Nov. 29, 2000
Complaint-Affidavit filed by CLEAR, CLAMOR and OUSTER against
Erap, et al at the Office of the Ombudsman
Republic Of The Philippines
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
Manila
ROMEO T. CAPULONG, LEONARD DE VERA, and DENNIS B. FUNA
Complainants,
versus - OMB. CASE NO.
HIS EXCELLENCY PRESIDENT JOSEPH E. ESTRADA, YOLANDA RICAFORTE,
EDWARD SERAPIO, RAUL DE GUZMAN, DANILO REYES, and MILA REFORMA
Respondents.
XX
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
We, (1) LEONARD DE VERA, with postal address at 12th Floor Strata 1 00 Building,
Emerald Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City; (2) ROMEO T. CAPULONG, with postal
address at Public Interest Law Center, Kaija Bldg., 7836 Makati Avenue, Makati City;
and (3) DENNIS B. FUNA, with postal address at 15 Don Jose Varela Street, Phase
6-A BF Homes, Paranaque, all Filipinos of legal age, after being duly sworn in
accordance with law, hereby depose and state:
1. Sometime in September 2000, Goy. Luis C. Singson ("Singson") publicly disclosed
the involvement of President Joseph E. Estrada ("Estrada"), in the operations and
proceeds of illegal gambling in the Philippines.
2. The disclosure by Gov. Singson spawned a series of legislative hearings
conducted by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and the Senate Committee on
Justice.
3. During the hearings of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and the Senate
Committee on Justice on 11, 13, 17, 20 and 30 October, 2000 Governor Singson
substantiated the nature of his allegations as to respondent Estrada's participation
and involvement in illegal gambling operations, including his receipt of pay-offs
therefrom. Copies of the pertinent portions of the transcript of stenographic notes of
said hearing dates are hereby attached and made integral parts hereof as Annexes
"A- 1 " to "A-5".
4. The disclosures by Gov. Singson likewise spawned an Impeachment Complaint
dated 12 October 2000 filed before the House of Representatives. Accordingly,
respondent Estrada was formally charged of bribery among others, on the strength of
Gov. Singson's Affidavit dated 14 September 2000, a copy of which is also attached
and made an integral part hereof as Annex "B”.
5. The testimony of Gov. Singson before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and the
Senate Committee on Justice invariably revealed the following facts of conspiracy by
all respondents herein:
5.1. From on or about November 1998 to August 2000, respondent Estrada received
money which Gov. Singson delivered from proceeds of illegal gambling operations as
bribes and/or protection money.
5.2. Said bribe money received by respondent Estrada amounted to about Ten
Million Pesos (PI 0,000,000.00) a month.
5.3. Likewise, on or about August 1999, respondent Estrada instructed Gov. Singson
to transfer accumulated deposits from proceeds of illegal gambling operations as
bribes to Yolanda Ricaforte, a person who works for respondent Estrada, amounting
to One Hundred Twenty Three Million Pesos (P123,000,000.00), which amount was
received and/or controlled by respondent Estrada.
5.4. Respondent Estrada also received the amount of Two Hundred Million Pesos
(P200,000,000.00) as bribe money in the year 2000. Said amount was allegedly to
be used for respondent Estrada's scholarship foundation for certain Muslim youth,
the Erap Muslim Youth Foundations, Inc. Respondents Raul de Guzman, Danilo
Reyes, and Mila Reforma are the incorporators and trustees of said foundation. This
fact of receipt of the money was even admitted by respondent Estrada in a radio
interview with Mr. Jay Sonza on 08 November 2000. Attached hereto as Annex "C" is
a transcript of said radio interview over DZRH.
5.4.1. It appears that respondent Estrada instructed Yolanda Ricaforte to give the
Two Hundred Million Pesos (P200,000,000.00) to Atty. Edward Serapio to be
allegedly deposited and used for respondent Estrada's alleged Muslim scholars.
