May 8, 2014 HON. CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES Ombudsman Ombudsman Building Agham Road Diliman Quezon City Dear Ombudsman Morales: I am filing criminal and administrative complaints for Falsification and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practice Act and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials, against officers of the Department of Agriculture, namely: 1. Antonio A. Fleta, Undersecretary for Administration and Finance of the Department of Agriculture; 2. Delia A. Ladera, Supervising Administrative Officer of the Department of Agriculture; 3. Charie Sarah D. Saquing, Department Chief Accountant of the Department of Agriculture; 4. Telma C. Tolentino, Officer-in-Charge, Budget Division of the Department of Agriculture. All respondents are with address c/o Department of Agriculture, Elliptical Road, Diliman Quezon City 1100. Please find enclosed my Complaint-Affidavit, together with the attached documents supporting my charges. Pending investigation, I ask that the respondents be preventively suspended as their continued stay in office may prejudice the just, fair and independent disposition of the cases against them. Thank you. Very truly yours,
Aquilino Martin L. Pimentel III Complainant
Republic of the Philippines Quezon City, Metro Manila
) ) s.s.
Case No. 1C-0C-14-05-05
AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT I, AQUILINO MARTIN L. PIMENTEL III, Filipino,of legal age, with office address at The Philippine Senate, Fifth Floor GSIS Bldg., Pasay City, after having been sworn in accordance with law, state: 1. I am filing this criminal and administrative complaint for Falsification of a document under Article 171 paragraphs 1, 2 and 4, and the crime of Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code,for violations of Republic Act No. 3019, known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and Republic Act No. 6713 known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials against Antonio A. Fleta, Undersecretary for Administration and Finance of the Department of Agriculture; Delia A. Ladera, Supervising Administrative Officer of the Department of Agriculture; Charie Sarah D. Saquing, Department Chief Accountant of the Department of Agriculture; Telma C. Tolentino, Officer-in-Charge, Budget Division of the Department of Agriculture; all respondents are with address c/o Department of Agriculture, Elliptical Road, Diliman Quezon City 1100. 2.
Specifically, the different charges / felony counts are the following: A.
Article 171, Paragraph 1: Forging my signature.
B. Article 171, Paragraph 2: Making it appear that I participated in an act i.e. requesting the release of Php30 million for the Agro Industrial Enhancement through organic farming, as well as choosing/identifying Surigao del Sur as the beneficiary of P10,000,000.00 for organic farming related activities, when in fact I did not perform any of such acts. C. Article 171, Paragraph 4: Untruthful narration of facts when respondent Antonio A. Fleta falsely narrated that the release of Ten million pesos was pursuant to a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) when in fact there was no SARO, as respondent himself admits. D. Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019: Causing undue injury to the government and the people when Ten Million Pesos of appropriated funds were released for a different purpose pursuant to a fake Senate letter. E. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6713: Conduct in violation of the requirements of conduct for public officials under the said provision. 3. This criminal and administrative complaint for Falsification of a Public Document and the crime of Other Deceits, the Anti-graft Law, and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials, is filed against the respondents, who, in order to defraud, damage and prejudice the government 2
and the Filipino people, falsified a letter of the office of a Philippine Senator without any authority, by forging or imitating my signature, and causing it to appear that I, as an incumbent senator, participated in an act or proceeding when I did not in fact so participate, and gave a false narration of facts. 4. The falsification of my signature in a falsified letter made to appear as having originated from my office, became the basis for the unlawful disbursement of government funds, amounting to at least TEN MILLION PESOS (P10,000,000.00) from the general appropriations fund purportedly for marginal farm families. 5.
The truth is that I wrote no such letter.
