Questions raised on PACC case

PRESIDENTIAL Anti-Corruption Commission (PACC) Commissioner Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica must be sending a message to the Office of the Ombudsman about his clout.

He accused two Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) officials of extortion and bribery. He claimed that an informant told him that the BIR officials asked 12 million for settlement of the taxpayer’s tax liabilities. Operatives from the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) were tapped to carry out the entrapment after which the two suspects were booked and taken to inquest at the Manila Prosecutor’s Office.

But the accuser failed to follow PACCprescribed rules for its operations.

PACC rules call for respondents to a verified complaint to be provided and a copy of the complaint and attached supporting documents. That entails a legitimate complainant must be identified rather than hide under the cloak of anonymity.

The PACC also summons and asks the respondent to answer the complaint within seven days. File six hard copies of the answer plus additional copies to the complainants and co-respondents. Such rule of procedure would disallow a complainant to be incognito.

The Manila City Prosecutor’s Office following inquest procedures virtually castigated the PACC commissioner for his lapses. citing that:”Belgica failed to swear and subscribe before an authorized administering officer his complaint which is part of the record.”

“Witnesses also failed to execute their sworn statements that they indeed participated in the entrapment operation. The arresting officers did not actually see how the direct bribery was consummated.”

The City Prosecutor’s Office noted that “there is no sufficient evidence to substantiate that an agreement between the taxpayer and the two suspects had to perform an act in connection with the performance of their official duties in consideration of a gift of money.”