Key witness in tax credit scam cries foul
A witness in several tax credit scam cases has protested the Office of the Ombudsman’s recent filing of graft charges against him in connection with another case for the questionable transfer of tax credit certificates (TCC), saying that the same office had granted him immunity from prosecution.
Ernesto Hiansen, who used to head the One-Stop Shop Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center of the Finance Department, has asked the Sandiganbayan to defer the proceedings in his graft case and defer the issuance of his arrest warrant.
Hiansen said in his motion that he has a pending motion for reconsideration before the Office of the Ombudsman, where he is contesting his indictment for graft.
The Office of the Ombudsman last month filed the charges against him and several Bureau of Internal Revenue officials for allegedly failing to verify the authenticity of TCCs set for transfer and other supporting documents in 2003. The TCCs were in the name of Rohm Electronics Philippines, Inc. and later sold to private corporations Nissan and Splash and used to settle tax obligations.
But according to Hiansen, the Office of the Ombudsman granted him immunity from prosecution in exchange for his previous efforts in discovering anomalies in tax credit scam cases and in testifying before courts and congressional hearings on the matter.
The immunity agreement was approved on December 17, 2004 and states that he is given immunity from prosecution and punishment for any offense related to his testimony and any information he gave.
‘Absurd situation’
Hiansen said the Office of the Ombudsman failed to consider this immunity agreement in its resolution ordering him charged for graft.
According to him, it was his written testimony that led to the filing of the complaint for which he is now charged.
He said the filing of charges would give rise to an “absurd, if not conflicting situation” where he would be the prosecution’s witness in tax credit cases while also facing a criminal case for the same matter.
“Thus, the Office of the Ombudsman may have overlooked such relevant and material incident involving the Immunity Agreement which would effectively render nugatory the filing of two information with this Honorable Court considering that such immunity extends to such written testimony of accused herein,” he said.
Hiansen also said there was no probable cause to file charges against him for supposed negligence.
