THE Court of Appeals (CA) has partially granted the petition for review of former Bureau of Immigration Port Operations Division chief Grifton Medina questioning the Office of the Ombudsman’s decision which found him guilty of grave misconduct in connection with his alleged involvement in the “pastillas scheme.”
The appellate court said that contrary to the August 2022 decision of the Ombudsman, Medina should only be held liable for simple misconduct.
In the same ruling dated June 29, the CA Fifth Division, however, affirmed the Ombudsman’s finding that Medina’s co-accused and fellow immigration officers Deon Carlo G. Albao, Danieve H. Binsol, Fidel S. Mendoza and Chevy Chase Naniong are “administratively liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.”
The Ombudsman has earlier ordered their dismissal from the service.
In partially granting Medina’s petition, the appellate court held that even the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, “whistleblower” Allison Chiong, and immigration officer Jeffrey Dale Ignacio, did not identify the former as among the “bosses” of the pastillas scheme.
“Chiong, in fact, did not name Medina as among the bosses of the pastillas scheme. In both of his affidavits, there was no mention whatsoever of Medina’s participation therein or that Chiong had interaction or communication with him. Likewise, Ignacio had no personal contact with Medina in relation to the scheme,” said the decision penned by Associate Justice Apolinario Bruselas Jr.
It added that there is “direct statement” implicating any act of Medina that would constitute participation in the modus operandi, such as collecting or distributing payment, or providing the names of foreign nationals.
The appellate court likewise said Ignacio also did not mention that Medina was present during the September 8, 2020 meeting at Mazu Restaurant where immigration officers and personnel tagged in the scheme met to discuss their response to the case filed by the National Bureau of Investigation.
“Given the state of the documentary submissions with respect to Medina, the Court is of the view that he ought to be administratively liable for simple neglect of duty. Considering the bureau-wide modus of the pastillas scheme, Medina, given his rank and level of responsibility, did not efficiently and effectively perform the act expected of him as head of the POD under the circumstances,” the appellate court said.
“His lackadaisical attitude fell short of the reasonable diligence, due care, and prudence required of him. The failure to conclude the purported agency investigation about the pastillas scheme up to the time of the filing of the complaints against BI employees despite awareness of the harm caused to the country’s economy and security, indicated a degree of carelessness in Medina’s performance of his supervisory duties as a division head of the BI,” it added.
The appellate court then ordered Medina to be suspended for six months without pay.
In upholding the Ombudsman’s findings against Albao, Binsol, Mendoza and Naniong, the appellate court held the evidence presented by the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office-consisting of affidavits of Chiong and Ignacio and several photographs of conversations amongst BI employees, among others, substantially established the modus operandi of these employees.
Moreover, it said participation and involvement in the pastillas scheme, constitute grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service.
“The pastillas scheme, particularly, is an apparent violation of immigration laws since it allows certain foreign nationals to skirt entry requirements and procedures. The regularity in the occurrence of the modus operandi shows a propensity of those involved to ignore well-established rules and regulations. Moreover, such misconduct is grave because the violation was impelled by corruption, that is in exchange for monetary compensation,” the appellate court said.
It also debunked the petitioner’s defense questioning the credibility of Chiong and his testimony — particularly, that he was previously sanctioned by the BI already and that he admitted that he himself was involved in the pastillas scheme, adding that there was nothing in Chiong’s affidavits, and the petitioners did not specifically identify details of his testimony, that was “repugnant” to our “knowledge, observation, and experience.”
“That Chiong himself was involved in the pastillas scheme does not by itself destroy his credibility. We note that in criminal law, immunity statutes for state witnesses – a method used “to seek a rational accommodation between the imperatives of the privilege and the legitimate demands of government to compel citizens to testify” –are pretty common,” the CA added.
Moreover, it said Chiong’s affidavits that Albao and Binsol were among the bosses of the pastillas scheme were sufficiently affirmed by Ignacio.
“Overall, the testimonies that were based on Chiong’s and Ignacio’s personal knowledge and experience, to the Court, constitute reasonable and substantial grounds to believe that Albao, Binsol, Mendoz, and Naniong were part of and were involved in the pastillas scheme,” it said.
The pastillas scheme involved immigration personnel in 2021 extorting money – ranging from P10,000 to P20,000 – from Chinese nationals in return for facilitating their seamless entry to the country.
Concurring with the decision are Associate Justices Geraldone Fiel-Macaraig and Jennifer Joy Ong.
