Rejoinder – Ombudsman

Republic of the Philippines




26 Oxford Street, Celdran Village,

Tubod, Iligan City,

Complainant,                           FOR: VIOLATION OF R.A. 3019



Immigration Area Director,


RASHID D. RANGIRIS,                                        VIOLATION OF R.A. 6713


(All Of) Bureau of Immigration,

Iligan City,




Complainant before the Honorable Ombudsman (Mindanao), respectfully submits this rejoinder affidavit under oath in response. I have read the Compliance, Motion and Entry of Appearance submitted by Respondents. I find much of the information to be incomplete or outright false. It is very apparent that Respondents while employees or agents of the Bureau of Immigration either do not know the applicable immigration law or they are being intellectually dishonest. It is also very apparent that they did not do a proper investigation (if any at all) or understand what constitutes evidence. While being mindful of the Honorable Ombudsman’s time I have addressed each paragraph where required and included only two attachments.

1. In the Compliance, Motion and Entry of Appearance Respondents argue that this is forum shopping. In my affidavit of non forum shopping I clearly disclosed that there is a filing of habeas corpus in Davao City. That case is simply about my liberty. This case is about Grave Abuse of Authority. The NBI intentionally did not investigate the Davao participation in this case as to not taint the findings of the court. The filing in Davao was mandatory as Habeas Corpus must be handled in the jurisdiction of incarceration. These are two clearly separate issues.

2. Paragraph III A. Maclin D. Lanto fails to recognize that Harold R. Pacasum in his interview with the NBI stated clearly that the allegations of his report were subject to investigation and needed to be verified. Had Mr. Lanto investigated he would have found the substance of the memo to be false; to wit: It states (without evidence) that I owned and engaged in the business of an Internet Café/bar. It further states that I filed a baseless complaint against Iliganons. An investigation of documents that were already in the possession of the Bureau of Immigration and that were originally submitted to and received by the commissioners office on 9 September 2009 at 3pm (Attachment A) clearly demonstrate that Mylen Monte owned and managed Bangkok Nights and the Internet café’s. He would have also learned that every Iliganon who I filed a case against were present during a robbery. Further, had he investigated the allegations or even questioned me once he would have learned that from June 15, 2008 until the sheriff’s actions in mid September 2009 I had no access to the bar in question or the Internet Café’s. He further would have known that both of the café’s were out of business before I had access. A further examination of my passport combined with the above information would have shown that I had access to the bar in question for less than three months of its two year existence. These facts alone would have made it impossible that I owned and managed these businesses. But it is very clear that Maclin D. Lanto did not follow the mission order and failed to investigate.

3. Paragraph III F. refers to an affidavit that falsely claims that my rights were explained or given to me.

4. Paragraph IV. Further demonstrates that Maclin D. Lanto did not investigate. He states: “he put up a business, recruited and hired employees for his Internet Marketing Outsourcing System (Internet Café/Bar) known as Team Sir Jeff in Iligan City;” Team Sir Jeff Corp. is an Internet marketing outsourcing business. What this means is we create websites for Internet marketers overseas. It is located about five blocks from the bar and one of the Internet café’s owned by Mylen Monte. The other Internet Café owned by Mylen Monte is about two miles away. Mr. Maclin D. Lanto was never in the office of Team Sir Jeff Corp. Why does he not know the difference if he in fact investigated?


It is very clear here that Maclin D. Lanto as a regional director is either unfamiliar with the implementing guidelines of the SVEG or he is being intellectually dishonest.  Attachment B is the CHECKLIST OF REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVERSION TO PROBATIONARY SPECIAL VISA FOR EMPLOYMENT GENERATION. As part of the application process it states that you must provide

  1. “Notarized letter request of the applicant certifying among others that:”
    1. he/she maintains a lawful immigration status in the Philippines;
    2. the applicant is engaged in a viable and sustainable business activity, investment, enterprise or industry in the Philippines;
    3. the applicant exercises acts of management with authority to employ, promote and dismiss employees;
    4. the applicant evinces a genuine intention to indefinitely remain in the Philippines, for purposes of investment;
    5. the business activity, investment, enterprise or industry is a real and on-going affair requiring daily supervision that shall provide employment for at least ten (10) long-term full time/regular Filipino workers in accordance with Philippine Labor laws and other applicable special laws;
    6. the applicant undertakes to continuously comply with conditions and limitations of the SVEG, as maybe imposed by the Commissioner of Immigration
  2. General Application Form duly accomplished and notarized (BI Form No. MCL-07-01);
  3. Photocopy of passport and visa of the applicant;
  4. Certified true copies of the SEC Registration, Articles of Incorporation and latest General Information Sheet of the company that employs Filipino workers;
  5. Proof of investment of the applicant if any or nomination or endorsement of the entity, firm, partnership or corporation that the applicant exercise managerial function and that the said firm, entity, partnership or corporation employs ten Filipino workers;
  6. Certified true copy of the Alien Employment Permit issued by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), whenever applicable;
  7. DOLE certification that the applicant’s activity, investment, enterprise or industry in the Philippines employs at least ten (10) Filipino workers;
  8. BI Clearance;
  9. NICA Clearance;
  10. BIR Permit, Mayor’s Permit and Business Permit for established corporation and business entity;
  11. Proof of compliance with the Phil Health, Pag-ibig and SSS requirements

