CA upholds dismissal of 2 immigration officers over human trafficking
The Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of two immigration officers accused of helping illegal recruiters sneak people in and out of the Diosdado Macapagal International Airport (DMIA).
In a 15-page decision penned by Associate Justice Eduardo Peralta Jr., the CA 10th Division denied a petition filed by Robin Pinzon and Sheryll Manguerra seeking to reverse their dismissal by the Civil Service Commission on June 27, 2012.
The administrative case against the two stemmed from a complaint filed by their fellow immigration officer Racel Ong before the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Ong claimed that Pinzon and Manguerra helped facilitate illegal transactions and human trafficking activities at the departure area of the DMIA between May and July 2008. Ong herself is facing a separate criminal case for the same illegal activity.
In April 2010, the DOJ under then-Justice Secretary Alberto Agra dismissed Ong's complaint, saying she merely filed it because she had an "axe to grind" against Pinzon and Manguerra.
In May 2011, however, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima reversed Agra's decision and ordered that charges against Pinzon, Manguerra, and 16 other Bureau of Immigration officers be filed with the Civil Service Commission.
First-hand account
De Lima gave weight on Ong's testimony because it was based on first-hand account and personal knowledge of the alleged illegal activities at the DMIA.
The CSC eventually found Pinzon and Maguerra guilty of the charges, prompting the two to elevate the case to the Court of Appeals.
The two insisted that Ong's testimony was full of inconsistencies and lacked corroborative evidence.
In its ruling, however, the CA ruled in favor of the CSC and DOJ, and upheld the two officers' conviction, saying the two—contrary to what they claim—have been given due process because they were appropriately informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them, and were given an opportunity to answer the charges in a formal hearing.
"As revealed by the record of this case, the formal charge substantially indicated the material and relevant facts of the administrative charges against them. It contained elements of the offense for petitioners' preparation of their exculpations," said the CA.
"Moreover, the affidavits of complainant Ong narrated how petitioners' and other BI personnel carried out illegal operations at the DMIA. Thereafter, petitioners were extended the opportunity to submit the necessary pleadings for their defense, and they participated in the formal hearing conducted," it added.
Like the DOJ and the CSC, the CA also gave weight on Ong's testimony, noting that she "even intimated how they divide the sum they collected from the illegal transactions."
"Evidently, these facts were anchored on her personal knowledge and therefore worthy of probative value," the CA said.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Magdangal de Leon and Stephen Cruz. —KBK, GMA News
In a 15-page decision penned by Associate Justice Eduardo Peralta Jr., the CA 10th Division denied a petition filed by Robin Pinzon and Sheryll Manguerra seeking to reverse their dismissal by the Civil Service Commission on June 27, 2012.
The administrative case against the two stemmed from a complaint filed by their fellow immigration officer Racel Ong before the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Ong claimed that Pinzon and Manguerra helped facilitate illegal transactions and human trafficking activities at the departure area of the DMIA between May and July 2008. Ong herself is facing a separate criminal case for the same illegal activity.
In April 2010, the DOJ under then-Justice Secretary Alberto Agra dismissed Ong's complaint, saying she merely filed it because she had an "axe to grind" against Pinzon and Manguerra.
In May 2011, however, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima reversed Agra's decision and ordered that charges against Pinzon, Manguerra, and 16 other Bureau of Immigration officers be filed with the Civil Service Commission.
First-hand account
De Lima gave weight on Ong's testimony because it was based on first-hand account and personal knowledge of the alleged illegal activities at the DMIA.
The CSC eventually found Pinzon and Maguerra guilty of the charges, prompting the two to elevate the case to the Court of Appeals.
The two insisted that Ong's testimony was full of inconsistencies and lacked corroborative evidence.
In its ruling, however, the CA ruled in favor of the CSC and DOJ, and upheld the two officers' conviction, saying the two—contrary to what they claim—have been given due process because they were appropriately informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them, and were given an opportunity to answer the charges in a formal hearing.
"As revealed by the record of this case, the formal charge substantially indicated the material and relevant facts of the administrative charges against them. It contained elements of the offense for petitioners' preparation of their exculpations," said the CA.
"Moreover, the affidavits of complainant Ong narrated how petitioners' and other BI personnel carried out illegal operations at the DMIA. Thereafter, petitioners were extended the opportunity to submit the necessary pleadings for their defense, and they participated in the formal hearing conducted," it added.
Like the DOJ and the CSC, the CA also gave weight on Ong's testimony, noting that she "even intimated how they divide the sum they collected from the illegal transactions."
"Evidently, these facts were anchored on her personal knowledge and therefore worthy of probative value," the CA said.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Magdangal de Leon and Stephen Cruz. —KBK, GMA News
Comments