Plea-bargain agreement

We write to you on behalf of our client Mr. Jose Ma. I. Sarasola II pertinent with People v. Jose Ma. I, Sarasola II. SB-14-CRM-0054-CRM 102.

It was brought to our knowledge that his conviction was published in your news bulletin last 14 August 2017. However, the news article failed to indicate that his conviction was brought about by virtue of a plea-bargain agreement entered into between our client and the Office of the Ombudsman.

Our client firmly believes of his innocence and was willing to go through a full-blown trial.

Nevertheless, he also had to consider the repercussions of going through a full blown-trial which is quite stressful and taxing as a protracted litigation will adversely affect his employment and finances.

Placed in such a predicament, the plea-bargain agreement was therefore a viable option for our client. For this reason, we would like to bring forth the following facts which transpired during the term of Mr. Sarasola II as General Manager of the Philippine National Railways (PNR):

1. The complaint instituted before the Ombudsman in 2005 was filed by two out of two thousand employees. It was only in 2014 or nine years later that suddenly the Ombudsman opted to elevate the case to the Sandiganbayan. Mr. Sarasola II could have opted to claim inordinate delay in the Ombudsman's action in disposing of his case but he chose to fight the case on merit;

2. The PNR was already operating at a considerable loss when Mr. Sarasola II took over as General Manager in 2000. Even prior to his appointment, the PNR was already plagued with problems regarding unpaid wages and benefits including the non-remittance of Government Service Insurance System ("GSIS'') contributions;

3. As regards the unremitted contributions of the PNR to the GSIS, such were already substantial at the time, originating as far back to 18 years, even before Mr. Sarasola II took office as General Manager of the PNR;

4. Consequent thereto, any payment on the monthly contributions to the GSIS accruing at the time Mr. Sarasola II held office would have required the settlement of the arrears that accrued prior to his appointment, because payments made to the

GSIS are applied first to arrears before current contributions. Therefore, it was necessary to settle all the arrears and update the account of the PNR with the GSIS;

5. It was Mr. Sarasola II who was able to secure additional subsidy/funding/budget support from the national government to settle all the arrears and update the record of contributions of PNR to GSIS. Apart from the foregoing, he was also able to secure additional funding to settle PNR's obligations to other government agencies;

6. As a result of the efforts of Mr. Sarasola II, a memorandum of agreement was duly executed between the PNR and GSIS for the settlement of all the arrears in the monthly contributions of PNR to GSIS for all its employees;

7. The signing of the memorandum of agreement was published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer on 7 February 2007, Manila Standard Today on 24 January 2007 and Manila Bulletin on 4 February 2007 (a copies of the news cut-out is attached for your perusa/)/

8. The private complainants in the case already received their benefits from the GSIS after Mr. Sarasola II was able to facilitate the payment of the PNR arrears to GSIS;

The charges brought upon him was therefore due to circumstances that were not of his doing, but unfortunately fell on his shoulders, and in spite of finding the solution for the benefit of the employees of PNR, the GSIS law and its implementing rules and regulations made him, as then president of PNR, responsible for the government's failure to support the PNR. Clearly, the foregoing circumstances belie his conviction, and show that he was a victim of legal circumstance.

We understand that the news article has been published and that the public is already aware of his case. However, we are sending this letter in order to clarify the facts of the case beyond the Letter of the Order promulgated by the Sandiganbayan Second Division.

We hope that the foregoing has shed-light to our client's situation in relation to his conviction of the criminal charges against him and trust that you will take appropriate action that will allow his side to be presented. —