5.4.2. It likewise appears that respondent Atty. Edward Serapio indeed received the
said amount from Yolanda Ricaforte with instructions that said amount shall allegedly
be used for respondent Estrada's alleged Muslim scholars.
6. Said acts by respondent Estrada of receiving bribe money is in violation of Article
210 of the Revised Penal Code:
"Art. 210. Direct Bribery. Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act
constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties, in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer,
personally or through the mediation of another x xx.
X XX
If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public
officer refrain from doing something, which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer
the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum and a fine of not less than the value of
the gift and not more than three times such value.
6.1. The elements of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code are:
a. The offender is a public officer;
b. The offender accepts an offer or a promise or receives a gift or present by himself
or through another;
c. The purpose for receiving such gift or promise is:
1 .with a view to committing some crime; or in consideration of the execution of an
act which does not constitute a crime, but which is unjust; or
2. to refrain from doing something which is his official duty to do;
d. The act which the offender agrees to perform is in connection with the
performance of his duties. [Reyes, Revised Penal Code (1993)]
6.2. All the foregoing elements are present in the instant case.
a. Respondent Estrada is a public officer, being the President- elect of the Republic
of the Philippines
b. Respondent Estrada, from November 1998 to August 2000, had received money
from various illegal gambling operators, which funds Gov. Singson collected upon the
instruction of respondent Estrada and delivered to him.
c. The receipt of such funds by respondent Estrada had the effect of, or for the
purpose of respondent Estrada serving as operator/protector of illegal gambling,
which is a crime punishable under Presidential Decree No. 1602, or to refrain from
prosecuting and stopping, illegal gambling (which is the President's duty to do, i.e., to
execute all laws), punishable under paragraph 3 of Article 210 of the Revised Penal
Code.
It must be stressed that dereliction of duty, which is one of the purposes for receiving
the money is punishable under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code:
“ART. 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance. - The penalty of x xx
imposed upon any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of the duties
of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment
of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses."
Further, respondent Estrada, in refraining from prosecuting illegal gambling operators
by virtue of bribes received by him, has violated Presidential Decree No. 1829.
Section 1 of PD 1829 states:
"SECTION.I.The penalty of prision, correccional in its maximum period, or a fine
ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who
knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of
suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any
of the following acts:
X XX
(g) Soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any benefit in consideration of
abstaining from, discontinuing, or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender;
x xx". [Emphasis supplied]
d. It is now beyond cavil that respondent Estrada, as President of the Philippines, has
the sworn duty under the constitution and under his oath of office, to execute all laws,
including the enforcement of PD 1602 and the prosecution of offenders.
Thus, by accepting bribes from illegal gambling, operations, respondent Estrada has
not only refrained from prosecuting operators of illegal gambling and persons who
offer bribes, but also tolerated its continued operations, in violation of Article 208 of
the Revised Penal Code.
7. The same may likewise constitute the crime of indirect bribery under Article 211 of
the Revised Penal Code.
"Art. 211. Indirect bribery. - The penalties of prisioncorrectioncil in its medium and
maximum periods, suspension and public censure shall be imposed upon any public
officer who shall accept gifts offered to him by reason of his office. "
7.1. Thus, even granting that that the various amounts received by respondent
Estrada, were not given for purposes under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code,
respondent Estrada still violated Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code by the mere
act of accepting, said amounts. As President of the Republic and the highest official
of the country, respondent Estrada wields considerable power and influence.
Undeniably, said amounts were given by virtue of his office and could not have been
given absent his official status.