Antecedents 6. Last September 24, 2013, during a bicameral conference meeting of the Senate and the House of Representatives where I was a member, I was told by Kabataan Party List Representative Terry Ridon that he saw during a hearing of the House of Representatives on the Department of Agriculture’s budget, a Memorandum of Agreement (hereinafter, MoA) between the Department of Agriculture and my Senate office. 7. I answered Representative Ridon that neither I nor my Senate office entered into any MoA with the Department of Agriculture. 8. Nonetheless, I was able to get hold of a copy of the said document which turned out to be not a MoA between my Senate office and the Department of Agriculture, but a MoA between the Department of Agriculture and the Province of Surigao del Sur dated November 20, 2012, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “A”. 9. The said MoA was signed by respondent Antonio A. Fleta, as Undersecretary for Admin and Finance of the Department of Agriculture, and Johnny T. Pimentel, Governor of Surigao Del Sur. 10. In one of the “whereas” paragraphs of the said MoA, it mentioned that my Senate office was allocated funds amounting to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00). 11. In another “whereas” paragraph of the same MoA, it stated that my Senate Office has identified the Province of Surigao del Sur as the recipient of the funds amounting to P10 Million. 12. I was thus prompted to verify how--- based on the MoA--- it was made to appear that I participated in an act or proceeding in: a.) requesting the Department of Agriculture the release of THIRTY MILLION PESOS (P30,000,000.00); and b) choosing/identifying Surigao del Sur as beneficiary of P10,000,000.00 for organic farming related activities. 13. The truth is, I never participated in any such act or proceeding or transaction.
3
14. On September 26, 2013, I instructed my Deputy Chief-of-Staff to write DA Undersecretary Antonio A. Fleta seeking information and answers on why it was made to appear that I participated in the above mentioned acts or proceeding. A copy of my Deputy Chief-of-Staff’s letter to DA Undersecretary Antonio A. Fleta is hereto attached as Annex “B”. 15. On October 1, 2013, the respondent Antonio A. Fleta replied to the September 26, 2013 letter by writing a letter, a copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “C”. 16. In his reply letter, respondent Antonio A. Fleta attributed to a purported written request dated October 22, 2012, by Surigao del Sur Governor Johnny T. Pimentel addressed to me for an allocation of P10,000,000.00. A copy of this purported letter is hereto attached as Annex “D”. 17. According to the respondent Antonio A. Fleta, after the purported letter request by Governor Johnny Pimentel, I allegedly wrote a letter, dated October 29, 2012, to Secretary Proceso J. Alcala “requesting the release of Php30 million for the Agro Industrial Enhancement through organic farming for high value crops to be implemented and closely monitored” by provincial governments including that of Surigao del Sur in the amount of P10,000,000.00. A copy of this supposed letter is hereto attached as Annex “E”. This is a fake letter. 18. Despite demand, the Department of Agriculture has refused/failed to produce the “original” of this fake letter. Liable for forging / imitating my signature Art. 171, Paragraph 1 19. I DENY writing, signing or sending this letter (See Annex “E”). The letter is falsified. It is a fake. The signature in the letter is a forgery, an imitation. The letterhead is not the letterhead of the official stationery of my office. 20. I have engaged the services of a handwriting expert to prove I did not sign this falsified letter that has been attributed to me. A copy of the report of the handwriting expert is hereto attached as Annex “F”. 21. The dubious circumstances surrounding the anomalous release of P10,000,000.00 in favor of Surigao del Sur clearly show that respondent Antonio A. Fleta either falsified the subject forged letter, or caused the falsification thereof, and used the same, as narrated in the following paragraphs. 22. In the investigation of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, a witness invited by the Senate Committee, Benhur Luy, who is one of the whistleblowers of an alleged syndicate led by Janet Lim Napoles operating in the Department of Agriculture, testified and confirmed that the execution of the subject MoA (Annex “A”) was done in the office of respondent Antonio A. Fleta. 23. Benhur Luy, under oath, confirmed this elaborate scheme of using supposed letters of legislators as part of the modus operandi to illegally release and disburse government funds, involving respondent Undersecretary Fleta and Janet Lim Napoles, as can be read in Benhur Luy’s testimony before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, to wit: 4
