Esperon admits reversing pre-trial investigation recommendation of dismissing mutiny charge against alleged February 2006 coup plotters

By Ronron
March 1, 2007

For the first time, Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Chief of Staff Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, Jr. admitted on Thursday that the filing of mutiny charge against the 28 officers now on trial for the alleged February 2006 coup plot was his personal decision, and not of the pre-trial investigation body.

In a chance interview yesterday at Camp Aguinaldo, Esperon told reporters that the PTI body from the AFP Office of the Judge Advocate General (OTJAG) only recommended the filing of alleged violation of Articles of War 96 (conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman) and 97 (conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline), and recommended the dismissal of AW 67 (mutiny) charge due to lack of evidence.

However, the piece of advice he got from his staff Judge Advocate was to pursue the mutiny charge, thus the reversal of the PTI recommendation.

“The pre-trial advice had another set of recommendations, which included mutiny. Based on that, I made my decision,” Esperon said.

He said it also fell under his “sole authority” on “who will be charged or not,” justifying the initial filing of charges before the General Court Martial (GCM) against 30 officers even if the PTI body only recommended the same against 18 officers. The 30 would later be reduced to 28 after he dropped the charges against two officers during the first court martial proceedings last December 14, 2006.

A copy of the 217-page PTI Report, dated October 25, 2006, showed that the following were recommended charged for alleged violation of AW 96: 1) Maj. Gen. Renato Miranda, 2) Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim, 3) Col. Ariel Querubin, 4) Col. Orlando de Leon, 5) Lt. Col. Custodio Parcon, 6) Lt. Col. Achilles Segumalian, 7) Lt. Col. Nestor Flordeliza, 8) Lt. Col. Edmundo Malabanjot, 9) Maj. Jason Laureano Aquino, 10) Maj. Oriel Pangcog, 11) Maj. Francisco Domingo Fernandez, 12) Capt. James Sababan, 13) Capt. Montano Almodovar, 14) Capt. Joey Fontiveros, 15) Capt. Isagani Cristi, 16) Capt. William Upano, 17) Capt. Dante Langkit, and, 18) 1Lt. Belinda Ferrer.

Additionally, Querubin and Segumalian were recommended charged for alleged violation of AW 97.

But when Esperon announced his recommendation for the case to proceed to court martial proceedings, Pangcog was no longer recommended charged, while the charges against the remaining 17 changed.

Miranda was recommended charged for AW 67 and 96; Lim for AW 63 (Disrespect towards President, Vice President, Congress of the Philippines or Secretary of National Defense), 65 (Assaulting or Willfully Disobeying Superior Officer), 67, 96 and 97; Querubin for AW 65, 67, 96 and 97; De Leon for AW 67 and 96; Parcon for AW 67 and 96; Segumalian for AW 67 and 96; Flordeliza for AW 67 and 96; Malabanjot for AW 67 and 96; Aquino for AW 67 and 96; Fernandez for AW 67 and 96; Sababan for AW 67 and 96; Almodovar for AW 67 and 96; Fontiveros for AW 67 and 96; Cristi for AW 67 and 96; Upano for AW 67 and 96; Langkit for AW 67 and 96; and, Ferrer for AW 67 and 96.

Esperon also added the following officers in the charge sheet with their corresponding charges: Col. Januario Caringal (AW 67 and 96); Col. Armando Bañez (AW 67 and 96); Lt. Col. Romulo Gualdrapa (AW 67 and 96); Lt. Col. Valentine Hizon (AW 67 and 96); Maj. Jose Leomar Doctolero (AW 67 and 96); Capt. Ruben Guinolbay (AW 67 and 96); Capt. Allan Aurino (AW 67 and 96); Capt. Frederick Sales (AW 67 and 96); 1Lt Ervin Divinagracia (AW 67 and 96); 1Lt. Jacon Cordero (AW 67 and 96); 1Lt. Homer Estolas (AW 67 and 96); 1Lt. Sandro Sereno (AW 67 and 96); and 1Lt. Richiemel Caballes (AW 67 and 96).

But Gualdrapa and Hizon were subsequently exonerated by Esperon last month, saying there is no prima facie case against them.

During last Tuesday’s court martial proceedings, the lawyers of the accused succeeded in demanding from the trying panel a copy of the PTI report, saying it is the right of their clients to obtain such for proper action on it before they are arraigned, consistent with due process.

Atty. Trixie Angeles, lawyer of Guinolbay, said yesterday the PTI Report only proves that Esperon unilaterally recommended the charging of mutiny against the accused, without getting their side.

“My clients have the right to be informed of the complete charges against them and of the findings of the PTI panel. And now, what we need to find out is why there is still a standing order to hold them for trial despite the findings of the PTI,” Angeles said.

Sought for comment, Esperon denied abusing his authority.

“I would want to argue with them and cite to them the provisions of the rules of the military justice system… Let us argue that in court,” he challenged the defense lawyers.

Esperon admitted he authorized GCM President Lt. Gen. Alexander Yano to release the PTI Report during last Tuesday’s proceedings in Tanay, Rizal.

Atty. Homobono Adaza, one of the lawyers of Querubin, said he will confer with his colleagues and suggest to elevate their complaint against Esperon to the Supreme Court so the latter will be compelled to explain why he reversed the PTI Report recommendations without any explanation or written order.

But Angeles said she will have to give Esperon a chance by asking for a copy of the pre-trial advice (PTA) from his Staff Judge Advocate.

“We are entitled also to the PTA and to an explanation by the Chief of Staff as to how he made a reliance on this one, his own evaluation of the evidence that has been presented,” she said.

In the report, the pre-trial investigators said “there is no adequate basis for appreciating the existence of a prima facie case to indict or prosecute any and all of the respondent officers charged for violation of the 67th Article of War.”/DMS