The Supreme Court has cleared eight Philippine Navy officers of gross misconduct over the death of ensign Philip Andrew Pestaño in 1995, a sensational mystery case of death aboard the BRP Bacolod City that once gripped the military and the entire country.

Pestaño supposedly died by suicide but his parents accused his superiors of killing him as the 23-year-old was reportedly vocal about the officers’ alleged use of their Navy vessel for illegal shipments.

The Supreme Court First Division found that there was no gross misconduct on the part of the officers. This effectively cleared the Navy officers, as a Manila court had acquitted them in 2020 of the murder charges, as reported by the Philippine News Agency.

They are:

• Naval Captain Ricardo Ordoñez (retired)
• Commander Reynaldo Lopez
• Hospital Corpsman 2nd Class Welmenio Aquino
• Lieutenant Commander Luidegar Casis
• Lieutenant Commander Alfrederick Alba
• Machinery Repairman 2nd Class Sandy Miranda
• Lieutenant Commander Joselito Colico
• Petty Officer 2nd Class Mil Leonor Igcasan (retired)

“A decision with absolutely nothing to support is a nullity. The Ombudsman failed to support its conclusion of administrative liability with sufficient and factual basis,” the Supreme Court First Division said in a resolution dated May 14, and released on July 12.

The High Court nullified the 2011 decision of then-ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.

What happened

The Senate and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) investigated the death and revealed that Pestaño had confronted Ordoñez about a suspicious shipment.

In 2009, or 15 years later, then-Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro cleared the Navy men of both murder and gross misconduct.

Pestaño’s parents filed a motion for reconsideration. In 2011, Morales reversed the ruling and proceeded to charge the Navy men of murder, initially before the Sandiganbayan but later transferred to the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) because the naval personnel’s ranks at the time of the death was not under the jurisdiction of the anti-graft court.

Morales dismissed the Navy men from service, as Ombudsmen are authorized to determine guilt in administrative cases. The Court of Appeals affirmed this.

But at the Supreme Court, the First Division ruled that Morales violated the Ombudsman’s internal rule: Section 7 of their Rules of Procedure, that if the respondent is absolved of the charge, the decision shall become final and executory.

The Navy men insisted that Casimiro’s decision absolving them in 2009 had become final. Morales argued that “absolving” means declaring them innocent which, according to her, Casimiro did not do. Morales said the administrative case was just dismissed based on insufficiency of evidence.

“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,” said the High Court.

“We rule that the June 15, 2009 Joint Resolution of the Ombudsman effectively absolved petitioners of the charges against them, and had become final, executory, and unappealable, insofar as the administrative case is concerned,” it added.

The Court also added that the finding of gross misconduct “did not sufficiently state the facts and the law it was based.”

In her resolution, Morales listed the transgressions of the Navy men, which included failure to secure the crime scene, and cleaning the gun instead of preserving evidence for investigators.

“The finding of gross misconduct seems to hinge entirely on the existence of a conspiracy to commit murder,” said the Supreme Court.

The Court said the Ombudsman under Morales based its finding of administrative liability on a finding of criminal liability. But the Court pointed out that the Ombudsman’s decision on the criminal aspect – murder – was only probable cause to file a charge in court, and not a conviction.

“Even assuming that the records indicate the existence of a felonious scheme, the administrative liability of a person allegedly involved in such scheme cannot be established through conspiracy, considering that one’s administrative liability is separate and distinct from penal liability,” said the Court. – Rappler.com