“THE CHAIRMAN. Nabanggit din ni Senator Pimentel iyong pangalan niya. MR. B. LUY.Iyong memorandum of agreement na iyan prinepare (prepare) iyan sa office ni Usec Fleta. And that time, ang kausap po ni Ms. Napoles was Ophelia Agawin. From there, kaya po iyan ginawa po iyong memorandum of agreement na may naka allocate po, dahil po may letter request. Binasehan nila na may letter request kaya po napasama po iyong pangalan po ng senador. Tapos, may kausap din—kasi po from there, chinarge (charge) po talaga iyan sa organic fund. May SARO number iyan basehan sila. Tapos ang nangyari po niyan, si Ms. Napoles may kausap na-hindi ko lang ho nabasa talaga kung iyan ay governor, in-address posa governor’s office, was it in the governor’s office. In-address po iyan doon. So from DA pondo, idineretso po from the provincial capitol. Hindi ko alam kung iyong MOA na iyan ay naka-address-MOA between the DA and the provincial capitol. Now, from the provincial capitol, doon po sumulat po si—doon po siningil po ni Ms. Napoles. And I remember that foundation na ginamit sa governor’s office was the Agri and Economic Program for Farmers Foundation. Hindi ko lang sure kasi that time medyo nagka-clash na kami ni Ms. Napoles.” (See Page 82, TSN dated September 26, 2013 of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing, Annex “G”). 24. Respondent Antonio A. Fleta signed the MoA in behalf of the Department of Agriculture dated November 20, 2012 (Annex “A”). 25. Respondent Antonio A. Fleta himself in the subject MoA falsely attributed to a so-called Special Allotment Release Order “S.A.R.O.”whereby I was supposedly “allocated funds amounting to TEN MILLION PESOS (P10,000,000.00)” 26. Later, respondent Antonio A. Fleta backtracked, and took back his own sworn allegations, and claimed that “no S.A.R.O. is involved.” (See Annex “C”) 27. Respondent Antonio A. Fleta himself made it appear in the same MoA that I purportedly requested the release of Ten Million Pesos and identified Surigao del Sur as recipient. 28. Respondent Antonio A. Fleta, therefore, had in his possession and used the bogus, falsified letter subject of this complaint (which incidentally, is not even addressed to Fleta, but to DA Secretary Alcala). 29. Respondent Fleta’s possession of such falsified Senate letter is the only way he could have referred and mentioned it in the MoA that respondent Fleta himself signed. 30. It was again respondent Antonio A. Fleta who signed an “Obligation Request” for the release of P10,000,000.00 in favor of the Province of Surigao del Sur on November 27, 2012. Co-respondent Telma C. Tolentino, OIC of the Budget Division likewise certified the said “Obligation Request.” A copy of the Obligation Request is hereto attached as Annex “H”. 5
31. Co-respondent Telma C. Tolentino is liable for issuing such certification. She was aware of the MoA narrating that the release of such funds was pursuant to a Special Allotment Release Order, and yet there was really no S.A.R.O. involved. 32. Before certifying, co-respondent Telma C. Tolentino, after reading the MoA referring to a so-called S.A.R.O., should have demanded for the production and inspection of the S.A.R.O. as a pre-condition for her certification. Had she done this, she would have discovered there was actually no S.A.R.O. In the absence of the S.A.R.O., co-respondent Telma C. Tolentino had no basis to issue a certification for the Obligation Request. 33. Respondent Antonio A. Fleta in the same “Obligation Request” certified the said request stating that charges to the appropriation/allotment are “necessary, lawful, and under my direct supervision.” 34. Respondent Fleta also certified that the supporting documents are “valid, proper and legal” in the “Obligation Request.” 