Duty Free chief, 3 others cleared of plunder, graft raps

According to the 22-page Resolution penned by Roseann Claudine Pasion, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II, and approved by Ombudsman Samuel Martires on November 4, 2019 but released only recently, “there is no probable cause” for the criminal offenses charged even as it held that the insufficient elements of the administrative cases failed to prevail over the presumption that the officials regularly performed their duties. (File Photo: Office of the Ombudsman Philippines/Facebook)

MANILA – The Office of the Ombudsman has dismissed the plunder, graft and administrative cases lodged against incumbent Duty Free Philippines Corporation (Duty Free) Chief Operating Officer (COO) Vicente Pelagio Angala and three co-respondents due to insufficiency of evidence.

The cases stemmed from the complaint filed by 10 Duty Free employees charging respondents for Violation of R.A. 3019 as amended (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) particularly, Section 3 (d) and (h), allegedly for having financial and pecuniary interest with DFP Services, Inc. (DFPSI), a former manpower service contractor of Duty Free; Sections 3 (b) (g) and Plunder for allegedly enriching themselves from the said service contract; and Section 3 (f) for allegedly neglecting or refusing to act on complainants’ request for retroactive appointments thereby allegedly depriving the complainants of their salaries and benefits.

Also named as respondents were former COO Lorenzo Formoso, former Human Resources Management Division Manager Roberto Policarpio, and former Physical Distribution Department Manager Manolito Canlas.

According to the 22-page Resolution penned by Roseann Claudine Pasion, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II, and approved by Ombudsman Samuel Martires on November 4, 2019 but released only recently, “there is no probable cause” for the criminal offenses charged even as it held that the insufficient elements of the administrative cases failed to prevail over the presumption that the officials regularly performed their duties.

The Ombudsman said the business of DFPSI in which Angala allegedly participated or profited has obviously no relation or connection with his official capacity. The business of the said corporation is not the kind where Angala intervenes or takes part in his capacity as then Manager for International Department.

“It is not enough to be a public official to be subject to this crime; it is necessary that by reason of his office, he has to intervene in said contracts or transactions; and hence, the official who intervenes in contracts or transactions which have no relation to his office cannot commit this crime,” the ruling reads.

On the charge of Plunder, the Ombudsman ruled that the Commission on Audit (COA) reports of alleged overpayment made by Duty Free to DFPSI do not substantiate the claims of complainants that respondents amassed wealth and benefited by pocketing the said alleged overpayments.

The Ombudsman concluded that the fact that no disallowance was issued by COA meant that the latter found meritorious the explanations and comment proffered by then Duty Free management as regards the fees paid for the service contract.

It added that aside from the COA Audit Reports cited by the complainants, no other relevant evidence was presented to substantiate such claims.

Complainants also failed to establish whether it was Angala or Formoso who were the public officers directly responsible for the issuance of their retroactive appointments.

Angala sufficiently explained that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) is the office responsible for the sought correction of the complainants’ appointment papers following Section 9 Rule V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 which reads, “An appointment accepted by the appointee cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the appointing authority and shall remain in force and effect until disapproved by the CSC”.

“On the administrative aspect of the complaint, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant and palpable breach of duty are not manifested in the present case. In the absence of evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that respondents regularly performed their duties,” the ruling emphasized.

Asked for comment, Angala said, “For quite some time, I have kept mum against all these allegations. It is very unfortunate that some people will spin the facts to destroy one’s reputation to their advantage.”

“I would like to express my gratitude to those instrumental in vindicating me: Office of the Ombudsman for the fair and objective treatment of this case; my legal counsel Atty. Charlie Pascual, and DFPC employees for their continued support and trust in my leadership,” Angala said.

“I now look forward to working in unity with my DFPC family to earnestly fulfill our mandate of supporting the tourism industry,” he added.