1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
OMBUDSMAN Building,
Agham Road, North Triangle,
Diliman, Quezon City

TASK FORCE ABONO

FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE
Office of the Ombudsman,
As represented by: Corinne Joie M. Garillo
Associate Graft Investigation Officer III
Complainant,

-versus-

OMB-C-C-11-0777-L
For: Violation of Sec. 3,
pars. (e) and (g) of R.A.
No. 3019, as amended;
Sec.
65.2.4
of
the
Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. No.
9184 in relation to Secs.
10 and 18 of R.A. No.
9184; and Malversation
of Public Funds through
Falsification of Public
Documents under Art.
217 in relation to Art.
171 of the Revised Penal
Code.
(CRIMINAL CASE)
OMB-C-A-11-0777-L
For: Dishonesty, Grave
Misconduct and Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service
(ADMINISTRATIVE CASE)

DENNIS ARAULLO, GREGORIO O. SANGALANG,

RAYMUNDO E. BRAGANZA, MA. NIEVES R. NABOR,
LUCILLE E. ODEJAR, TOMAS RICARDO A. TANJUATCO,
LEODEGARIO M. VERANIA, JR., LORNA F. REYES,
EDWIN S. FULGERAS, LEONISA T. SANTOS, AMOR G. PEADA,
ADORABLE SUNGA, NENITA VINES, GODOFREDO MARIANO,
YOLANDA REYES, RUBEN PENDRE, DEONILA M. GREGORIO,
DEREK G. GLASS, HEAP CHEE KIN, ANDREW S. SARINAS,
REGINALD M. GREGORIO, MARILYN ARAOS,
Respondents,
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT
We, TOMAS RICARDO A. TANJUATCO, EDWIN S. FULGERAS,
AMOR DE GUZMAN PEADA, ADORABLE SUNGA, NENITA
MACARULAY VINES, GODOFREDO MARIANO, LEONISA TIMTIMAN
SANTOS and LORNA FERRERA REYES, all of legal age, Filipino
citizens and residents of the Municipality of Tanay, Rizal, after being
sworn in accordance with law, do hereby depose and state the following:
1. We comprise several of the respondents in OMB-C-C-11-0777-L and
OMB-C-A-11-0777-L, (both entitled Task Force Abono Field Investigation
Office vs. Dennis Araullo et. al) pending before the Office of the
Ombudsman. Our residential addresses, positions, and salary grades are
as follows:
a) TOMAS RICARDO A. TANJUATCO
b) EDWIN S. FULGERAS; Lot 43, Block 4, A.L. De Castro
Subdivision, Harangan, Plaza Aldea, Tanay, Rizal; Assistant
Municipal Treasurer, Acting Marketing Administrator, Property
Inspector; Salary Grade 22;
c) AMOR DE GUZMAN PEADA; 5 Lapu Lapu St. Apartment C,
Brgy. Kay Buto, Tanay, Rizal; Planning Officer II; Salary Grade 15;
d) ADORABLE ___________ SUNGA; #5 J.P. Rizal St., Sampaloc,
Tanay, Rizal; Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator;
e) NENITA MACARULAY VINES; # 72 Sampaloc Road, Barangay
Plaza Aldea, Tanay, Rizal, Municipal Budget Officer; Salary Grade
24;
f) GODOFREDO ILLUSTRE MARIANO; Ayala Compound, Barangay
Plaza Aldea, Tanay, Rizal, Executive Assistant III; Salary Grade 20;
g) LEONISA TIMTIMAN SANTOS; # 55 La Solidaridad Street,
Barangay Plaza Aldea, Tanay, Rizal; Municipal Accountant; Salary
Grade 24;
h) LORNA FERRERA REYES; #56 P. Burgos St., Barangay
Concepcion, Baras, Rizal; Former Municipal Treasurer; Salary
Grade 24;
2. We hereby specifically, completely, categorically deny the allegations
made against us in the above-cited cases commenced before us, and as
such further posit that the same lack the pertinent factual and legal
basis;
3. The Complainant in the abovementioned cases, the Task Force Abono
Field Investigation Office, is charging us for violating R.A. No. 3019
(Section 3 paragraphs [e] and [g] thereof), R.A. 9184 (Section 65.2.4 of
its Implementing Rules and Regulations, in relation to Sections 10 and
18 thereof) and Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to
Article 171, thereof. Similarly, we are being charged with Dishonesty,
Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service. Complainant further states that the acts allegedly committed
by us and comprising the foregoing offenses were done in conspiracy
with one another;
Discussion
on
the
alleged absence of a

