BY PETER TABINGO
NBN-ZTE whistleblower Jose "Joey" de Venecia
III yesterday asked the special investigating panel of the
Office of the Ombudsman to dismiss the criminal complaint filed
against him and his father, Rep. Jose de Venecia Jr., by lawyer
Roberto Rafael J. Pulido.
The younger De Venecia's counter-affidavit
said Pulido's complaint was baseless, and that he is entitled to
immunity from criminal prosecution for being a voluntary witness
for the State.
He argued that the complaint was not
supported by documentary evidence and that in fact, Pulido
imposes on him the obligation to produce the documents as well
as the transcripts of his own testimony before the Senate.
Pulido said the De Venecias are liable for
graft because Joey's firm, Multimedia Telephony Inc., secured
its legislative franchise through R.A. 8332 issued in 1995 when
the respondent's father was House Speaker.
"Complainant should get his facts straight.
MTI was not established in 1995. (but) in 1993 as may be gleaned
from its Articles of Incorporation. I was neither a stockholder
nor an officer of MTI as the time it applied for, and was
granted, a legislative franchise," Joey de Venecia said.
He said he joined MTI only in 1996, after it
had already secured a legislative franchise.
Moreover, he explained that his father's
participation in the grant of the franchise was ministerial when
the former Speaker signed the final version of RA No. 8332 after
it has been passed by both the House and the Senate.
On his claim of immunity as a voluntary
witness, De Venecia said he was the first to publicly expose the
shady deals and rampant bribery surrounding the contract.
"Without my testimony, these wrongdoings would not have
surfaced. My testimony is clearly necessary for the conviction
of .among others, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, First
Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, former Comelec chairman Benjamin
Abalos Sr., Secretary Romulo Neri, Secretary Leandro Mendoza and
other DOTC officials," he said.
