Pedro Leslie Salva also said that he will return his license to the Supreme Court if the immigration officials can prove that George Tan does not exist after they expressed doubts whether Tan was a real person.
Rosas denied the charges made by Tan against him and three other officials, Gemma Maximo-Torres, Reynaldo Abrea and Ferdie Balbuena, saying that these are merely black propaganda.
Tan, who claimed to be a prawn farmer, alleged in his complaint that Rosas and three other immigration officials demanded P100,000 each from two Chinese technicians from Hong Kong he hired to assist him in his farm.
The technicians, Deng Minwei and Cai Zhouzhi, arrived at the Mactan Airport last November 13 but were allegedly arbitrarily ordered excluded into the Philippines for being considered as "persons likely to become public charge" based on Section 29, paragraph a, sub-paragraph 5 of the Republic Act 1940 otherwise known as the Philippine Immigration Act.
Tan alleged that this was done after the Chinese technicians failed to pay the amount demanded by Rosas, who has denied the accusations.
Rosas said that the two technicians were never brought to his office as claimed by the complainant. Rosas showed a copy of the certification issued by Cathay Pacific, which shows that the technicians arrived at the Mactan Airport from Hong Kong at 6:40 p.m. and were immediately deported back to where they came from at 7:30 p.m.
Rosas said that he is planning to file a case for libel against Tan and his friends, Gabriel Andujar and Reginald Cabigas, including members of the media who reported the allegations against him. The Ombudsman allegedly did not receive the complaint yet.
Salva insisted that the complaint has already been filed last Monday showing The FREEMAN a copy of the complaint duly received by the anti-graft body. But, Rosas' lawyer Kit Enriquez questioned the validity of the complaint saying it was defective because the covering letter was prepared ahead of the affidavit of the complainant.
Enriquez said that the cover letter of the complaint was dated November 17 while the affidavit was only subscribed on November 18, indicative that the complaint against his client was malicious. - Fred P. Languido/BRP