35. On November 28, 2012, respondent Antonio A. Fleta signed and approved the disbursement voucher for the release of P10,000,000.00 for Surigao del Sur, which was co-signed by co-respondent Charie Sarah D. Saquing, Chief Accountant of the Department of Agriculture, who falsely certified that the supporting documents are “complete and proper”. A copy of the disbursement voucher is hereto attached as Annex “I”. 36. Co-respondent Sarah D. Saquing is liable for issuing such false certification when she was aware of the MoA narrating that the release of such funds was pursuant to a Special Allotment Release Order (S.A.R.O.), and yet there was really no S.A.R.O. involved, as respondent Antonio A. Fleta had admitted. 37. Before certifying, co-respondent Sarah D. Saquing, after reading the MoA referring to a so-called S.A.R.O., should have demanded the production of the supposed S.A.R.O. itself for her personal perusal and inspection, as a precondition for her certification. 38. Had she done this, she would have discovered there was actually no S.A.R.O. 39. In the absence of such S.A.R.O., co-respondent Sarah D. Saquing would have no basis to issue a certification that the documents are “complete and proper”, for truly, the documents were neither complete, nor proper. 40. On November 29, 2012, it was respondent Antonio A. Fleta who signed and issued a Land Bank of the Philippines check No. 0000707537 in the amount of P9,606,990.90 payable to the Provincial Government of Surigao del Sur. Co-signing the check was co-respondent Delia A. Ladera, Supervising Administrative Officer of the Department of Agriculture. A copy of the check is hereto attached as Annex “J”. 41. Like her co-respondents, respondent Delia A. Ladera is liable for the issuance of the check because she knew there was no legal basis to release the said amount. 6
42. While the MoA referred to a S.A.R.O. as basis for the release, there was actually no S.A.R.O. involved, as her co-signatory and co-respondent Antonio A. Fleta had admitted. 43. This should have served as a red flag. Respondent Delia A. Ladera should have demanded that the co-called S.A.R.O. be produced, before signing the check for the release of the funds. 44. Failing to do so, co-respondent Delia A. Ladera is liable together with the other co-respondents. 45. The above circumstances show how a falsified letter attributed to me, has been made the basis for the illegal release of P10,000,000.00. 46. The foregoing circumstances establish that respondent Antonio A. Fleta who was in possession of, and who had used, and referred to a falsified document, is the forger or caused the forgery and, therefore, is liable for falsification. Jurisprudence states that possession and use of a forged/falsified document raises the presumption that the possessor is the author of the forgery/falsification (Serrano vs. Court of Appeals, 404 SCRA 639, 651 [2003]), citing Koh Tieck Heng vs. People, 192 SCRA 533, 546-547 [1990].) Causing it to appear I participated in an act Art. 171 paragraph 2 47. Respondent Antonio A. Fleta caused it to appear that I was a participant in the proceeding or transaction when he imputed: “In a letter dated 29 October 2012 (Annex 2) the good senator sent a letter to DA Secretary Proceso J. Alcala requesting the release of Php30 million for the Agro Industrial Enhancement through organic farming for high value crops…” (See Annex “C”) 48. Even in the disbursement voucher (Annex “I”) signed by Respondent Antonio A. Fleta, it was made to appear that the source of the disbursement of P10,000,000.00 was an allocation of funds attributed to me, stated as follows: “Payment of allocated funds of Senator Aquilino “KOKO” L. Pimentel III was allocated funds for micro entrepreneurs and small farmers to implement organic farm projects”. 49. In the MoA (Annex “A”) signed by respondent Antonio A. Fleta, he falsely caused it to appear that I “identified the Province of Surigao del Sur as the recipient of financial assistance for micro entrepreneurs and small farmers to implement organic farming projects.” 50. Respondent Antonio A. Fleta took undue advantage of his position as Undersecretary of Admin and Finance, acted on said bogus, falsified letter, triggering a process, including his signing of a MoA, and issuance of a check amounting to P10,000,000.00 that ultimately led to the illegal release of millions of pesos of public funds to the prejudice of the government.