8. Respondent Estrada likewise violated Presidential Decree No. ("PD") 46. Under
PD 46, it is unlawful and punishable for public officials and employees to receive, and
for private persons to give, gifts on any occasion, including Christmas. Thus, it is
unlawful and punishable:
“…for any public official or employee, whether of the national or local governments,
to receive, directly or indirectly, and or private persons to give, or offer to give, any
gift, present or other valuable thing on any occasion, including Christmas, when such
gift, present or other valuable thing is given by reason of his official position,
regardless of whether or not the same is for past favor or favors or the giver hopes or
expects to receive a favor or better treatment in the future from the public official or
employee concerned in the discharge of his official functions. Included with the
prohibition is the throwing of parties or entertainments in honor of the official or
employee or his immediate relatives." (PD 46)
9. Respondent Estrada likewise violated Republic Act No. 6713 ("RA 6713")
otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials.
Section 7 (d) of RA 6713 states:
“(d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. - Public officials and employees shall not solicit
or accept directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything
of monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or in
connection with any operation being regulated by or any transaction which may be
affected by the functions of their office."
9.1.
By accepting bribes and/or other gratuity, consideration or money, respondent
Estrada violated the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials.
9.2. Further, gambling is regulated by the Philippine Amusement and Gaming
Corporation, an entity which is under the Office of the President. Thus, respondent
Estrada accepted gift, gratuity, favor, or anything of monetary value from a person in
connection with an operation being regulated, or a transaction which may be affected
by the functions of his office, in direct violation of RA 6713.
10. From the foregoing, respondent Estrada, in conspiracy with respondents Yolanda
Ricaforte, Edward Serapio, Raul de Guzman, Danilo Reyes, and Mila Reforma
likewise violated RA 7080 punishing the crime of economic plunder.
"SECTION 1.Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the term
X XX
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 the promise of future
employment in any business enterprise o r undertaking;
5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other
combinations andlor 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.
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 or
criminal acts as described in Section 1(d) 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 perpettia 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 decree 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 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."
[Emphasis supplied]
10.1. It is clear from the foregolng that respondent Estrada, acting in conspiracy with
respondents Ricaforte, Serapio, de Guzman, Reyes and Reforma misappropriated,
converted and misused public funds and accumulated ill-gotten wealth in an amount
of more than Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00).
10.2. Thus, respondent Estrada and his co-conspirators (respondents Ricaforte,
Serapio, de Guzman, Reyes, and Reforma) took undue advantage of their position,
connection and influence and unjustly enriched themselves with ill-gotten wealth in
an amount exceeding Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00) to the damage and
prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
10.3. In view of the foregoing, respondent Estrada, in conspiracy with the other
respondents, violated RA 7080 and committed economic plunder.
11. Respondent Estrada may be served with summons and other processes of the
Honorable Ombudsman at Polk Street, Greenhills, Ortigas, San Juan, Metro Manila.
12. Respondent Yolanda Ricaforte may be served with summons and other
processes of the Honorable Ombudsman at No. 25 Freedom Avenue, Area 1,
Veterans Village, Barangay Pasong Tamo, Quezon City.
13. Respondent Edward Serapio may be served with summons and other processes
of the Honorable Ombudsman at 120 Mayon St., Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City.
14. Respondent Raul de Guzman may be served with summons and other processes
of the Honorable Ombudsman at No. 19 Hayes St., North Greenhills, San Juan,
Metro Manila.
15. Respondent Danilo Reyes may be served with summons and other processes of
the Honorable Ombudsman at AA2-104 Hardin ng Rosas, U.P. Diliman Campus,
Quezon City..
16. Respondent Mila Reforma may be served with summons and other processes of
the Honorable Ombudsman at 2866-D. Zamora Street, Pasay City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, We have hereunto affixed our signatures this day of
November 2000 at _________________.
LEONARD DE VERA
ROMEO T. CAPULONG
DENNIS B. FUNA
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______ day of November 2000 at
affiants exhibiting before me their Community Tax Certificates, as follows
Name CTC No. Date/Place Issued
LEONARD DE VERA
ROMEO T. CAPULONG
DENNIS B. FUNA
Doc. No. _________________
Page No. _________________
Book No. _________________
Series of 2000.
WE HEREBY JOIN THE COMPLAINANTS IN THE FOREGOING
Printed Name Signature