3
Public Bidding in the
Purchase
of
Liquid
Organic
Fertilizers/Violation of
Section 65.2.4 of the
Implementing
rules
and Regulations of
Republic Act No. 9184
---------------------------------4. The foregoing charges all stem for a single transaction, namely the
purchase of around One Thousand Three Hundred (1,300) bottles of
liquid organic fertilizer from FESHAN PHILIPPINES, INC. Complainant
hereby alleges certain irregularities in respect of the procurement
thereof by the Municipality of Tanay, Rizal, represented by its duly
authorized officials, some of whom are respondents in the said cases;
5. The first irregularity cited by herein Complainant was the alleged
absence of any public bidding in the purchase of the subject liquid
organic fertilizers. It should be noted that while Section 10 of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9184 provide that
procurement shall be done through competitive public bidding, the
same provision recognizes an exception, as set forth in Rule XVI of the
said Rules and Regulations, to wit:
RULE
XVI

PROCUREMENT

ALTERNATIVE

METHODS

OF

Section 48. Alternative Methods

48.1. Subject to the prior approval of the head of the
procuring entity or his duly authorized representative,
and whenever justified by the conditions provided in
this Act, the procuring entity may, in order to
promote economy and efficiency, resort to any
of the alternative methods of procurement
provided in this Rule.
In all instances, the procuring entity shall ensure that
the most advantageous price for the Government is
obtained.
48.2. In accordance with Section 10 of this IRR-A, as a
general rule, the procuring entities shall adopt public
bidding as the general mode of procurement and
shall see to it that the procurement program allows
sufficient lead time for such public bidding.
Alternative methods shall be resorted to only in the
highly exceptional cases provided for in this Rule.
Section 50. Direct Contracting
Direct
Contracting
or
single
source
procurement is a method of procurement of
goods that does not require elaborate bidding
documents. The supplier is simply asked to submit
a price quotation or a pro-forma invoice together with

4
the conditions of sale. The offer may be accepted
immediately or after some negotiations. Direct
contracting may be resorted to by concerned
procuring entities under any of the following
conditions:
a) Procurement of items of proprietary nature which
can be obtained only from the proprietary source, i.e.
when patents, trade secrets and copyrights prohibit
others from manufacturing the same item;
b) When the procurement of critical plant
components from a specific manufacturer, supplier or
distributor is a condition precedent to hold a
contractor to guarantee its project performance, in
accordance with the provisions of its contract; or
c) Those sold by an exclusive dealer or
manufacturer which does not have sub-dealers
selling at lower prices and for which no suitable
substitute
can
be
obtained
at
more
advantageous terms to the Government.
(Bold Italics and Undescoring Supplied)
6. The factual circumstances were such that on May 20, 2004, a Purchase
Request prepared by respondent LEODEGARIO M. VERANIA, the
Municipal Agricultural Officer at that time.1 This pertained to the
intended acquisition of Eight Hundred Sixty Six bottles of liquid organic
fertilizer. The Purchase Request was prompted by no less than a request
made by the TANAY FEDERATION OF FARMERS COOPERATIVE, INC.
to herein respondent TOMAS RICARDO A. TANJUATCO (then the
municipal mayor of Tanay, Rizal) and evidenced by the said Federations
Resolution dated May 6, 2004.2 It should be noted that the said
Resolution specifically requested to be provided with liquid organic
fertilizer and not just liquid fertilizers3;
7. The aforesaid Purchase Request was then forwarded to the Bids and
Awards Committee (BAC) of the Municipality of Tanay, the composition
of which includes herein respondent ADORABLE SUNGA, AMOR G.
PEADA, NENITA VINES and GODOFREDO MARIANO. On the basis
of the items set forth in the said Purchase Request 4 as well as the inputs
given by the said Municipal Agricultural Officer (the subject being of a
highly technical nature necessitating his opinion), we came to an initial
finding that only one (1) brand could exclusively fit the specifications
under the said request with all the exact components (i.e. nitrogen,
phosphorous, potassium, calcium, etc.) and which was BIO NATURE, a
product exclusively distributed by FESHAN PHILIPPINES, INC.;
8. As such, the aforesaid respondents comprising several of the members
of the BAC (respondents ADORABLE SUNGA, AMOR G. PEADA,
1 Annex M of the Complaint-Affidavit
2 A photocopy of the said Resolution is attached hereto as Annexes A
and B and made an integral parts hereof.
3 See portions bracketed as Annexes A-1 and B-1 of Annexes A and
B herein.
4 Annex M of the Complaint-Affidavit.

5
NENITA VINES and GODOFREDO MARIANO) undertook earnest
efforts to verify these findings by requiring the subject proponent to
show that it was in fact the exclusive distributor of the BIO NATURE
brand. As such, a notarized certification to that effect, among others,
was submitted to the BAC.5 Likewise, we were also presented with a
Letter of Appointment issued by no less than BIO NATURE
TECHNOLOGY PTE LTD., the entity producing BIO NATURE brand
products.6 The said Letter of Appointment provided, inter alia, that
FESHAN PHILIPPINES, INC. was its Exclusive Importer/Distributor in
the Philippines.
9. With the foregoing, in mind, and taking into due consideration the
welfare of the farmers, including those comprising the TANAY
FEDERATION OF FARMERS COOPERATIVE, INC., said respondents,
recommended that the municipality resort to alternative methods of
procurement, particularly direct bidding;7
10.
Under the foregoing circumstances, it is clear that the said
respondents (ADORABLE SUNGA, AMOR G. PEADA, NENITA VINES
and GODOFREDO MARIANO) comprising the BAC could not be liable
for violating R.A. 9184 (Section 65.2.4 of its Implementing Rules and
Regulations, in relation to Sections 10 and 18 thereof), as clearly, they
acted within the exceptions to the general rule on public bidding therein
provided;
11.
In this regard, it may be worthy to mention that liability should
not, in particular, attach to respondent AMOR DE GUZMAN PEADA,
who was simply designated to serve part of the BAC Secretariat. Simply
put, she was not a regular member of the BAC and as such, was not
vested with any discretionary powers to approve or reject proponents. In
fact, she was not even tasked to take part in any of the deliberations
therein. Said respondents participation was, in reality, limited only to
assisting and supporting the BAC, as a whole, and which functions
include the preparation of the documents (i.e. minutes of the meeting,
organizing bidding documents, etc.);
Discussion
on
the
Alleged Overpricing by
the Respondents of the
subject Liquid Organic
Fertilizers/Violation of
Section 3 (e) and (g) of
R.A. 3019
---------------------------------12.
Furthermore, Complainant cannot allege and maintain that the
subject items purchased from FESHAN PHILIPPINES, INC., were
overpriced. As such, herein respondents maintain that the BIO
NATURE products are the only ones whose composition of micronutrients specifically matched that being requested under the Purchase
5 Annex RR of the Complaint-Affidavit.
6 A photocopy of the said Letter of Appointment is attached hereto,
accordingly marked as Annexes C, C-1, C-2 and C-3 and made
an integral parts hereof.
7 Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9184, Rule V Section 12.1,
in relation to Rule XV1, Section 48.1 and Section 50, thereof.

