Ombudsman to pursue case vs Verzosa, 7 others over rubber boat scam



Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales on Monday gave the green light to pursue the graft case against retired Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief Jesus Verzosa and seven others before the Sandiganbayan in connection with the questionable purchase of 75 defective police rubber boats in 2008.

In a 34-page Order dated Feb. 12 but was released Monday, Morales denied the motions for reconsideration filed by Verzosa, Police Deputy Director General Jefferson Soriano, Police Director Luizo Ticman, Director Romeo Hilomen, Chief Superintendent Herold Ubalde, Deputy Director General Benjamin Belarmino, Jr., and Chief Superintendent Villamor Bumanglag.

Morales affirmed the Sept. 26, 2012 ruling finding probable cause against the seven and Police Director Ronald Roderos to indict them for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The Ombudsman said the arguments raised by the police officials “are a mere rehash of their  initial arguments set forth in their counter-affidavits which we already considered, weighed and resolved before we rendered the resolution sought to be considered.”

In the Ombudsman’s 109-page resolution dated Sept. 26, Morales affirmed the findings and recommendation of the Panel of Investigators that the government suffered undue injury worth P131.550 million due to the irregular purchase of the rubber boats.

The procurement of the 75 police rubber boats (PRB) and 18 spare engines or outboard motors (OBM) was part of the PNPs Annual Procurement Plan for 2008 under its Capability Enhancement Program Funds.

Three proponents participated in the bidding, only the Joint Venture of Enviro-Aire and Stoneworks Specialist International Corporation passed the eligibility and was set for post-qualification when typhoon struck the country. The PNP cancelled the bidding and opted to a negotiated procurement to make the process faster due to the destruction brought about by typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng.

But the PRBs and the OBMs were never used for its rescue operations because it still took roughly six months before the boats were delivered to the PNP.

Records disclosed that the PNP entered into four separate supply contracts all dated December 18, 2009 with the following suppliers: (a) EnviroAire for the supply of 93 units of OBMs with contract price of P44,175,000; (b) EnviroAire for the supply of 10 units of PRB with contract price of P11,650,000; (c) Geneve for the supply of 41 units of PRB with contract price of P47,765,000; and (d) Bay Industrial for the supply of 10 units of PRB with contract price of P11,650,000.

Upon delivery of the initial batch of PRBs and OBMs, the PNP Maritime Group through its Technical Inspection Committee on Watercrafts (MG-TICW) “discovered various deficiencies in these equipment, which make their use risky to end-users,” and that the boats and engines were not functional when fitted together, thus, unusable for PNP’s disaster operation efforts.

The late Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo ordered the investigation into the alleged overpriced procurement of PRBs and OBMs that led to the eventual filing of a letter complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman.

Get Inquirer updates while on the go, add us on these apps:

Inquirer Viber

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • ztefertilizerscam10

    Jose Miguel LOLONG Arroyo owned helicopters 

    five helicopters—all Robinson R44 Raven 
    with Series Nos. 1370 to 1374
    A total of $1,423,025 was paid to Lionair 

    • leomar101

       Hibang iyon lang ang alam mo. Itanong mo rin ang  8 helicopter na binili ngayon for 2,857,684,18 billions. which means  bawat helicopter ay 357,233, 01 millions. hahaha. O di nabulag ka sa presyo na yan. May umangal ba na dilaw kagaya mo ? wala. bwahahaha.

      • ewankosayo

         details naman jan….sinong bumili? san ginamit? sinong nakinabang? sinong yumaman?..etc..etc…etc…

      • leomar101

         Itanong mo na lang kay  con-cheat  morales at sirana sa SC. sigurado alam nila yan. ang mga details ay kay trillantes na may millions na travel allowance na nakuha sa senado kahit naka kulong siya. Para lubos lubos na rin lang ay itanong mo rin kay palaca na at neric acosta. Yan ang mga yan ay malinis at nasa tuwad na daan. bwahahaha.

      • mave

        tama lang presyo na yan bago pa, ung kay GMA luma na second hand pa.

      • tohellwithhypocrites

        leomar101, tumayo ka nga dyan at linisin mo yung kotse ko at may lakad pa ako…

      • leomar101

         Ikaw ang mag linis sa aking “porsche” na binili ko sa  pera na sobra  ng mga election campaign donors. loko loko. kayo ang mga hypocrites na nagkunwari na malinis na raw ang gobyerno ngayon. bwahahaha.

      • Observer_din

        baka naman mga bago ang binili,saka pang military talaga.. di ko alam specs pero baka pwede mo kami bigyan ng specs, para makumpara natin sa ibenenta ni FG(Filthy Greedy)Mike A(DO)RROVO?.. hehehe

  • JasonBieber

    Sometimes it’s hard not to wonder regarding the credibility of the Ombudsman.

