DOJ begins preliminary probe of Rabusa's plunder raps vs AFP execs

A Department of Justice panel on Wednesday started the ball rolling in its inquiry into the plunder complaint of retired Army Lt. Col. George Rabusa, a former military budget officer who exposed alleged corruption in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). The 22 respondents, three of whom are former AFP chiefs of staff, did not attend the proceedings and were only represented by their lawyers. The respondents are former AFP chiefs Gen. Diomedio Villanueva, Gen. Roy Cimatu, and Gen. Efren Abu, and former AFP comptrollers Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia and Lt. Gen. Jacinto Ligot. Also impleaded as respondents are Maj. Gen. Hilario Atendido, retired Maj. Gen. Epineto Logico, Brig. Gen. Benito de Leon, Col. Cirilo Donato, Col. Roy Devesa, Maj. Emerson Angulo, retired Maj. Ernesto Paranis, Col. Gilbert Gapay, Col. Robert Arevalo and Capt. Kenneth Paglinawan, North Luzon Command head Lt. Gen. Gaudencio Pangilinan, and retired Maj. Gen. Ernesto Boac. Rabusa also implicated retired and incumbent state auditors from the Commision on Audit. These are Arturo Besana, Crisanto Gabriel, and Manuel Warren, Generoso del Castillo and Divina Cabrera. In his complaint, Rabusa alleged that those he named as respondents are liable for misuse and conversion of some P2.3 billion in military funds from 2000 to 2005. Rabusa said he is confident that his complaint is "airtight" because his allegations are backed by documents and first-hand accounts from his stint as the budget officer in the now-defunct Office of the AFP Comptroller. 10-day period Prosecutor General (formerly chief state prosecutor) Claro Arellano heads the three-member panel handling the preliminary investigation into Rabusa's plunder complaint. A preliminary probe seeks to determine whether there is probable cause that warrants the filing of the appropriate criminal charges before the proper court. Arellano gave the respondents until July 18 to file their respective counter-affidavits. If they would seek extensions, they are given until Friday this week to file a manifestation requesting for more time to file their counter-affidavits. But Wednesday's hearing did not proceed seamlessly. Rabusa's complaint blocked The respondents' lawyers questioned the Department of Justice's jurisdiction on handling the plunder complaint, adding that Rabusa should have filed charges before the Office of the Ombudsman. Lawyers Melvin Mendoza and Floante Legaspi, who represented De Leon, also said the DOJ should not have admitted Rabusa's complaint because he was not able to pay the required filing fees. Lawyer Edgar Avila, representing Arevalo, added that Rabusa should have filed more than P20 million in docket fees. "Complainant (Rabusa) alleges that the amount lost due to plunder was approximately P2.1 billion, more or less. He must beforehand pay docket fees amounting to P2,996,000. Otherwise, the complaint must be dismissed conformably with the Manchester Rule...," said Arevalo's motion to dismiss filed during Wednesday's proceedings. The DOJ panel, however, said the respondents can raise these matters when they file their counter-affidavits or manifestations. For his part, Rabusa's counsel said that they did not have to pay docket fees because the National Prosecution Service's Schedule of Legal Fees does not require payment from those filing plunder complaints. "Cases of estafa, theft, robbery and libel — These are the ones that require filing fees. Plunder is not one of those included in the enumaration. Just like murder, kidnapping, and violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, there is no filing fee for plunder," said lawyer Reynaldo Simpao. — RSJ, GMA News