THE Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction of eight Philippine Coast Guard personnel charged in the killing of a Taiwanese fisherman whose fishing vessel intruded into Philippine waters off the coast of Balintang Channel in northern Luzon in 2013.
In a decision promulgated on Sept. 29, the appellate court’s former Tenth Division denied the plea of the accused personnel seeking to set aside its December 14, 2021 decision which upheld the ruling of the Manila Regional Trial Court sentencing them to 14 years in prison after they were found guilty of homicide for the killing of Taiwanese Hong Shi Cheng.
The three-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Ramon Cruz held that the Coast Guard officers failed to raise new arguments that would warrant the reversal of its December 2021 decision.
The eight accused were Commander Arnold Enriquez de la Cruz, Seaman Second Class (SN2) Nicky Reynold Aurello, Seaman First Class (SN1) Edrando Quiapo Aguila, SN1 Mhelvin Aguilar Bendo II, SN1 Andy Gibb Golfo, SN1 Sunny Galang Masangkay, SN1 Henry Baco Solomon and Petty Officer 2 Richard Fernandez Corpuz.
The accused-appellants have insisted that their action against Hong was in fulfillment of duty and lawful exercise of their right and office, pointing out that they were forced to fire at the Taiwanese fishing vessel in self-defense after it tried to ram the BFAR ship and refused to stop for boarding inspection despite repeated warning.
The accused likewise said the prosecution failed to establish that they were the ones who shot the victim and that they conspired to commit the crime.
They reiterated that the Taiwanese vessel was poaching in the country’s territorial waters at the time of the incident and was trying to flee when accosted by the BFAR patrol ship.
In affirming the trial court’s decision, the CA gave weight to the extra-judicial confession of Bendo, Golfo and Solomon who narrated the events that transpired during the incident which caused the death of the victim.
The appellate court said their sworn affidavits included the identities of the persons on board the BFAR ship and those who fired at the slain Taiwanese fisherman.
“We also cannot give credence to accused-appellants’ defense of fulfillment of duty and lawful exercise of a right or office. Aside from their bare allegation that the Taiwanese vessel tried to ram their vessel, no evidence was adduced by accused-appellants to support this claim,” the CA said.
“As it happened, shooting the Taiwanese vessel is not reasonably necessary because accused-appellants were not under attack or subject of resistance,” the CA also said.
With this, the appellate court reasoned out that the resulting injury or offense was therefore, not a necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of a right or office, as argued by the accused-appellants.
The CA also said the accused-appellants chose to waive their right to present witness to back up their claim during the trial of the case.
“Inarguably, by actively firing at the Taiwanese vessel Guang Da Xing, accused-appellants shall be held guilty of homicide as a result of the death of the victim Hong Shi Cheng. There being no new matters raised that would warrant a reversal or modification of our decision, this motion is hereby denied,” the CA added.
