The Court of Appeals (CA) has sustained the dismissal from the service of three Bureau of Immigration officers for their involvement in the controversial “pastillas” scheme.
In a 23-page decision written by Associate Justice Maximo de Leon, the CA’s Special Sixth Division junked the petition filed by BI officers Aurelio III S. Lucero, George V. Bituin, and Salahuddin P. Hadjinoor seeking the reversal of the decision issued by the Office of the Ombudsman on March 21, 2022 ordering their dismissal from the service after finding them administratively liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
“As the Office of the Ombudsman found Lucero, Bituin, and Hadjinoor to be part of the pastillas group based on the overwhelming substantial evidence against them, We see no reason to depart from the same. The ruling of the Office of the Ombudsman as regards Lucero, Bituin and Hadjinoor is affirmed,” the appellate court ruled.
The appellate court gave weight to the affidavits and evidence presented by whistleblowers Allison Chiong and Jeffrey Dale Ignacio, both immigration officers, before the Ombudsman.
Under the “pastillas” scheme, the entry of select foreign nationals into the country, most of whom were Chinese nationals who are actually Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators (POGO) workers.
The foreign nationals were allowed unhampered entry into the country without their credentials being checked, in exchange for a monetary consideration.
The bribe money is wrapped and made to appear as a pastillas, thus, the moniker pastillas scheme.
The BI officers involved in the scheme would then divide the earnings among themselves.
The pastillas scheme triggered investigations by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Senate.
Almost a hundred BI immigration officers were charged before the Ombudsman by the NBI-Special Action Unit (NBI-SAU) for criminal and administrative liabilities in connection with the illegal scheme.
In 2022, the Ombudsman indicted 43 of them before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act when they gave unwarranted benefits and preference to more than 100 Chinese passengers who managed to enter the country without the required profiling and screening processes.
Chiong and Ignacio claimed that foreign travel agencies, clients, and even some members of foreign syndicates engaged in illegal activities in the Philippines, would forward a list of names of certain foreign nationals, together with their date of arrival at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) to their contacts inside the BI.
The said contacts in the BI, would then forward the list to a Viber group chat, known as the “Timbre Central.”
In turn, the Timbre Central would disseminate the list to the members of the pastillas group in different Viber group chats, which consists of immigration officers assigned at the frontline immigration counters and at the Travel Control and Enforcement Unit (TCEU).
Upon arrival at NAIA, the foreign nationals included in the list will then be allowed unconstrained entry into the country.
The witnesses identified Lucero, Bituin, and Hadjinoor as administrators of the Timbre Central Viber group which was responsible for forwarding the list of foreign nationals to the various Viber group chats of the pastillas group.
They were also the ones responsible for the distribution of pastillas money to their members.
The witnesses also provided evidence showing the three were present in two meetings conducted between members of the pastillas group in September 2020 to discuss their “game plan” against the administrative cases filed against them.
In giving credence to Chiong and Ignacio’s testimonies, the CA stressed that jurisprudence recognizes that it is the whistleblower who may provide a detailed account on the inner workings of the syndicate.
“Surely, no one will voluntarily subject himself/herself to possible retaliation aside for the reason that his/her conscience compels him/her to tell the truth. It is especially true in this instance where Chiong and Ignacio revealed the corruption happening in their very own workplace, and against their own workmates, who at some point in time, they were in cahoots with,” the CA noted.
“Suffice it to say that We see no reason to doubt Chiong and Ignacio’s statements against Lucero, Bituin and Hadjinoor,” it added.
Meanwhile, the CA granted the petition filed BI frontline officer Frances Meeka Flores , who was also implicated in the pastillas scheme, seeking the reversal of the Ombudsman decision dismissing her from the service.
The appellate court also ordered her reinstatement to her previous position.
“Accordingly, the penalty of dismissal from service meted against Frances Meeka Flores is set aside and she is ordered to be immediately reinstated to her former position.
She is entitled to backwages from the time of her unlawful dismissal on 21 March 2022, at the rate last received by her without qualification and deduction, until the date of her actual reinstatement,” the appellate court ordered.
Flores was implicated in the pastillas scheme after her name surfaced during the examination of the several Viber group chats showing that she allowed entry to four out of the 158 foreign nationals included in the VIP list of the pastillas group being the on-duty officer at that time.
For her defense, Flores argued that even if she was a frontline, she does not know or choose who will appear before her in the immigration counter, and in turn, the incoming passengers do not know the immigration officer to whom they will be assigned to.
She maintained that she acted within the parameters of her duty in allowing the entry to the country of the four foreign nationals as she found no reason or legal ground to prohibit the entry of the said persons.
Flores also pointed out that there was no evidence showing her as part of the Timbre Central’s Viber group chat or that she received any pastillas money.
She was not also mentioned by Chiong and Ignacio as among the members of the pastillas group.
“It is clear that Flores’ grant of entry to these four foreign nationals were warranted as she had no reason to prevent their entry in this country. The BI system itself yielded that these foreign nationals had no previous or present derogatory records in the Philippines,” the CA explained.
“Flores, who relied upon the results of the verification she conducted in the BI system cannot be held liable for the mere reason that these foreign nationals were eventually revealed to have availed of the pastillas group’s VIP treatment,” it added.