This checklist taken directly from the Bureau of Immigration website on March 13, 2010 mirrors the implementing guidelines for the SVEG. These guidelines were released in February 2009. They were available on the Bureau of Immigration website at the time of my application. All requirements were met. While it is understandable that not all agents in the field might not be familiar with the particulars of a new program it is inexcusable for a regional director who exercised powers of arrest, was not familiar and I find it even more disturbing that he would now claim the same position of ignorance.

6. In Paragraph 7 he partially quotes Atty. Roy M. Almoro that the SVEG is being held in abeyance pending investigation of the memo by Harold R. Pacasum. I have been informed by the office that issues the SVEG (because I asked) that I must have a tourist visa to apply. Any other visa would have to be downgraded to apply. Had Maclin D. Lanto ever interviewed me prior to my arrest he would have had this explained to him. The letter from Atty. Almoro further states that once cleared of these charges they would continue processing my application. This is a clear indication that the application has not been denied. And as pointed out by the NBI – I do have and had at the time of my SVEG filing a DOLE issued work permit. (When I told the agents on the way to Cagayan De Oro that I had a DOLE issued work permit I was told “That is only for locals”. I was further told that if I had “any other type of visa my actions would have been legal.” What further requirements then what the SVEG issuing office and the implementation directive does Maclin D. Lanto expect?

7. Paragraph VIII falsely states that I was in possession of the keys to the Restobar at the time of my arrest. The keys I had on me were not for the Restobar and were part of the ruse to put me in the Restobar as explained in my complaint. (This is what the NBI referred to as the agents of Immigration, Butch Moldes and Mylen Monte acting in connivance.)

8. Paragraph IX claims the cover of the mission order for the arrest. In short the mission order was not followed. It required the agents to investigate. Not only would an investigation result in the finding of no crime but would have revealed the motives of the people behind this.

9. Paragraph X suggests that the Honorable Ombudsman should ignore evidence and ask “Anybody in Iligan City who is engaged in restaurant business or patronizes the Restobar believe that it is owned by Mr. Evans” While I have not asked people on the street who they think the owner is, I find it an interesting standard for evidence used in an arrest. (Did he actually ask anyone?) As for the financial help to Mylen Monte after our breakup – simple. Mylen Monte owed me a great deal of money she had borrowed. Giving her assistance until June 15, 2008 when she made it clear she had no intention of paying me back, seemed like a viable alternative to her being in a position where I could never be paid back. The equipment became my property after a Replivin case because she was not repaying the loan. Once again, had an investigation been conducted – this would have been revealed. Paragraph X further suggests that I was evasive in my answers to the defense lawyer’s questions. (This is a trial of one of the people who participated in the robbery.) (Butch Moldes) Maclin D. Lanto fails to note that the question: “Do you own Bangkok Nights” was never asked. Instead the lawyer danced to try and get what he wanted. It is further observed the lawyer asked almost no questions in regard to his client. Had this attempt at my deportation succeeded his client would have a much better chance of getting off. Harold R. Pacasum was not in any way involved with the robbery. Where did the information come from that I had “filed baseless cases against Iliganons” And who was the “tipster” who provided the court transcripts. Had Maclin D. Lanto followed the mission order and conducted a proper investigation, all of this would have been clear.

10. In Paragraph XI Maclin D. Lanto claims that biased witnesses were produced who either worked for the bar or had an ownership interest in it. He claims that the bias exists because they were afraid of losing their jobs or investment. Bangkok Nights closed on 23 October 2009. The Café across the street was closed weeks before my arrest. Most of the affidavits were done in November 2009. What Maclin D. Lanto claims as evidence in paragraph XI was in fact evidence of a legitimate business and once again he is claiming ignorance of the SVEG procedures when he states that it must be approved first.

