Ens. Phillip Andrew A. Pestaño Website

Update on the status of Phillip’s case at the Office of the Ombudsman for Military Affairs

1. It was in Jan. 29, 1998 when the Joint Committee on Justice and Human Rights and on National Defense and Security recommended that an independent investigation should be conducted by the Ombudsman on the following:

a.) The legality of loading more than 14,000 board feet aboard BRP Bacolod City in Sept. 1995.

b.) The legality of discharging fuel oil in Mindanao and the liability, if any, of persons who authorized such discharge.

c.) An independent re-investigation be conducted on the circumstances surrounding the killing of Ensign Pestaño with the end in view of bringing the perpetrators to justice, as well as identify the persons who participated in the deliberate attempt to make it appear that Pestaño killed himself inside his stateroom.

The real motive of why Phillip was murdered was his plan to expose the “other “illegal cargoes-Drugs & Guns worth in billions of pesos. Unfortunately this was not deliberated on during the Senate hearings because the Joint Senate Committees only acted on the Senate resolution by then Sen. Gloria M.Arroyo which is only to determine the “mysterious death” of Ens. Pestaño.

2. The Office of the Ombudsman in a joint resolution by the fact finding and Intelligence Bureau in March of 2000 or two years after we filed the complaint basing in an evaluation report dated Sept. 2, 1998 recommended to the Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs that “the case be considered closed and terminated without prejudice because the difficulty in determining the perpetrators was due mainly to the “tampering of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE PRIOR” to their examination by forensic experts. “It said: the conduct of further investigation in order to find out the identity of the perpetrators and his accomplices, if any will only be a waste of time and money considering that the physical evidence has already been tampered with not to mention the lapse of time”.

Incidentally, in Oct of 1998 we also received a letter by Atty. Abelardo L. Aportadera Jr., Assistant Ombudsman which said: “the central office, Office of the Ombudsman conducted also a similar inquiry into the case when the pertinent Senate Report was endorsed to us by the Chief of Presidential Legal Counsel”. A special Ombudsman panel was created to take action and came up with t similar finding that the death of Ens. Pestaño was not a suicide. However, similarly, the panel could not find enough evidence to establish probable cause against specific individuals.

3. Because of the then Ombudsman Desierto to close the case in spite of our protestations and pleadings that there were many Navy personnel on board the ships that could be pinpointed as perpetrators of the crime and supported by forensic findings this was all ignored. “WALA NA KAMING MAGAWA” Ombudsman Desierto said this verbally to us.

4. Hoping against hope that there is someone some person that could be enlightened on the case of Phillip that it is not just a matter of restoring his reputation and for truth & justice but the arms dealings to the enemies of the state as well as the shipment of more than 1 ton of drugs “SHABU” is a matter of national interest & concerns.

5. Finally, his batch mates at the Ateneo (H.S. Class’89) arranged a meeting with Father Joaquin Bernas, President of Ateneo De Manila University. He listened and afterwards called by telephone and recommended to then Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo that the case of Phillip be re-investigated again.

6. In Oct. 27, 2005, then with the assistance of Senator Lim’s personal counsel, we filed a joint complaint affidavit against the following Navy personnel (Phillip’s shipmates except Amoroso).

1. LCDR.RICARDO ORDONEZ Y. MARTINEZ, P.N.-Commanding Officer-BRP Bacolod City
2. LT. RUBEN B. ROQUE Y. BOLASOC, P.N., EX-O
3. LT.J6 REYNALDO P. LOPEZ P.N., Engineering Officer
4. LT.J6 LUIDEGAR CASIS Y.CRUZ, P.N.-Damage Central Officer
5. SIHM WILMENIO AQUINO Y.ULZAM, P.N.- Hospital Corp Man
6. PO1 CARLITO AMORO Y.BAGALACSA-Not organic member of the ship

7. On Dec. 6, 2005-Rudiger G. Falcis II Director IV- by authority of the Deputy Ombudsman for the
Military Affairs per OMB-P.C. 05-1298-5 (For Murder & Grave Misconduct) served an order for
the above Navy personnel to file their counter-affidavit within ten days from receipt of the
complaint. Being or it appearing that the affidavit-complaint and supporting documents we filed last
Oct. 27, 2005 are sufficient in form and substance.