7
Untruthful Narrations Art. 171 par. 4 51. The respondent is also liable for Falsification for making untruthful narration of facts. 52. In his response to my letter of inquiry (Annex “B”), respondent Antonio A. Fleta narrated that the release of the P10,000,000.00 for the Province of Surigao del Sur did not involve a Special Allotment Release Order or S.A.R.O. The respondent stated in his letter that “No SARO is involved.” 53. Yet respondent Fleta, in a previous sworn statement spoke and narrated a completely different tale, i.e. that the release of the said funds involved a S.A.R.O. Respondent himself affirmed under oath in the memorandum of agreement (Annex “A”), stating: “WHEREAS, the D.A. is in receipt of a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) No. ABM BMB E-12-0001306 dated January 2, 2012 in the amount of TEN MILLION PESOS (P 10,000,000.00) chargeable against the Organic Agriculture Fund to finance microenterprises and small farmers in the implementation thru Organic Farm Projects; WHEREAS, the Office of the Aquilino “KOKO” L. Pimentel III was allocated funds amounting to TEN MILLION PESOS (P10,000,000.00) as per afore cited SARO to support livelihood projects in the Province of Surigao del Sur; x x x” 54. In fact, this supposed S.A.R.O. No. “ABM BMB E-12-0001306” dated January 2, 2012 is indicated in the Obligation Request (Annex “H”), also signed and certified by respondent Fleta himself. 55. Clearly, Respondent Antonio A. Fleta is liable for making untruthful narration of facts. 56. He narrated in the MoA that the release of Ten Million Pesos was by virtue of a S.A.R.O., even indicating therein a series of alpha-numeric figures to evoke a semblance of legitimacy, and the existence of a S.A.R.O. 57. Yet, in truth, as respondent Antonio A. Fleta himself was aware from the beginning, there was no S.A.R.O. issued authorizing the release of the subject funds. 58. Eventually, respondent Antonio A. Fleta, upon inquiry by the undersigned, admitted his untruthful narrations, when he said that, there was “no S.A.R.O. involved” in authorizing the release of the Ten Million Pesos. 59. Respondent is liable for making untruthful narration of facts, when in compliance with his legal obligation 1 to answer, respond and disclose the 1
Republic Act No. 6713 otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials states in Section 5: Duties of Public Officials and Employees. - In the performance of their duties,
8
nature of the release of public funds after being formally inquired, respondent made contradictory and false narration of facts, punishable under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code. Violation of the Anti-Graft Law 60. The respondents, in participating in the falsification and use of falsified or false documents, caused the illegal disbursement of public funds and should therefore be held liable for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act which provides: (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 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.
61. Such acts of the respondents were committed in bad faith, or at the very least, constitute gross inexcusable negligence, causing injury to the government, warranting their criminal prosecution under Republic Act No. 3019. 62.
Funds appropriated are for a specific purpose.
63. Yet Ten Million Pesos was illegally diverted, on the basis of a falsified/forged Senate letter, attributed as the source of the illegal diversion. 64. Damage was wrought upon the real intended recipients or beneficiaries of the said appropriation.
Preventive suspension 65. The Office of the Ombudsman is clothed with authority to issue a preventive suspension against herein respondents. 66. Section 9 of Administrative Order No. 7, of the rules of procedure in the Office of the Ombudsman provides: Section 9. Preventive suspension. – Pending investigation, the respondent may be preventively suspended without pay if, in the judgment of the Ombudsman or his proper deputy, the evidence of guilt is strong and (a) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or gross misconduct, or gross neglect in the performance of duty; or (b) the charge would warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondent’s continued stay in office may prejudice the just, fair and independent disposition of the case against him. all public officials and employees are under obligation to: (a) Act promptly on letters and requests.
9
67. As a result of respondents’ criminal acts of executing a public document where respondents caused it to appear that I, an incumbent Senator of the Republic of the Philippines, participated in an official act or proceeding when in truth I did not, and in making a false narration facts, the respondents, acting together were able to cause the illegal release of public funds, to the prejudice of the government and the Filipino people. Respondents should also be held liable under Republic Act No. 6713 68. Respondents should be held liable for acts which are contrary to law, and immoral, rendering them unworthy of the offices that they hold. 69. These acts are contrary to law, namely, the Revised Penal Code, and the Anti-Graft Law under R.A. 3019, and Code and Norms of Conduct and Ethical Standard for Public Officials under Republic Act 6713. 70. For violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials, respondents should be held liable criminally. 71.
