By Monsi A. Serrano
Almost one year after the filing of plunder, graft, and administrative cases against Duty Free Philippines Chief Operating Officer Vicente “Vico” Angala and other officials, the Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the charges for lack of probable cause.
In the complaint filed by some disgruntled Duty Free employees, they cited the 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.
Other three officials included in the charges were former COO Lorenzo Formoso, former Human Resources Management Division Manager Roberto Policarpio, and former Physical Distribution Department Manager Manolito Canlas.
In the 22-page decision penned by Roseann Claudine Pasion, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II, and approved by Ombudsman Samuel Martires on November 4, 2019, the Office of the Ombudsman noted that “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.
Speaking to THEPHILBIZNEWS, Ombudsman Martires said that they found no probable cause to prosecute Angala.
The Ombudsman also noted that the DFPSI business in which Angala allegedly participated or profited obviously has 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.
“Duty Free Philppines COO Angela (and other officials) should not be subjected to trial by publicity. 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,” Martires explained.
Meanwhile, in the plunder case, the Ombudsman pointed out that 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 COA issued no disallowance 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.
Angala clearly 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.
Speaking to THEPHILBIZNEWS, Duty Free Chief Opertaing Officer said, ” I opted to just let the wheel of justice take its course. As far as I am concerned my conscience is clear. I am a homegrown in Duty Free Philippines and I have dedicated the prime of my life in this agency more than half of my life.
“It wasn’t an easy journey for me and my family as the way these trump up cases were filed against me, there are other things I have to endure apart from these cases, and that include the selfish agenda of individuals who prey on maligning me and my untarnished reputation as public servant for more than three decades. They were also out to destroy my family, but truth always prevails in the end,” Angala said.
“I commend the Ombudsman for the fair and objective treatment of these cases filed against me, and the decision is a vindication to me and my family who were also affected by the malicious and irresponsible accusations against me,” he added.
“It is time to move forward and work together with my DFPC family and ensure that the tourism industry of the country will continue to flourish,” Angala concluded.
