THE Supreme Court has nullified the order of the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) dismissing from the service the 10 Philippine Navy officers linked in the controversial death of Ensign Philip Andrew Pestaño in September 1995.
In a 14-page decision issued by the Court’s First Division, the Court also reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) ruling issued in October 2013, which affirmed the Navy officers’ dismissal by the Ombudsman after they were found guilty of grave misconduct.
The SC held that the OMB failed to state the facts and the law that became its basis in resurrecting the cases against the 10 Navy officers.
“A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity. The 0MB failed to support its conclusion of administrative liability with sufficient factual and legal basis. In view of the foregoing, the November 22, 2011 Joint Order [JO], as it relates to the administrative aspect of the complaint, must be struck down for being violative of petitioners’ right to due process,” the SC said.
Cleared by the SC of administrative liability were Capt. Ricardo Ordoñez, Cdr. Reynaldo Lopez, Cdr. Alfrederick Alba, Lt. Cdr. Luidegar Casis, Lt. Cdr. Joselito Colico, Machinery Repairman 2nd Class Sandy Miranda, Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class Welmenio Aquino, and Petty Officer 2nd Class Mil Leonor Y. Igacasan.
Aside from the eight Navy officers, also affirmed by the CA in its 2013 decision was the OMB’s dismissal order against Lt. Cdr. Ruben Roque and Petty Officer 1st Class Carlito Amoroso.
However, Roque and Amoroso’s names did not appear as among the petitioners who questioned the 2013 CA ruling.
The 2013 CA ruling denied the petition filed by the Navy officers seeking to set aside the joint order issued by then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, which reversed the earlier ruling of her predecessor dismissing the criminal complaint for murder and administrative complaint for grave misconduct filed against them by Pestaño’s parents.
Morales, in the said JO issued on November 22, 2011, directed the filing of an information for murder against petitioner-appellants and held them guilty of grave misconduct for which they were ordered dismissed from the service.
This prompted the appellants to elevate the issue before the Court, insisting that the CA erred when it held that the Pestaños were able to present newly discovered evidence that warranted the resurrection of the cases against them.
They further contended that the Ombudsman failed to identify the specific acts of each of the petitioners that would constitute grave misconduct to justify their dismissal from the service.
The petitioners argued that the dismissal of the charges ordered in the June 15, 2009 Joint Resolution (JR) was final, executory, and unappealable by operation of Section 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman.
In ruling in favor of the petitioners, the Court held that the Ombudsman erred when it ruled that the June 15, 2009 JR did not attain finality since it failed to make any finding that the petitioners were innocent of the charges.
The SC noted that Section 7 of Administrative Order 07 does not require a finding that the respondents are innocent of the charges against them.
“However, nothing in Section 7 requires that a specific finding of innocence be made. The only determination that needs to be made is whether or not the [petitioners] were absolved of the charge. Ubi lex non distinguit nee nos distinguere debemos—when the law makes no distinction, [We] also ought not to recognize any distinction,” the SC ruled.
“The Joint Order concluded that the totality of circumstances points to a prima facie conclusion that Philip’s death was not a case of suicide, that there was an attempt to cover it up, and that there was a prima facie conclusion that petitioners conspired to kill him, hence probable cause for murder lies against them,” the SC explained.
Likewise, the SC agreed with the petitioners’ argument that the Ombudsman failed to specify the individual acts committed by the petitioners to warrant the finding of grave misconduct and their subsequent dismissal from the service.
“However, the Joint Order does not state how this finding of probable cause ties into the finding that petitioners are guilty of grave misconduct. There was no attempt in the Joint Order to establish the parameters of what constitutes grave misconduct, much less if such parameters applied to the petitioners,” it stressed.
Records of the case showed that BRP Bacolod City, a Philippine Navy cargo ship, left Tawi-Tawi on September 20, 1995.
After seven days, the ship made a last stop over Sangley Point in Cavite and departed the same day for its final destination, the Navy headquarters in Manila.
Before the ship reached Manila, Pestaño was found dead inside his cabin, lying on the bed with a single gunshot wound on his right temple with a purported suicide note to his family.
Based on the investigation conducted by the Senate and the Armed Forces of the Philippines, it was ruled out that Pestaño committed suicide.
It was also discovered that Pestaño had knowledge of illegal activities on board the BRP Bacolod City, which posed as a possible motive behind his death.
Investigations revealed that the ship reportedly carried “undocumented” lumber from a certain Tawi-Tawi politician, which was allegedly intended for a ranking Navy official, in exchange for the politician’s request for drums of fuel oil.
Prior to his death, Pestaño reportedly confronted Ordonez, his immediate superior about the shipment. Pestaño’s parents, spouses Felipe and Evelyn, filed cases before the OMB against those involved in their claim that their son was killed.
In a resolution dated June 15, 2009, the OMB dismissed the criminal and administrative charges against the 10 Navy officers with a ruling that there was “no substantial evidence to show that [their] actions transgressed some established and definite rule of action or constitute unlawful behavior or gross negligence.”
Pestaño’s parents filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal of the charges.
On November 22, 2011, then Ombudsman Carpio-Morales reversed the 2009 resolution issued by then Deputy Overall Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro.
The CA affirmed Morales’s order in a decision issued in 2013.