Businessman David Bangayan on Monday rejected the criminal charges filed against him before the Department of Justice accusing him of monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade, among others.
Appearing before the DoJ’s investigating panel headed by Assistant State Prosecutor Eden Valdes, Bangayan submitted his counter-affidavit denying the charges in the complaint refiled by the National Bureau of Investigation.
Bangayan denied allegations of monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade under Article 186 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); bid fixing, as penalized under Section 65 of Republic Act No. 9184 or Government Procurement Act; using fictitious name or concealing true name, as penalized under Article 178 of the RPC; and violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142, as amended by RA No. 6085.
He also denied using “David Tan”, the person dubbed by authorities as king of rice smugglers—as his fictitious name or alias.
“I am categorically denying that I am ‘David Tan’ who supposedly was the ‘financier’ of certain cooperatives. My name is Davidson Bangayan. I was born out of wedlock to my parents Victoria Bangayan and Dy Ting Ham. Considering my illegitimacy, I am using my mother’s surname in all my personal and business dealings,” Bangayan’s 23-page counter-affidavit stated.
“There is no evidence that I represented myself as David Tan to a certain Hernandez and Ingal. I do not know them nor have I met them,” he said.
Bangayan said he was already cleared on this issue by a Pasay City metropolitan trial court in a perjury case. The said court held that “no direct evidence was presented in order to convince this Court that indeed Davidson Bangayan and David Tan are one and the same person.”
Bangayan said the NBI’s complaint is exactly the same complaint filed by the bureau in July 2014, which was returned by the DOJ for further investigation due to lack of evidence.
“Indeed, without any new competent and credible evidence, the complaint which two years ago lacked evidence, remains the same – that is, still lacks evidentiary support,” he said.
Bangayan said he could not be held liable for bid fixing, saying he “did not directly nor indirectly participate in the NFA (National Food Authority) bidding.”
“To be sure, complainant failed to even specify, much less allege, how my being the purported ‘financier’ could have ‘stifled or suppressed’ competition and produces a ‘disadvantageous result to the public.’ If it is true that competition was stifled and suppressed, then losing bidders would have already complained about it,” he said.
Lastly, the controversial businessman further explained that even assuming that he helped some cooperatives that joined the NFA bidding, such act alone cannot be considered a criminal offense.
“Nowhere in the bidding documents released by the NFA was it prohibited for bid participants such as cooperatives or private entities to seek financial aid from others,” Bangayan pointed out.
The DOJ panel set the next hearing on Nov. 20 for filing of NBI’s reply to the answers of Bangayan and other respondents.
In its complaint re-filed last month, the NBI accused the respondents of monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade under Article 186 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); bid fixing, as penalized under Section 65 of Republic Act No. 9184 (Government Procurement Act); using fictitious name or concealing true name, as penalized under Article 178 of the RPC; and violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142, as amended by RA No. 6085.
Bangayan’s co-respondents in the first charge are Judilyne Lim, David Lim, and Leah Echiveria of Cebu-based DGL Commodities; Elizabeth Faustino; and Eleanor Rodriguez. For the second charge, he has four fellow respondents – Judilyne Lim, Faustino, Rodriguez and Echiveria.
The other respondents in the other charges are Eugene Pioquinto, Mary Joyce Lim, Jason Colocado, Michael Villanueva, Denis Gonzales, Willy Sy, Sandra Lim, Gil Calipayan and Inigo Espiritu.
The NBI alleged that respondents conspired to use rice farmers “for the purpose of acquiring substantial allocations on the PSF-TES importation program (of the National Food Authority) with the end goal of monopolizing the supply of rice.”
The NBI said the scheme cornered government’s rice import allocations, through the National Food Authority (NFA), in 2012 using 25 farmers’ organizations and cooperatives, and single proprietors that did not have the necessary financial and logistical capabilities as “dummies.”
The NBI also alleged that the bidders for NFA rice allocations were financed in exchange for a small percentage per sack as “share.”