commissions and/or kickbacks from Napoles in relation to their participation in the scheme-subject of these proceedings.
SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, 28 March 2014.
SPECIAL PANEL PER OFFICE ORDER NO. 349, SERIES OF 2013
(Sgd.) M.A. CHRISTIAN O. UY Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer IV Chairperson
(Sgd.) FRANCISCA M. SERFINO Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Member
(Sgd.) RUTH LAURA A. MELLA Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Member
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======136
(Sgd.) ANNA FRANCESCA M. LIMBO Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Member
(Sgd.) JASMINE ANN B. GAPATAN Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I Member
APPROVED/DISAPPROVED
(Sgd.) CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Ombudsman
Copy Furnished:
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Complainant NBI Bldg., Taft Avenue, Ermita, Manila
LEVITO D. BALIGOD Complainant Villanueva & Baligod, 3/F The Lydia Bldg, 39 Polaris St., Bel-air, Makati
FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE Complainant 4th Floor, Ombudsman Building, Agham Road, Quezon City 1100
BODEGON ESTORNINOS GUERZON BORJE & GOZOS Counsel for Respondent Ramon M. Revilla, Jr. 5th Floor, Park Trade Center, 1716 Investment Drive, Madrigal Business Park, Alabang 1780
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======137
ANCHETA AND ASSOCIATES Counsel for Respondent Richard A. Cambe Suite 6K, Vernida I Bldg., 120 Amorsolo St., Legazpi Village, Makati City
DE GUZMAN DIONIDO CAGA JUCABAN & ASSOCIATES Counsel for Respondents Mario L. Relampagos, Lalaine Paule, Mario Bare and Rosario Nuñez Rm. 412, Executive Building Center, Gil Puyat Ave cor. Makati Ave., Makati City
ALEJANTAN LAW OFFICE Counsel for Respondent Antonio Y. Ortiz 24 Ilongot St., La Vista, Quezon City
THE LAW FIRM OF CHAN ROBLES AND ASSOCIATES Counsel for Respondent Dennis L. Cunanan Suite 2205, Philippine Stock Exchange Center, East Tower, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
FRANCISCO B. FIGURA Respondent Unit 5-A, 5th Floor, Valero Tower, 122 Valero St., Salcedo Village, Makati City
MARIA ROSALINDA LACSAMANA Respondent Unit 223, Pasig Royale Mansion, Santolan, Pasig City
CONSUELO LILIAN R. ESPIRITU Respondent 5306 Diesel St., Bgy. Palanan, Makati City
MARIVIC V. JOVER, Respondent 3 Gumamela St., Ciudad Licel, Banaba, San Mateo, Rizal
ACERON PUNZALAN VEHEMENTE AVILA & DEL PRADO LAW OFFICE Counsel for Respondent Allan A. Javellana 31st Floor, Atlanta Center, Annapolis St., Greenhills, San Juan
RHODORA B. MENDOZA Respondent Lot 2, Block 63, Bright Homes Subd., Bgy. Cay Pombo, Sta. Maria, Bulacan
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======138
ENCARNITA CRISTINA P. MUNSOD Respondent 14 Saturn St., Meteor Homes Subdivision, Bgy. Fortune, Makati City
VICTOR ROMAN C. CACAL Respondent 4 Milkyway St., Joliero Compound, Phase 1- D, Moonwalk Village, Talon V, Las Piñas City
MA. JULIE A. VILLARALVO-JOHNSON Respondent 509 Mapayapa St., United San Pedro Subd., San Pedro, Laguna
MIRANDA, ANASTACIO & LOTERTE LAW OFFICES Counsel for Respondent Ma. Ninez P. Guañizo Penthouse B., Venture Bldg., Prime St., Madrigal Business Park, Ayala Alabang, Muntinlupa City
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE – QUEZON CITY Counsel for Respondent Romulo Relevo B-29, Quezon City Hall of Justice Bldg., Quezon City
GONDELINA G. AMATA Respondent c/o National Livelihood Development Corporation, 7th 7th Floor, One Corporate Plaza, 845 A. Arnaiz Ave., Makati City
BALGOS, GUMARU AND JALANDONI Counsel for Respondent Chita C. Jalandoni Unit 1009, West Tektite Tower, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
OFELIA E. ORDOÑEZ Respondent c/o National Livelihood Development Corporation, 7th Floor, One Corporate Plaza, 845 A. Arnaiz Ave., Makati City
GEOFFREY D. ANDAWI Counsel for Respondent Emmanuel Alexis G. Sevidal 7D Don Sergio St., Don Antonio Heights, Quezon City
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======139
JOSE P. VILLAMOR Counsel for Respondent Gregoria G. Buenaventura Unit 3311 One Corporate Center, Julia Vargas Avenue cor. Meralco Ave., Ortigas Center, Pasig City
CALILUNG LAW OFFICE Counsel for Respondent Sofia D. Cruz 24 J. P. Rizal St., Davsan Subd., Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga
EVELYN SUCGANG Respondent #114 Sparrow St., Moonville Subdivision Brgy. Sunvalley, Parañaque City
EVITA MAGNOLIA I. ANSALDO Counsel for Respondents Janet Lim Napoles and Ronald John Lim Suite 1905-A, Philippine Stock Exchange Center, West Tower, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
EVELYN D. DE LEON Respondent Block 10, Lot 5, Daet St., South City Homes, Biñan, Laguna
JOCELYN D. PIORATO Respondent 5270 Romero St., Bgy. Dionisio, Parañaque City
EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ Respondent JLN Corporation Offices, Discovery Suites, Ortigas Center, Pasig City
MYLA OGERIO Respondent 285-F 17th St., Villamor Air Base, Pasay City or Apt. 9005-15F 17th Street, Villamor Air Base, Pasay City
LAARNI A. UY Respondent Block 23, Lot 24 Dumaguete Street, South City Homes, Biñan, Laguna or 5270 Romero St., Bgy. Dionisio, Parañaque City
MYLENE T. ENCARNACION Respondent
JOINT RESOLUTION OMB-C-C-13-0316 OMB-C-C-13-0395 Page ======140
Blk. 4, Lot 18, Almandite St., Golden City, Taytay, Rizal
JOHN RAYMUND DE ASIS Respondent Blk. 20, Lot 9, Phase III, Gladiola St., TS Cruz, Almanza 2, Las Piñas