11. In Paragraph XII Maclin D. Lanto claims that the information provided by the “tipsters” “undergo the process of critical evaluation” If this was true how could so much evidence be missed? And why was Mr. Evans not interviewed prior to his arrest. He further claims that the protocol was followed prior to the request and issuance of the mission order. The mission order was granted on the basis of the request and clearly stated that Mr. Evans activities were to be investigated. Did Mr. Lanto substitute his own judgment for the judgment of the issuing authority? Did he believe he did not need to investigate further? The mission order was clearly not followed.

12. In paragraph XIII Maclin D. Lanto describes why he brought police officers with him. In his after mission report he details how he and his team proceeded directly to the police station. Ask the officers from the PNP, did they witness any investigation? Was I questioned? Do they remember me having my rights read to me? – Maclin D. Lanto came to Iligan City with one objective – Arrest Jeffrey Evans.

13. In Paragraph XIV Maclin D Lanto makes the claim that a tipster has told him that I would be “doing his noontime routine check on his businesses, the Bangkok Night Restaurant/Bar and the Internet Café (Team Sir Jeff Corp.) First as explained elsewhere and by multiple witnesses I was lured to the bar. I did not know I was going to the bar until after 12:00. (In their original statements they said 12:30 which is the time I agreed to meet Mylen Monte for her urgent reasons.) Maybe a minor detail but let’s stick to the facts. The statement is further false in that they did not tell me what the problem was. I was simply told to come with them and cooperate. Evidence showed that Mylen Monte was notified by cell phone when I was approaching, she left the bar. When I went up the stairs to the bar they told me she just left. I immediately started downstairs and was stopped by Immigration Agents at the bottom of the stairs. Once again in this paragraph Maclin D. Lanto knows that Team sir Jeff Corp. is a few blocks away – so in this paragraph he knows that it is not the bar. He still does not know that it is not an Internet Café. What did he investigate? His statements regarding the Miranda warning are false. I am a former federal law enforcement officer. (PO1 USCG) I have been well trained in it. I would have recognized it immediately. It was not until I talked to the NBI that I even knew Miranda applied here. He commits blatant perjury when he claims that my directing my assistant to call the judge was a result of being read my rights. He further blatantly commits perjury when he claims that we waited for the arrival of Retired Judge Salazar. There was absolutely no delay in our departure. I believed we were going around the corner to the Immigration office. It was not until the vehicle was in motion that I found out we were going to Cagayan de Oro. Ask the Police officers how much time elapsed from when Immigration entered the stairwell and when we departed. This may further be debunked by asking Ret. Judge Salazar if his presence was ever requested. (It was not.) Consider this my authorization for Atty. Salazar to discuss any aspect of this case with the Honorable Ombudsman. This may be a small point but it demonstrates how loosely Maclin D. Lanto plays with the truth. He references the Affidavit of Joan Perez Amirola but does not take note of item 10. “During what is now being described as his arrest I never heard him given his rights or told why he was taken into custody.”

As far as our discussion on the way to Cagayan De Oro, he misrepresents this as well. They claimed they could not understand why Team Sir Jeff Corp. was not a call center. I tried to explain what Internet Marketing was. I never invited them to get involved with an Internet café. I never offered them any type of joint venture. I did not tell them how profitable outsourcing is. (Our business model is based on job creation) I may have told them how profitable Internet Marketing can be. I know from Mylen’s experience (remember the closed café across the street) the internet café business is dying. She could not afford to pay her electric bill.

14. In paragraph XV they explain why I was detained in Davao. What they do not say is that they claimed they were taking me there to meet with some IT experts from Manila who I could explain why I was not a call center and they would understand.

15. In paragraph 16 he emphasizes the mission order. It states:

1. Validate the admission status, immigration documents, existence and sufficiency of investment in the country (for investor’s/retireest13-quota visa holder), and. Activities of foreign subject national and If found to be in violation of Philippine Immigration law,.
bring him to the bureau for further disposition.

2. Valid for seven (7) working days from the date of approval

3. Submit After-Mission Report and Recommendation.

4.   For strict compliance.

Paragraph 1 requires investigation. Paragraph 4 requires strict compliance. This was not done.

16. In paragraph XVII he cites a Supreme Court case and suggests that the filing of a charge sheet (which we believe will be withdrawn) absolves him of all wrong doing. Does he truly believe that the wrongful deprivation of a basic human right – liberty can be swept aside so easily?