    They file cases based on personal reasons not on facts and evidences. Even if their investigators find no evidence of a particular wrong-doing they will still force a case through because they feel like it and because the person being accused is a person disliked by them.

    The above is reference to the PCSO plunder case against GMA that has no evidence of plunder.

  • Guest

    Ombudsman Morales must be commended for getting to the bottom of the rubberboat scam. But she should not forget other high profile cases or she will be perceived as being selective and prosecuting the perceived enemies of Pnoy only.

    Here are a few references to help Ombdusman Morales:

    01. Rice Smuggling by former NFA Chief Lito Banayo (a PNoy appointee)


    02. Misuse of Pagcor car and resources by Pagcor Chief Bong Naguiat, a member of PNoy’s KKK. Naguiat is also instrumental in asking for Casinos to be exempted from the newly fortified and tougher ant-money laundering law.


    03. Miro Quimbo’s involvement in Globe Asiatique Scam which DOJ forwarded to the Ombudsman’s office since 2011.




    • Tristanism

      “Misuse of Pagcor car” — Napabalikwas naman ako dun. Wala bang ibang kaso? I’m not saying it’s right to use government cars in private affairs, pero parang sobrang butingting na yan a.

      • Guest

        I don’t think you went through the reference materials I provided above. Kung nakita nyo yung video sa youtube, pinagagamit sa mga anak yung sasakyan ng Pagcor at driver ng Pagcor. Umamin din ang driver at secretary ng Pagcor na araw-araw ginagamit ang sasakyan mon to fri para sa eskwela ng mga anak. Btw, may kawani na po ng gobyerno ang natanggal dahil sa misuse of gov’t cars.

        In case you forgot, this is on top of receiving bribes from casino moguls in Macau in the form of lavish accommodation, perks, signature bag and big fat pocket money. Mr. Naguiat and his entire family taking it all in. In style. In Macau.

        I don’t think you can say Naguiat is above reproach. Not at all.

      • Tristanism

        I did not say Mr. Naguiat is beyong reproach. All I’m saying is you’re nitpicking — not necessarily wrong really.

        Now in the report it was stated that Wynn Resorts, through Okada, invited Naguiat his family and other PAGCOR officials to stay at Wynn Macau. A handbag was left at their room, but Naguiat had it returned. All in all, it cost Wynn Resorts $110,000 to accommodate Naquiat and company.

        When Naguiat said it was common practice in the casino industry, I believe him. Walang alegasyon ng pagbibigay ng direkta ng pera ke Naguiat. Yung ilang daang libong dolyares na nakasaad sa report ng Wynn Casino ay napatunayang hindi naman sa grupo ng PAGCOR naibigay. The fact that he had the expensive handbag returned tells me that this guy, while not above reproach, is not a crook.

        Walang panunuhol na naganap. It was a business visit spun differently by Okada’s business enemy. I wouldn’t really cross Naguiat off my “okay” list just yet.

        Yung ibang binanggit mo na mga personalities, go lang nang go. Isama mo pa si LLDA Acosta.

        Kaya lang parang me spin ka ding bumanat e.

        Also, matagal mo na bang advocacy yan: ang magpatanggal ng mga government officials na ginagamit ang govt. cars sa ibang bagay?

      • Guest

        Advocacy? Hindi naman. Pag may nakitang mali, dapat iwasto. Dapat panagutin.

        Nitpicking? Hindi naman. Nakita mo naman ang listahan ko, hindi naman nitpicking. If you had a chance to go through my past posts, you can see I presented the same on Sotto, Enrile and Genuino.

        Did Naguiat voluntarily declare what was lavished upon him and his family in Macau when he returned to PH? Not really. Not until he was exposed.

        Naguiat misused Pagcor cars for his children on top of other wrongdoings. He should be held accountable. Yun lang yun.

        Mukhang malapit kayo kay Naguiat?

      • Tristanism

        “Mukhang malapit kayo kay Naguiat?” Ikaw, naman. Hinihiritan mo ko.

        Ang una ko kasing tanong diyan e magkano ang naibigay/natangap na pera (Me 200 ka dito, Sec).

        Kritikal din naman ako sa binabasa ko. Hindi pwedeng sunggab lang nang sunggab.

      • Guest


  • JasonBieber

    Sometimes it’s hard not to wonder regarding the credibility of the Ombudsman.

    They file cases based on personal reasons not on facts and evidences. Even if their investigators find no evidence of a particular wrong-doing they will still force a case through because they feel like it and because the person being accused is a person disliked by them.

    The above is reference to the PCSO plunder case against GMA that has no evidence of plunder.

    • Kilabot ng mga Balahibo

      The GMA case is different altogether in terms of facts and circumstances. Did you see anything in the PNP case where the Ombudsman railroaded the investigation? Tanong lang po.