6
Request. Not surprisingly, herein Complainant advance the alternative
view and to support the same, made reference to several documents 8
which cannot, in any way, be used to controvert the position of herein
respondents;
13.
One of the said documents is listing products supposedly prepared
by the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) under the Department of
Agriculture (DA).9 However, it should be emphasized that the said listing
refers to liquid fertilizers and not liquid organic fertilizers,
which, to reiterate, was the items requested under the Purchase
Request. To recall in fact, the TANAY FEDERATION OF FARMERS
COOPERATIVE, INC. had requested for liquid organic fertilizers
and not just liquid fertilizers. Hence, this cannot sustain their claim
that there were other persons/entities that produced and made
available to the public such items;
14.
In respect of the supposed certifications issued by PACIFIC
AGRIVET SUPPLIES, INC. and CPC MERCHANDISING,10 there is
nothing therein to indicate that the products distributed by the said
entities embodied the specific composition of micro-nutrients sought by
under the said Purchase Request. In fact, the said documents clearly
constitute nothing more than a bare and unsubstantiated claim that
these said entities allegedly sell liquid organic fertilizers at the
price they quoted;
15.
With the foregoing set forth, it is clear that there was clearly no
other alternative available to herein respondents and hence, it cannot
be said that they caused the over-pricing of the items purchased from
FESHAN PHILIPPINES, INC.
Needless to say, these supposed
alternatives pointed to by herein Complainant DID NOT constitute such
suitable substitutes that would have worked out more
advantageous terms to the government. In this regard, it should be
further taken into consideration that the BIO NATURE products are
made in Singapore and are marked with ISO certification. It is clearly a
more superior product and to which, it can be concluded that the other
supposed alternatives could not be an acceptable substitute thereto;
16.
Proceeding from the foregoing, it is also doubtful that herein
respondents can be liable for violating Section 3 paragraphs (e) and (g)
of R.A. 3019, otherwise known as The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act. The specific provisions referred to by the Complainant, and
attributed against us, reads as follows:
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts
or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law,
the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public
officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxx

xxx
xxx

xxx
xxx

xxx
xxx

xxx
xxx

xxx
xxx

xxx
xxx

xxx

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the

Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official
8 Annexes NN, OO and PP and PP-1 of the Complaint-Affidavit.
9 Annex PP and PP-1 of the Complaint-Affidavit.
10 Annexes NN and OO of the Complaint-Affidavit.

7
administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or
other concessions.
xxx
xxx

xxx
xxx

xxx
xxx

xxx
xxx

xxx
xxx

xxx
xxx

xxx
xxx

(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or

transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same,
whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
17.
The essence in the above-quoted provisions involve causing injury
to, and unduly placing the government in a manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous position. The foregoing statements considered, it is
cannot be said that the government was unduly injured or placed in
such a position of disadvantage with respect to the subject transaction.
But as explained above, this cannot be said, given the fact that there
WAS NO OVERPRICING and more so, considering that respondents
succeeded in securing a superior and more optimum product for the
benefit of the farming constituency in Tanay, Rizal. In this regard, the
above-mentioned provisions cannot be applied to the factual
circumstances of this case;
18.
On the allegations made by herein Complainant on the alleged
irregularities, it would suffice to set forth that respondents had, in good
faith, substantially complied with such requirements and any supposed
deviations did not, as already explained above, cause any undue injury,
damage or prejudice the government. Neither did this result in the
government being in a manifestly or grossly disadvantageous position;
Discussion
on
the
Alleged Expiration of
the License of FESHAN
PHILIPPINES, INC.
---------------------------------19.
On the matter regarding the alleged expiration of the license to
operate of FESHAN PHILIPPINES, INC., herein respondents hereby
manifest that they acted with utmost good faith in scrutinizing all the
relevant documents presented to it when they recommended that the
Municipality of Tanay resort to direct procurement of the subject
merchandise with the said entity. Included among these scrutinized
documents was the Certificate of Product Registration issued by no less
than the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) 11 certifying the relevant
fact that the product concerned was duly registered with the said
agency and valid until March 5, 2005;
Discussion
on
the
Allegation that herein
Respondents Falsified
the
List
of
Beneficiaries/Violation
11 Annex SS of the Complaint-Affidavit

8
of Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code in
relation to Article 171
thereof
---------------------------------20.
It is likewise claimed by herein Complainant that the List of
Beneficiaries was allegedly falsified. As such, Complainant alleges
that herein respondents should be charged with the complex crime of
Malversation through falsification, as defined and penalized under
Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 171 thereof. 12
However, such accusation cannot extend and be applicable to herein
respondents TOMAS RICARDO A. TANJUATCO, EDWIN S.
FULGERAS, AMOR DE GUZMAN PEADA, ADORABLE SUNGA,
NENITA MACARULAY VINES, GODOFREDO MARIANO, LEONISA
TIMTIMAN SANTOS and LORNA FERRERA REYES. As alleged by
Complainant, the said List of Beneficiaries were submitted by the
Municipal Agriculture Office.13 None of the respondents herein were
part of the said office and hence, responsibility in the accomplishment
of the said list was NOT VESTED upon any of them;
21.
Herein respondents ADORABLE SUNGA, AMOR DE GUZMAN
PEADA, NENITA VINES and GODOFREDO MARIANO were members
of the BAC. Theyre duties functions and responsibilities are spelled out
under Rule 5 Section 12.1 and 12.2 of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. 9184. 14 They do not, in any way, include the
preparation, execution and issuance of the said List of Beneficiaries;
22.
With respect to respondent LEONISA TIMTIMAN SANTOS, she,
in her capacity as the Municipal Accountant is specifically charged with
her duties as stated under Title V Article I Section 474 (b) of the Local
Government Code.15 As such, the same is devoid of anything that would
12 Page 12 paragraph 48 of the Complaint-Affidavit
13 Page 12 paragraph 47 of the Complaint-Affidavit.
14 Sec. 12.1 The BAC shall have the following functions: (a) advertise and/or post
the invitation to bid/request for expressions of interest; (b) conduct pre-procurement
and pre-bid conferences; (c) determine the eligibility of prospective bidders; (d)
receive bids; (e) conduct the evaluation of bids; (f) undertake post-qualification
proceedings; (g) resolve motions for reconsideration; (h) recommend award of
contracts to the Head of the Procuring Entity or his duly authorized representative: (i)
recommend the imposition of sanctions in accordance with Rule XXIII; (j) recommend
to the Head of the Procuring Entity the use of Alternative Methods of Procurement as
provided for in Rule XVI hereof; and (k) perform such other related functions as may
be necessary, including the creation of a Technical Working Group (TWG) from a pool
of technical, financial, and/or legal experts to assist in the procurement process,
particularly in the eligibility screening, evaluation of bids, and post-qualification. (a)
Sec. 12.2 The BAC shall be responsible for ensuring that the procuring entity abides
by the standards set forth by the Act and this IRR, and it shall prepare a procurement
monitoring report in the form prescribed by the GPPB. The procurement monitoring
report shall cover all procurement activities specified in the APP, whether ongoing and
completed, from the holding of the pre-procurement conference to the issuance of
notice of award and the approval of the contract, including the standard and actual
time for each major procurement activity. The procurement monitoring report shall be
approved and submitted by the Head of the Procuring Entity to the GPPB in printed
and electronic format within fourteen (14) calendar days after the end of each
semester.

15b) The accountant shall take charge of both the accounting and internal audit services of the local
government unit concerned and shall:chanrobles virtual law library(1) Install and maintain an internal audit

