Arthur “Dodo” Y. Pingoy, Jr. is a known cockfighter too according to search engines especially google search.
– Gameness til the End
Posted on March 03, 2016 08:23:00 PM
By Kathryn Mae P. Tubadeza, Reporter
THE OFFICE of the Ombudsman has affirmed the findings of probable cause to charge five former lawmakers with graft, malversation and direct bribery charges in connection with the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam.
According to a statement on Thursday, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales has ordered the filing of informations before the Sandiganbayan against:
- Former Muntinlupa Rep. Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon,
- Oriental Mindoro Rep. Rodolfo G. Valencia,
- Davao del Sur Rep. Marc C. Douglas Cagas IV,
- Davao del Norte Rep. Arrel R. Olaño, and,
- South Cotabato Rep. Arthur Y. Pingoy, Jr.
The charges are violation of Section 3 (e) of the Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Article 217, Revised Penal Code or Malversation, and Direct Bribery.
The Ombudsman also ordered the filing of charges against officials of the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) including its chairperson Zenaida Ducut, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), Technology Resource Center (TRC), National Business Corporation (NABCOR) and representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) including Janet Lim-Napoles.
The five cases stemmed from separate complaints filed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and lawyer Levito D. Baligod, the Ombudsman said.
“After a considered review of the case records, this Office finds no merit in the motions for reconsideration as the grounds raised do not warrant a reversal or modification of the assailed Resolution,” the Ombudsman said, affirming its resolution in June last year.
The Ombudsman has found that Mr. Biazon anomalously utilized his PDAF in 2007 by endorsing the amount of P3 million to the Philippine Social Foundation, Inc. (PSFI), an NGO associated and controlled by Ms. Napoles.
It also noted that he received the amount of P1.95 million as “rebates” through his agent, Ms. Ducut, a former congresswoman and chairman of the ERC.
Included as co-accused in the malversation and graft charges are: Ms. Ducut; PSFI president Evelyn de Leon; Ms. Napoles; Budget Undersecretary Mario L. Relampagos; former TRC deputy director Dennis L. Cunanan; former TRC director Antonio Y. Ortiz; and several others, the Ombudsman said.
The Ombudsman cited records which showed that the P3 million was covered by a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) issued by the DBM in October 2007 sourced from Mr. Biazon’s PDAF.
Mr. Biazon identified TRC as the implementing agency and PSFI as NGO-partner in a purported project for financial assistance for farm implements, livelihood materials, and training, which turned out to be “ghost” projects since no deliveries were made.
Mr. Valencia in his motion for reconsideration argued that “he is neither the custodian nor controller of the funds, nor the head of the agency who has the power to authorize the payment of PDAF funds.”
Ms. Morales junked the appeal and said “the indictment against them stands.”
“For a finding of probable cause to stand, it suffices that to the prosecutor’s mind, the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged and the respondents are probably guilty,” Ms. Morales said.
The Ombudsman noted that Mr. Valencia’s PDAF from 2007 to 2009 were released by the DBM through three SAROs and facilitated through TRC and NABCOR as Implementing Agencies (IAs), and released to the Masaganang Ani Para sa Magsasaka Foundation Inc. as NGO-partner through several Memoranda of Agreement.
“During his term as congressman, Valencia continuously endorsed the implementation of his PDAF-funded livelihood and agricultural projects through questionable NGOs associated with or controlled by Napoles,” the Ombudsman said, adding that the PDAF was anomalously used for livelihood and agricultural projects, skills training, and distribution of livelihood kits.
“Valencia received total commissions, rebates or kickbacks amounting to at least P2.4 million from his PDAF-funded projects in 2008,” the Ombudsman said.
Meanwhile, Mr. Cagas in his motion for reconsideration insisted that “he could not have misappropriated or consented to the misappropriation of his PDAF inasmuch as he neither had control nor was accountable for the said funds.”
To this, Ms. Morales said the appeal is a “mere rehash of the arguments previously raised by them and already passed upon by this Office.”
“The PDAF of Rep. Cagas IV from 2007 to 2009 amounting to P11 million covered by two SAROs engaged NABCOR and TRC as IAs with People Organization for Progress and Development Foundation, Inc. and Social Development Program for Farmers Foundation, Inc. as NGO-partners in supposedly implementing projects like the distribution of agricultural production and livelihood packages in the form of fertilizers, seeds and sprayers,” the Ombudsman said.
In his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Olaño claimed that “he was not aware that PSDFI and the Countrywide Agri and Rural Economic Development were Napoles-affiliated” and “that there is no evidence of the receipt of kickbacks.”
Ms. Morales said the motion is “pro-forma and deserve scant consideration.”
“Office did not err in basing its finding of probable cause on the complaint as well as the supporting documents,” she added.
The Ombudsman noted that Mr. Olaño’s PDAF totaled to P7.97 million issued through several SAROs and he was found to have received commissions and kickbacks amounting to at least P3.175 million from Ms. Napoles.
Mr. Pingoy has sought dismissal of the charges and argued in his motion that “he was not obliged to validate the existence of the NGOs” and that his “signatures were forged.”
According to the Ombudsman, the charges were based on the illegal fund releases of Mr. Pingoy’s PDAF in the total amount of at least P20.91 million released through several SAROs.
It also found that Mr. Pingoy received commissions and kickbacks in the total amount of P7.05 million from Napoles, through Ms. Ducut.
Ms. Morales also directed that copies of the Resolutions and Orders in the five cases be forwarded to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) for immediate action on possible violations of the Anti-Money Laundering Act.