      • JasonBieber

        It’s hard not to separate it because the person behind it is Carpio-Morales, the apparent left hand of PNoy…the right hand being De Lima.

        If they can file cases against GMA with no evidence, meaning no facts…then how can we believe the cases they are filing…and how can we believe that they are not politically motivated somehow?

      • joshmale2004

        At this stage where GMA has not been arraigned due to sickness, it is premature to say that the DOJ have no evidence. Anyone can not just file a case in court out of whim and with no evidence. It is the court who will determine if the evidence is sufficient to convict nor dismiss the case of the accused. Likewise, It is also premature to judge an accused like GMA of wrongdoing as it is the court on the strength of evidences who will determine if she is guilty or not. So the best way that GMA can do as the case filed against her of ALLEGED corruption. I repeat ALLEGED corruption is non bailable, is to allow her arraignment as soon as possible so the trial can proceed and gets dismissed if the evidence of the DOJ is not strong to convict her. Delaying her arraignment will not close the story.

      • Guest

        If you’re referring to the PCSO plunder case, I wish the government came up with a more airtight case. Just for the bail hearing late last month, the government’s star witness Aleta Tolentino testified in court that the PCSO board has no evidence to suggest that GMA et al were involved in plunder

        (source: newsinfo.inquirer,net/351825/witness-no-proof-on-use-of-pcso-funds).

        This comes in the heels of the revelation that the Ombudsman convened a second panel after the first panel of investigators found nothing to link GMA et al to plunder.

        I wish the Ombudsman good luck, but this kind of haphazard way of doing things will only discredit her, her office and do a disservice to PNoy’s administration.

      • joshmale2004

        No. I am not referring to any particular case alluded to GMA nor his people. My point is that no one except the proper court has the authority to determine whether GMA nor the officers of PCSO are guilty or not guilty based on evidences presented. Majority may believe that GMA is guilty. But unless evidences say so, it is the court who has the final say. if the DOJ fails to substantiate their case, then she or other accused should be set free. plain and simple to understand.

      • JasonBieber

        It is not premature to say that there is no evidence against GMA because honestly there is none.

        The Ombudsman cannot produce a single evidence to prove GMA committed plunder in the PCSO case and that is fact. They even had their panel of investigators led by Somido who even concluded for the Ombudsman that the plunder case be dismissed but it was ignored by Carpio-Morales. Point is she force fed the plunder case to purposely jail GMA as her form of political persecution.

        As for the electoral sabotage case…GMA was jailed for that again for no good reason other than to persecute her. In that case, the judge granted her bail and called the case against her weak. But again she was already persecuted by being detained for over 8 months so i guess if you are PNoy, damage done.

        But still that is not how we should use the Philippine justice system.

    • repapips

      discrediting the ombudsman?

    • Guest

      I wish the PCSO plunder case against GMA really had legal legs to stand on. But the truth is, it doesn’t. Even the government’s star witness Aleta Tolentino testified late last month that there is no evidence to suggest GMA et al plundered the PCSO funds. This comes on top of the disquieting revelation that the Ombudsman ordered another panel to investigate the so-called PCSO plunder after the first panel found no irregularities against GMA et al. That to me is clearly an abuse if not misuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. It not only harms the Ombudsman’s credibility, but it also does a disservice to PNoy’s administration.

      The Ombudsman is no different from FBI’s Hoover, who was quoted as saying — “Give me a name, and I’ll give you a crime.”

      As for the rubberboat, I think Versoza should face the music.

      • JasonBieber

        Whether you are pro or anti-GMA…we should all be pro-LAW and pro-following proper procedures and due process.

        You are right…the Ombudsman’s first panel of investigators found no evidence of plunder committed by GMA and therefore concluded that the plunder charge be dropped but PNoy’s lady choice at the Ombudsman Carpio-Morales ignored her own investigators and still forced the case through.

        Now she is not releasing that resolution conducted by the panel led by Somido.

        It’s not right…it’s not following the proper procedure and really a shameful look for the Philippine justice system.

  • Fred

    Dapat lang!
    Hindi porke’t nag retire na kayo ay lusot na kayo?
    Yung nasa active duty pa, baka naman ma promote pa kayo bago kayo mag retire?
    Umayos ka Gen Purisima!

  • kontra_boohaya

    This circus reminds me of the song “Bakit Ngayon Ka Lang.”  But then I highly doubt if anything comes out of the cases filed.  Garcia, Ligot, Euro generals, and others who came from the same breed are stil enjoying the “fruits of their labor.”

  • disqusted0fu

    But why does the Ombudsman seem to have a red light on releasing the first resolution of investigators that supposedly dismissed plunder against GMA? That’s despite an order coming from Sandiganbayan. Yes, it’s out of topic but its things like these that affect the credibility of the justice system in the PH. We’re not sure how efficient their work is now.

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94


editors' picks



latest videos