9
even remotely pertain to the preparation of the said List of
Beneficiaries. The same can be said with respect to respondent LORNA
FERRERA REYES whose functions, duties and responsibilities are
provided for under Title V Article I Section 470 (d) of the same Local
Government Code;16
23.
In respect of EDWIN S.FULGERAS who was the Inspection Officer
fo the Municipality of Tanay, Rizal at the time when the subject
transaction occurred, it should be noted that his functions mainly
consisted of receiving and inspecting the items purchased from
FESHAN PHILIPPINES, INC. and did not extend to the preparation of
the said List of Beneficiaries or the distribution thereof to the said
beneficiaries. It should be pointed out that his functions in this regard
are ministerial in nature and he exercised no discretion as to what to do
with the said items;
24.
As such, there is clearly no showing on the basis of the allegations
set forth under the Complaint-Affidavit how each of the said
respondents had supposedly falsified and/or misappropriated the said
liquid organic fertilizers. Note that in the offense alleged, and as
punished under the Revised Penal Code, Complainant, in enumerating
system in the local government unit concerned;
(2) Prepare and submit financial statements to the governor or mayor, as the case may be, and to the
sanggunian concerned;
(3) Apprise the sanggunian and other local government officials on the financial condition and operations of
the local government unit concerned;
(4) Certify to the availability of budgetary allotment to which expenditures and obligations may be properly
charged;
(5) Review supporting documents before preparation of vouchers to determine completeness of requirements;
(6) Prepare statements of cash advances, liquidation, salaries, allowances, reimbursements and remittances
pertaining to the local government unit;
(7) Prepare statements of journal vouchers and liquidation of the same and other adjustments related
thereto;
(8) Post individual disbursements to the subsidiary ledger and index cards;
(9) Maintain individual ledgers for officials and employees of the local government unit pertaining to
payrolls and deductions;
(10) Record and post in index cards details of purchased furniture, fixtures, and equipment, including
disposal thereof, if any;
(11) Account for all issued requests for obligations and maintain and keep all records and reports related
thereto;
(12) Prepare journals and the analysis of obligations and maintain and keep all records and reports related
thereto; and cralaw
(13) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law or
ordinance.
16 (d) The treasurer shall take charge of the treasury office, perform the duties
provided for under Book II of this Code, and shall:chanrobles virtual law library(1)
Advise the governor or mayor, as the case may be, the sanggunian, and other local
government and national officials concerned regarding disposition of local government
funds, and on such other matters relative to public finance;
(2) Take custody of and exercise proper management of the funds of the local
government unit concerned;
(3) Take charge of the disbursement of all local government funds and such other
funds the custody of which may be entrusted to him by law or other competent
authority;
(4) Inspect private commercial and industrial establishments within the jurisdiction of
the local government unit concerned in relation to the implementation of tax
ordinances, pursuant to the provisions under Book II of this Code;
(5) Maintain and update the tax information system of the local government unit;
(6) In the case of the provincial treasurer, exercise technical supervision over all
treasury offices of component cities and municipalities; and cralaw
(e) Exercise such other powers and perform such other duties and functions as may be
prescribed by law or ordinance.cralaw

10
its elements, states that the offender therein should be one who has
custody or control of the funds or property by reason of his
office. On the face of the Complaint-Affidavit, there is nothing to show
or even remotely suggest that any one of herein respondents TOMAS
RICARDO A. TANJUATCO, EDWIN S. FULGERAS, AMOR DE
GUZMAN PEADA, ADORABLE SUNGA, NENITA MACARULAY
VINES, GODOFREDO MARIANO, LEONISA TIMTIMAN SANTOS and
LORNA FERRERA REYES were charged with such custody or
control of the subject items referred to. Clearly, this pertinent element
is lacking and hence, any prosecution of the complex crime of
Malversation through Falsification against them would necessarily fail;
25.
Moreover, there is no showing in the Complaint-Affidavit that will
specifically show who among herein respondents had committed the
alleged falsification. The only viable reason to explain the lack of the
same is that NONE OF THE SAID RESPONDENTS (TOMAS RICARDO
A. TANJUATCO, EDWIN S. FULGERAS, AMOR DE GUZMAN
PEADA, ADORABLE SUNGA, NENITA MACARULAY VINES,
GODOFREDO MARIANO, LEONISA TIMTIMAN SANTOS and LORNA
FERRERA REYES) committed the said unlawful act. Proceeding from
this premise, it is therefore apparent that Article 171 of the Revised
Penal Code cannot apply to the above-named respondents, as one of
the elements thereof is that the offender thereof, who is a public officer,
takes advantage of his official position;17
Discussion
on
the
Alleged Existence of a
Conspiracy
among
herein Respondents
---------------------------------26. In an attempt to extend such liability to all herein respondents in this
case, notwithstanding the lack of factual and legal basis to individually
indict them for the offenses and crimes charged, Complainant loosely
and conveniently alleges that they acted in conspiracy to commit the
same.18 Nothing can be further from the truth;
27.
It would be bad enough to accuse herein respondents of the said
offenses and crimes but claiming that we connived with one another in
order to consummate the same makes it worse and impossible to
accept. To reiterate, we, herein respondents TOMAS RICARDO A.
TANJUATCO, EDWIN S. FULGERAS, AMOR DE GUZMAN PEADA,
ADORABLE SUNGA, NENITA MACARULAY VINES, GODOFREDO
MARIANO, LEONISA TIMTIMAN SANTOS and LORNA FERRERA
REYES, were only performing our duties and undertaking the same
motivated by nothing but good faith. It never crossed our minds to
connive with each other or any other person for the purpose of
accomplishing an unlawful act to the damage and prejudice of the
government, much less for our own personal benefit;

17 THE REVISED PENAL CODE, Criminal Law, By Luis B. Reyes, Book Two
(Articles 114-367), Fifteenth Edition, Revised 2001, page 202,
discussions therein citing People vs. Santiago Uy (53 O.G. 7236 and U.S.
vs. Inosanto, 20 Phil. 376).
18 Page 13 of the Complaint-Affidavit

11
28. All herein Complainant has to show that herein respondents conspired
with one another are bare statements of what we had done, in our
official capacities, in the hope that somehow, this Honorable Office
would deduce, albeit doubtfully, the commission of the said offenses
and crimes charged. All in all, the Complainant lists some supposedly
successive acts committed by herein respondents However, it should be
pointed out that this would not be sufficient for the said purpose, given
that as ruled by the Supreme Court on various occasions, such as in the
case of Sistoza vs. Desierto19, where It ruled as follows:
xxxxxx Thus, when at the outset the evidence
offered at preliminary investigation proves nothing
more than the signature of a public officer and
his statements verifying the regularity of prior
procedure on the basis of documents apparently
reliable, the prosecution is duty-bound to
dismiss the affidavit-complaint as a matter of
law and spare the system meant to restore and
propagate integrity in public service from the
embarrassment of a careless accusation of crime as
well as the unnecessary expense of a useless and
expensive
criminal
trial.
(Bold
Italics
and
Underscoring Supplied).
Proceeding from this, it is likewise worthy, relevant and material to
consider the equally enlightening and instructive words of the Supreme
Court in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Feliciano Anabe y
Capillan20, where the High Court, enunciated, among others, that:
Conspiracy as a basis for conviction must rest on
nothing less than a moral certainty. Considering the
far-reaching consequences of a criminal conspiracy,
the same degree of proof necessary in establishing
the crime is required to support the attendance
thereof, i.e., it must be shown to exist as clearly and
convincingly as the commission of the offense itself.
While conspiracy need not be established by direct
evidence, it is nonetheless required that it be proved
by clear and convincing evidence by showing a series
of acts done by each of the accused in concert and in
pursuance of the common unlawful purpose.21
Discussion
on
the
Alleged
Dishonesty,
Gross Misconduct and
Conduct Prejudicial to
the Best Interest of the
Service
Against
Respondents
---------------------------------19
20 G.R. No. 179033, September 6, 2010,
21 citing therein People v. Mapalo, G.R. No. 172608, February 6, 2007,
514 SCRA 689, 710-711

12
29.
Lastly attributed to herein respondents, are the allegations of
Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best
Interest of the Service. In this regard, it should be suffice to say that any
charge of Dishonesty involves the absence of integrity and a disposition
to cheat or deceive and as such, it is characterized by bad faith.22
Similarly, Misconduct implies malice or a wrongful intent and not
merely an error or lapse in judgment23;
30.
The circumstance of good faith on the part of herein respondents
can neither be over-alleged nor underemphasized. The presumption that
all persons act with such is well recognized, as noted by no less than the
Supreme Court in the case of Collantes vs. Marcelo,24 to wit:
Well-settled in the rule that good faith is always
presumed and the Chapter of Human Relations of the
Civil Code directs every person, inter alia, to observe
good faith which springs from the fountain of good
conscience. Specifically, a public officer is presumed to
have acted in good faith in the performance of his
duties. Mistakes committed by a public officer are not
actionable absent any clear showing that they were
motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to
bad faith. Bad faith does not simply connote bad moral
judgment or negligence. There must be some
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and
conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of a sworn duty
through some motive or intent or ill will. It partakes of
the nature of fraud. It contemplates a state of mind
affirmatively operating with furtive design or some
motive of self-interest or ill will for ulterior motives.
31.
By this point, it should be undoubtedly clear that herein
respondents had acted in good faith. They acted in accordance with law,
as their actions in resorting to direct procurement, as an alternative to
public bidding, were grounded upon the applicable provisions of R.A.
9184. Moreover, they were prompted by nothing more than the welfare
of the farmers within their constituency, who sought the aid of their
local leaders in obtaining reliable products they could use in their
livelihood. Stated otherwise, their actions were devoid of any bad faith,
malice or any form of wrongful intention. By no stretch of any persons
imagination can this be construed as Dishonesty or Grave Misconduct.
Upon these premises, there is certainly no basis to hold them
accountable for any Conduct that is Prejudicial to the Service;
32.
We hereby set forth the following, with the assistance of our legal
counsel, for the purpose of refuting, controverting and rebutting the
allegations made against us in OMB-C-C-11-0777-L and OMB-C-A-110777-L, (both entitled Task Force Abono Field Investigation Office vs.
Dennis Araullo et. al) pending before the Office of the Ombudsman and
likewise for the purpose of having the same DISMISSED;
22 PHILIPPINE LAW DICTIONARY, By Justice Federico B. Moreno, Third
Edition, page 276, citing therein Arca vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining
Co., 17679-R, November 24, 1958
23 Ibid, page 601 citing Suroza vs. Honrado, Adm. Matter No. 2026-CFI,
December 19, 1981, 110 SCRA 396
24 530 SCRA 142 (2007)

