Victims’ kin appeal SC dismissal of case vs Sulpicio exec

MANILA, Philippines – Relatives of a number of victims in the 2008 sinking of a Sulpicio Lines transport and cargo vessel are not settling for mere monetary compensation just yet.

In an omnibus motion filed before the Supreme Court on Monday afternoon, August 11, surviving family members asked for the reversal of a July 2 resolution by the SC’s 2nd division clearing a Sulpicio executive of criminal liability over the sunken ferry.

The SC resolution affirmed a March 22, 2013, Court of Appeals (CA) ruling. (READ: SC affirms acquittal of Sulpicio exec over sunken ferry)

Sulpicio Lines Incorporated (SLI) owned the M/V Princess of the Stars, which tipped off the coast of Romblon province on June 21, 2008, as it went eye to eye a Signal No. 3 storm, with over 700 persons on board the ship dead or missing.

SLI vice president for administration Edgar Go was charged with reckless imprudence before a Manila regional trial court over the tragedy, but was ordered acquitted by the CA. 

Citing national interest, petitioners also asked that the case previously deliberated before the SC’s 2nd division be submitted to the court en banc for review. 

They said an “in-depth and comprehensive ruling” is needed.

“The safety of passengers and cargoes in the maritime industry is, in fact, a growing concern in this jurisdiction. Undeniably, therefore, this case has a huge impact on, and will define, the future of the country’s maritime and criminal laws,” the omnibus motion read.

The motion was filed through Department of Justice (DOJ) Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) chief Persida Rueda-Acosta.

Before filing the motion, PAO lawyers presented to members of the press forensic evidence on the case. The skeletal remains of Jacqueline Padua carefully placed in an evidence bag was shown in a press conference Monday morning. 

But closure has yet to be achieved by some family members, with a number of bodies remaining unretrieved 6 years after the tragedy. 

“With all due respect, the entire Filipino nation demands, at the very least, a re-deliberation of the instant case and a full and exhaustive decision,” the motion read further.

‘Notorious for ferry mishaps’

Petitioners slammed SLI for its alleged notoriety in ferry mishaps.

Between 1980 and 2008, they said, the SLI reportedly had 15 vessels that run aground, 5 vessels that sank, 6 vessels in collision incidents, 4 vessels that caught fire, and 3 vessels stalled at sea.

Acosta previously said SLI operates to this day, this time registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as Philippine Span Asia.

Go’s criminal liability 

Petitioners insisted that Go must be held criminally liable for the tragedy. 

They argued that “a reasonably prudent employer” should have immediately ordered the captain of the ship “to drop anchor and/or seek shelter in a safe location.” 

The motion further read, “Likewise indisputable is the fact that his actions and omissions were voluntary and that material damage resulted in the form of massive loss of lives and properties.” 

Over 100 civil cases are pending before a Manila court and a Cebu trial court. But petitioners maintain that the criminal case against Go must be revived.

Appeals court ruling

The petitioners said the CA ruling that the SC 2nd division affirmed was imprudent.

Go had been arraigned and at least 9 witnesses had been presented in his Manila court trial when the CA ordered his acquittal.

The arraignment pushed through, as Go himself withdrew his motion for judicial determination of probable cause. The motion would have been considered a challenge to the finding of probable cause against him. 

Instead, Go ran directly to the CA to have his criminal case dismissed.

Petitioners argued that the defenses Go raised before the CA – which the SC 2nd division also found meritorious – would have been “better threshed out in a full-blown trial.”

“Thus, although what is being determined is mere probable cause, the Court of Appeals somehow demanded for proof beyond reasonable doubt, which should have been best addressed in a full-blown trial,” the motion read.

“Without meaning any disrespect, prudence dictates that the Court of Appeals should have desisted from ruling on respondent Go’s petition on the merits, as soon as it was made aware of the ongoing criminal case,” the motion further read. – Rappler.com