Section 4 of R.A. 6713 provides:
Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. - (A) Every public official and employee shall observe the following as standards of personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties: (a) Commitment to public interest. - Public officials and employees shall always uphold the public interest over and above personal interest. All government resources and powers of their respective offices must be employed and used efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public funds and revenues. (b) Professionalism. - Public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to duty. They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage. (c) Justness and sincerity. - Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest. 72. For violation of the above-cited provisions of Republic Act No. 6713, respondents should be punished in accordance with Section 11 of the same law, which lists the penalties thereon:
10
Section 11. Penalties. - (a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual, temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity, committing any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the violation is punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office. (b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him. (c) Private individuals who participate in conspiracy as coprincipals, accomplices or accessories, with public officials or employees, in violation of this Act, shall be subject to the same penal liabilities as the public officials or employees and shall be tried jointly with them. (d) The official or employee concerned may bring an action against any person who obtains or uses a report for any purpose prohibited by Section 8 (D) of this Act. The Court in which such action is brought may assess against such person a penalty in any amount not to exceed twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000). If another sanction hereunder or under any other law is heavier, the latter shall apply. Respondents should also be held administratively liable 73. Based on the acts committed by the respondents, it is abundantly clear that they should likewise be held administratively liable for gross misconduct and dishonesty in the performance of their public functions. Conclusion 74. Respondents have committed acts contrary to law, specifically the Revised Penal Code, and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 75. Respondents have committed acts of dishonesty when they falsely issued certifications, entered into a MoA based on a falsified letter, and narrated in the MoA that the release of Ten Million Pesos was pursuant to a S.A.R.O. when in fact, there was no such S.A.R.O. as respondent Antonio A. Fleta himself subsequently admitted.
11
76. Worse, the respondents performed acts leading to the illegal diversion and release of public funds, with the knowledge that such release was not supported by any S.A.R.O. 77. Such acts also make respondents administratively liable for grave misconduct. 78. I am executing this Affidavit-Complaint to attest to the truth of the foregoing and to initiate a Joint Criminal and Administrative Complaint for Falsification of a Document under Article 171 paragraphs 1, 2 and 4, and the crime of Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code and for violations of Republic Act No. 3019, known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and Republic Act No. 6713, known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials, against the above named respondents. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand on this 13th day of May 2014.
AQUILINO MARTIN L. PIMENTEL III Complainant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on this ______ day of May 2014 in the Quezon City, Philippines. I hereby certify that I have personally examined the affiant and I am fully satisfied that he voluntarily executed and understood the sworn affidavit.
_____________________________ Special Prosecutor
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION I, AQUILINO MARTIN L. PIMENTEL III, Filipino, of legal age, with address at Room 512 Philippine Senate, GSIS Building, Pasay City, after being sworn to in accordance with law, depose and say that: 12
1.
I am the complainant in the above-entitled complaint.
2. I have read and reviewed the complaint and the facts/allegations are true and correct based on my personal knowledge and authentic records; 3. I have not commenced any other action or filed any other claim involving the same issues in any other court, whether in the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals, any tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and to the best of our knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending; and if I should learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending after its filing, I shall report that fact within five (5) days from notice to the court or where the complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. In witness hereof, I affix my hand this 13th day of May 2014 at Quezon City, Philippines. AQUILINO MARTIN L. PIMENTEL III Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this _____ day of May 2014, affiant known personally to the notary public and exhibiting to me his competent evidence of identity, his T.I.N. with No. 132-681-291. Doc. No. ____; Page No. ____; Book No. ____; Series of 2014.
_____________________________ Notary Public
13