13
IN WITNESS HEREOF, we, the undersigned respondents,
hereunder affix our signatures this _____ day of September 2012.

TOMAS RICARDO A. TANJUATCO,

AMOR DE GUZMAN PEADA

NENITA MACARULAY VINES

ILLUSTREMARIANO,
LEONISA TIMTIMAN SANTOS

EDWIN S. FULGERAS

ADORABLE SUNGA,

GODOFREDO

LORNA FERRERA REYES

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of

September 2012, at __________, Philippines, the affiants named below
exhibiting to me their respective Identifications, as follows:
TOMAS RICARDO A. TANJUATCO,
EDWIN S. FULGERAS
AMOR DE GUZMAN PEADA
ADORABLE SUNGA,
NENITA MACARULAY VINES
GODOFREDO ILLUSTREMARIANO
LEONISA TIMTIMAN SANTOS
LORNA FERRERA REYES

NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No._______;
Page No._______;
Book No._______;
Series of 2012
Copy Furnished:
Task Force Abono
_____________
Field Investigation Office
Date:____________________

Received By:

14
CORINNE JOIE M. GARILLO
___________________
5th Floor, General Investigation Bureau-C,
Ombudsman Building,
Office of the Ombudsman,
Agham Road, Diliman,
Quezon City, Metro Manila

Time:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES} SS

CITY OF __________________ }

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

15

I, JOSELITO GARCIA, of legal age, Filipino, citizen, with office

address c/o LAW FIRM TANJUATCO & PARTNERS, 11th Floor Taipan Place
Bldg., F. Ortigas, Jr. Avenue (formerly Emerald Avenue), Ortigas
Commercial Center, Pasig City, after having been sworn to in
accordance with law, do hereby depose and say:
1. That I am employed as a messenger of Law Firm Tanjuatco &
Partners, the counsel for respondents TOMAS RICARDO A.
TANJUATCO, EDWIN S. FULGERAS, AMOR DE GUZMAN
PEADA, ADORABLE SUNGA, NENITA MACARULAY VINES,
GODOFREDO ILLUSTRE MARIANO, LEONISA TIMTIMAN
SANTOS and LORNA FERRERA REYES in OMB-C-C-110777-L and OMB-C-A-11-0777-L (both entitled Task Force
Abono Field Investigation Office vs. Dennis Araullo et. al)
pending before the Office of the Ombudsman;
2. Today, I personally served to Task Force Abono Field
Investigation Office, the Complainant in the said cases, a copy
of said respondents Joint Counter-Affidavit;
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _____
day of September, 2012 at __________, Philippines.

JOSELITO GARCIA
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of
August 2012, at __________, Philippines, the affiant exhibiting to me his
SSS No. 03-4706992-4 issued at.

NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No._______;
Page No._______;
Book No._______;
Series of 2012