8. Of the named respondents only LCDR RICARDO ORDONEZ, LT.J.6 LOPEZ, LT.J-6 COLICO,
LT. CASIS AND LT. ALBA replied although their counter affidavits were submitted to the Office
of the Ombudsman three months after the order were served. LT.ROQUE who incidentally has fled
to the U.S. since.

9. In our Joint Reply-Affidavit dated July 27, 2006 to LT.J-6 COLICO and PO1 AMOROSO, their
copy was returned to sender for “UNKNOWN ADDRESS”. Inquiries in the Philippine Navy
revealed that LT.COLICO have been missing for more than a year while PO1 AMOROSO has
retired and whereabouts unknown.

10. Of the eight respondents LT.J6 ALFREDERICK ALBA executed an affidavit to the Ombudsman in January 26, 2006 to wit: that is relevant to the official version of the Philippine Navy that:

1. Phillips death was at 8:15 a.m.
2. That the alledged death gun has a “stabilizer” a special gun accessory especially if the gun is used for target shooting- according to LT.ALBA’s affidavit he said:

a.) That he saw COLICO touched the gun at 7:40 a.m. That other than COLICO, he saw SIHM MIRANDA & SIHM AQUINO. COLICO’s statement at the Senate hearing he said that he was with LT.J CASIS and AQUINO.

#31 of his affidavit:

T. - Mayroon ba kayong nakitang baril sa crime scene: Ito ba ay mayroon stabilizer?
S. - Mayroon po kaming nakitang Cal. 45 ngunit walang stabilizer

#35

T. - Noon kayo ay nasa loob ng cabin ni Ens. Pestaño, ano ang ginawa ni Ens. Colico sa crime
scene?
S. - Dinampot ni Ens. Colico ang baril at tinanggal niya ang magazine. Inalis niya ang
nakaload na balas a chamber ng baril para ito ay hindi na maka aksidente po. Nong matapos
niyang gawin ito ay sinabihan ko siyang “BOK, Bakit mo hinawakan and baril”- saka
lamang na-realized na mali pala ang ginawa niya.

11. We also furnished the Office of the Ombudsman for Military Affairs a clear copy of the quartermaster logbook that everyone thought that there is no such copy after the original page of the logbook dated Sept. 27, 1995 disappeared.

12. The known respondents remained not concerned with their indictment because we gathered that the case anyway will not prosper outside of the Office of the Ombudsman.

13. Many of the respondents have even been promoted and had traveled abroad as if nothing had happened at all.

14. Their common answer when asked about being named respondents is that like the Senate it cannot do anything to them much more - their careers.

15. The Statement of LT.ALBA will prove that:

a.) Since ALBA saw Phillip’s body at 7:40 a.m. in his cabin with COLICO touching the gun while AQUINO & MIRANDA were watching. It could only mean one thing that Phillip was killed much earlier since the body was moved to his room and made it appear he committed suicide.

16. The logbook will also prove that after charting their records it showed that the ships went in the direction towards Corregidor (or to the west) while their destination is to the east. Which is why the travel of one hour & a half instead of just 25 minutes to reach the HPN headquarters. The status of this case remained unknown inspite of the above. We have no way of finding out the status of the case as we are not allowed to see the investigators

17. The Office of Senator Lim have written and made personal calls to Ombudsman Gutierrez that we be given an audience to manifest our concerns regarding the case and to find out why it has taken almost two years since we filed our complaint and we have not heard of the status of this case. For two years now we still have not succeeded in our intentions to see her.

18. During our visit last Feb. of 2007 and June of 2007, at the Ombudsman the case is still “PENDING” because they are still in the stage of “PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION”.