17. Paragraph XVIII accuses the NBI investigation of being one sided. What does Maclin D. Lanto expect the NBI to find? Suggested witnesses: Butch Moldes – currently on trial for usurpation of authority, Col Rene Orbe – currently being investigated by the Internal affairs division for abuse of power, Mylen Monte who failed to appear on another subpoena issued by the same agent. Does he expect them to implicate themselves in this plan? To his credit Harold R. Pacasum told the truth in that his allegations were supposed to be verified. Maclin D. Lanto claims that he was not served personally with the subpoena. This may or may not be true. Only the return service of the NBI could answer that question. I asked the Immigration Special Prosecutor Perez (The person who filed the charge sheet against me) How could there be a preliminary investigation to charge me if I was not given the chance to respond to the allegations? He stated he sent a subpoena to me in Davao. I must assume that since I believe he was out of the country when I was in Davao, and I was not in Davao when he returned the Subpoena never reached me. Mr. Maclin D. Lanto wants to further speculate about the possible testimony of Mylen Monte. In his “if shove comes to push” scenario “Ms. Montes will probably admit that she is only a dummy and the true owner who put up the capital for the Bangkok Nights Restobar was Mr. Evans” While I am sure Mr. Lanto would like to testify for her it would be in direct conflict with multiple depositions, complaints etc. that she has filed in court. His speculation about her financial capability is correct. I loaned Mylen Monte a substantial amount of money. As previously stated on June 15, 2008 Mylen Monte made it clear she had no intention of paying me back and locked me out of Bangkok Nights and her Internet cafés as a customer. I believe this was to prevent me from trying to collect on the debt. That lockout from those businesses remained in effect until late September 2009. How is it possible that I could be the owner but could not enter for more than a year? The original letter from Harold R. Pacasum predates my being able to even go into the bar by almost a month. And that was after a lengthy and costly court battle on the unpaid loan. Maclin D. Lanto falsely states that all of the persons who’s affidavits had worked for me or owed their jobs to me. While my personal assistant (at the time) was present and a witness to the actions of the immigration officers actions, the woman Alma Caneban, and Marie Chrisbie D. Chiong have never worked for me in any way shape or form. (And all of the “shove comes to push” in the world will not change that.) The NBI did not take my side. They investigated and came to their own conclusions. Two significant points we disagree on is first I believe this was kidnapping. (Without a proper investigation the sole purpose was to deprive me of my liberty.)Second I believe that the way the law is written only the Commissioner or in his absence the acting commissioner can issue a mission order. The fact that Maclin D. Lanto further substituted his own judgment for the judgment of the person who issued the mission order shows how dangerous this can be. The honorable agents of the NBI and I will have to simply agree to disagree. Lastly, and this point is very telling; from the respondents: “The truth is that it came as a surprise to us to learn that the NBI has filed an instant complaint. If we were given a chance to explain our side, this frivolous charge would not have been filed have come this far.” Mr. Lanto now believes it is important to interview the principals involved before filing a complaint. He arrested me without so much as having a conversation with me or knowing the proper spelling of my name. (In two of the documents he has attached, the Official Report And Finding RE: Jeffrey Alans Evan and misspelled the same way in the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension.) While I will not go so far as Mr. Lanto and presume to speak for the NBI, I will say they have seen his response, gave no indication that their position has changed and are willing to respond to any questions the Honorable Ombudsman may have. If Maclin D. Lanto believed it was important to interview a suspect for their side of the story prior to 12 October 2009 before arresting them or filing a complaint against them then by his own admission he is guilty of Grave Abuse of Authority. If he did not believe this then he has no business in such a position of authority.

18. Paragraph XIX attempts to attack my character. He brings up the following: There is a case against Butch Moldes who with others came to my house. He impersonated a police officer and through swindle obtained my cell phone. Immediately my witnesses received death threats. The threats continued. I was forced to file charges against the participants. One of the participants is suing me in General Santos. (My deportation would help his case) I filed a Replivin case against Mylen Monte for not repaying the loan and her lawyer filed a false RA9262 case against me. The evidence that she did not even read the petition was that her name was misspelled through out. This was part of the plan to make me homeless, penniless and get me out of the country back in June 2008. The Replivin case against Mylen Monte and her RA9262 case against me were dropped in a compromise agreement after I had been granted the property. The claim of a violation of the TPO (which had not been in effect for almost a year) was further proof of who owned Bangkok Nights which he has chosen to ignore in his “process of critical evaluation” So on what basis does Maclin D. Lanto think this makes me undesirable?  Does he think people who impersonate a police officer and wrongfully appropriate others property is ok? Should a person accept fraud and theft merely because they are a tourist? Perhaps he just does not know the facts and that is because he did not investigate. This tourist created many jobs for Filipino’s. Those jobs were put in Jeopardy by the grave abuse of authority exercised by Maclin D. Lanto.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereby affix my signature this 15th day of March 2010 at Iligan City, Philippines.

Jeffrey Evans


SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 15th day of March 2010 in Iligan City, Philippines.

 Mail this post

Leave a Reply