Cebu NBI head Oliva lies to push Frasco’s libel suit
THE head of the National Bureau of Investigation’s (NBI) Cebu office, Rennan Oliva, seems to be so intent on jailing me for the ridiculous cyber libel charges against me filed by Cebu 5th District Rep. Duke Frasco. He went to the extent of lying twice in his recommendation to the provincial prosecutor to charge me in court.
Hasn’t he heard that Cebu Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia, Frasco’s mother-in-law, was defeated in the recent elections by a new politician backed by former president Rodrigo Duterte, ending the Garcias’ three decades in power?
First, in his memorandum dated April 24 to the provincial prosecutor, Oliva wrote: “On April 4, 2025, a subpoena was issued by NBI-NCR Regional Director Ferdinand Lavin compelling Rigoberto Tiglao to appear and give his evidence in the investigation being conducted by NBI Cebu. On his appearance last April 8, 2025, Tiglao was informed and briefed of the nature of the complaint against him.”
Oliva is lying. The agent who met with me, Francis Senora, who was with the Cebu office’s Cybercrime Division, said the only reason I was summoned to the NBI office was to inform me that “there were these charges” against me. He didn’t explain what these charges were.
Can I have a copy of Frasco’s complaint? I asked. No, Senora said, even if the 4-inch-thick complaint was prominently on his desk. I started to debunk Frasco’s accusations. Senora stopped me, saying the meeting was not for the purpose of getting my side, or for me to give evidence to defend myself. I was surprised as that contradicted the subpoena’s “command” for me “to appear at the NBI office and give my evidence” on the Frasco complaint.
Complaint
Oliva is therefore lying when he claimed that I “was informed and briefed of the nature of the complaint” against me. Other than that, there was a complaint by Frasco, I wasn’t briefed on its nature at all. Oliva repeated this lie in his press statements where he said: “Tiglao was summoned to appear before the NBI-National Capital Region [and] failed to present any evidence to substantiate his claims.”
Senora’ sworn affidavit itself confirms this. All he reported there was that he verified that the alleged libelous statements were posted on the internet. He didn’t even report that I had met with him to comply with the NBI subpoena, and for him to inform and brief me on the nature of the complaint.
Oliva’s lie, of course, was intended to falsely inform the provincial prosecutor that I was given the chance to present my side but failed to convince him of my innocence of the charges, so the prosecutor should now forward the complaint to the court.
The second of Oliva’s lies: Both Senora in his affidavit and his boss in his memorandum to the provincial prosecutor lied — an instance of perjury — when they wrote: “[Tiglao’s] article falsely attributed to Frasco the statement, ‘Yes, I was bribed to vote against the vice president, but I did it for you, dear constituents.'”
They are lying in order to convince the Cebu prosecutor to charge me in court. I didn’t write that. What I wrote in my article was: “In effect, Frasco was bribed by the House leadership for accepting benefits he used or will use for his constituents in exchange for his vote to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte.”
Critical
The phrase in effect is critical since I was qualifying — when I wrote that piece — that I was not accusing Frasco of direct bribery but that his acceptance of the promised benefits if he voted against Sara is, in effect, practically a bribe.
After doing research, however, I’m no longer raising that defense that I didn’t commit libel. A number of Supreme Court rulings have ruled that benefits received by a government official in exchange for his official actions is an instance of bribery, no matter what the proceeds are used for.
Frasco was promised by the House leadership benefits for his district in exchange for his intervention, i.e., voting to impeach Sara Duterte. He doesn’t deny this. He should be charged for bribery under our Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practice Act. The evidence is his own taped admission.
Frasco appears to be ignorant of the fact that bribery is still bribery, punishable for at least six years in prison even if the proceeds are used to benefit others. The Supreme Court has ruled so in several cases. Frasco’s ignorance is emphasized by the fact that several such cases were high-profile ones.
Plunder
In the celebrated case of the Armed Forces comptroller, former general Carlos Garcia, he was charged in 2006 with plunder and violations of the anti-graft law for allegedly receiving bribes related to military contracts. Garcia’s defense claimed that some of the funds were used for charitable purposes and to support subordinates, claiming a lack of personal enrichment. The Supreme Court upheld the charges, ruling that the act of receiving bribes in connection with official duties constitutes corruption, regardless of how the proceeds were later distributed.
The court clarified that the law does not require personal gain as an element of the crime — merely requesting or receiving a benefit to influence an official act is sufficient.
Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s campaign manager in the recent elections, Navotas Rep. Tobias Tiangco, in several TV interviews confirmed claims — and those made by other congressmen who refused the bribery attempt — that the House leadership promised huge amounts to the districts of representatives who would vote for the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte. These amounts were in the form of the P26-billion dole outs to the poor such as the Ayuda Para sa Kapos Ang Kita Program and small infrastructure projects.
Tiangco, however, revealed an interesting, important twist in this account. The House gang led by the Speaker that pushed for the impeachment actually did so not because of a clamor for Sara’s impeachment. They told the President that that P26-billion dole outs and other appropriations which the President had vetoed had to be released as the congressmen who wanted Sara impeached were demanding this. It turns out that Sara’s impeachment was actually just an excuse for them to pressure Marcos to release these budget items he had not wanted?
I wrote in my Feb. 14 column that among the 239 representatives who voted for Sara’s impeachment, only Frasco and he alone was naïve — or stupid — enough to have admitted this, although he did it “for the sake of [his] constituents.” One of Frasco’s clearly incriminating statements: If I do not side with the majority in Congress, some projects might not receive support. “Where will my projects go?” Is it libel for me to merely repeat what Frasco said?
Frasco was obviously ignorant of several Supreme Court cases that ruled bribery is bribery even if the proceeds are used for Mother Teresa’s charity projects.
For readers who missed it, the following are the main self-incriminating statements made in Frasco’ speech, which were videotaped, with the video itself and transcript at: https://ift.tt/zXdwgtx.
“The number one reason I signed the impeachment complaint is because of our programs, projects and developments here in my district. I want to ensure our programs and projects here continue. Heaven forbid, but what if all of them are stopped? The programs and projects will not continue. If I do not side with the majority in Congress, some projects might not receive support. Where will my projects go? Will I still be able to provide assistance to our fishermen? There are 16 scholars in my district, 16 scholars who are hoping to receive support from the government so they can finish their education. Support for solo parents, persons with disabilities, vendors, drivers, barangay security officers. University projects for all, the Liloan hospital, the government center and the airport.”
Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao
Twitter: @bobitiglao
Archives: www.rigobertotiglao.com
Book orders: www.rigobertotiglao.com/shop
The post Cebu NBI head Oliva lies to push Frasco’s libel suit first appeared on Rigoberto Tiglao.
Cebu NBI head Oliva lies to push Frasco’s libel suit
Source: Breaking News PH
No comments: