Criminal charges filed vs PCG men for death of Taiwanese fisherman

MANILA, Philippines - The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) has formally filed criminal charges before the justice department against the 10 Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) personnel for the fatal shooting of a Taiwanese fisherman off Batanes last May 9.

The NBI filed homicide charges against eight PCG men identified as Commander Arnold de la Cruz, Petty Officer 2 Richard Fernandez Corpuz, Seaman 2nd Class Nicky Reynold Aurello, and Seamen 1st Class Edrando
Quiapo Aguila, Mhelvin Bendo, Andy Gibb Ronario Golfo, Sunny Galang Masangcay, and Henry Baco Solomon who were implicated in the the death of 65-year-old Hung Shih-cheng in the Balintang Channel near Batanes.

The NBI also filed charges for obstruction of justice against De la Cruz and Bendo along with SN1 Marvin Ramirez and LtJG Martin Bernabe for allegedly submitting tampered evidence to the NBI, including “spliced” video footage.

The four allegedly gave false information to the NBI on the number of bullets discharged during the shooting.

According to the bureau, there was a conspiracy among the respondents.

It explained that while it was Aguila who was found to have fired the M14 rifle that killed the Taiwanese, the seven others have admitted discharging their weapons and thus would be similarly charged for homicide.

The NBI earlier cleared nine other coast guard personnel and three crewmembers of the patrol boat MCS-3001.

The complaint was filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) last Tuesday afternoon.

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima said a panel of state prosecutors would be constituted to conduct preliminary investigation on the charges.

If probable cause is established, she said the DOJ would then file the case in court. The crime of homicide is punishable by imprisonment of 12 to 20 years under the Revised Penal Code.

In its report, the NBI said indiscriminate firing using high-powered guns showed “a common design to disregard the rules of engagement.”

“Any sensible and reasonable person is capable of discerning at that point that indiscriminate firing at a small fishing vessel will, in all likelihood, inevitably result not only in the disabling of the watercraft, but also in bodily harm or death,” the NBI report said.

It was also found that the PCG personnel violated the rules of engagement when they shot at the Taiwanese vessel even if “there was no categorical proof that the fishing boat posed an imminent or grave threat to the lives of those on board the Philippine patrol craft.”

The fisherman was with his son and two others when they encountered the Filipinos who were on board the MCS-3001.

The PCG men had initially said they fired in self-defense after the Taiwanese boat tried to ram their vessel, but investigators said they could find no proof of this.

The NBI stressed that the PCG men failed to prove their claim that the Taiwanese boat tried to ram their vessel since the video footage submitted during fact-finding probe was “inconclusive.”

The PCG yesterday assured authorities that they would cooperate with the DOJ in the preliminary investigation on the homicide and obstruction of justice filed against their men.

PCG spokesman Commander Armand Balilo said that they would make the necessary preparations now that the complaint has been forwarded to the DOJ.

“If in the course of the preliminary investigation, the DOJ would summon their personnel to answer the charges, the PCG would make them available,” he added.

Meanwhile, an NBI report showed that the PCG personnel were “inconsistent” in their statements given to investigators.

The NBI said the PCG approached the Taiwanese fishing vessel, thinking it was poaching in Philippine waters. The PCG issued several warnings but the latter ignored the warnings, leading to a “cat and mouse” chase. The PCG alleged that they fired at the foreign vessel when it tried to ram the Philippine patrol craft.

Taiwanese inconsistencies

The NBI said that while there is no evidence that could prove the alleged ramming, the “inconsistencies” of the Taiwanese fishermen, however, made the PCG claim “not entirely implausible.”

The inconsistencies were:

1. The Taiwanese fishermen claimed that the PCG never issued audible warnings to call their attention when the latter did “a few times before the encounter.”

This claim is also “inconsistent” with the fishermen’s account that had “only such warnings were issued the Taiwanese fishermen would have complied.”

2. The second inconsistency ran counter to the fishermen’s admission “that from the start to finish of the encounter, the fishermen were intent on doing one thing only, escape and evade the Philippine patrol craft.”

3. Contrary to what was shown in the video footage, the fishermen denied that it stopped its boat entirely, “giving the impression that it was finally allowing itself to submit to the authority of the PCG and be boarded, only to full throttle suddenly in order to escape, if not to ram, the PCG vessel.”

Fishing vessel captain Hong Yu Zhi denied this during an interview with the Taiwan District Court Prosecutor’s Office on May 22, only to retract on May 29.

The NBI said it is possible that Hong “was forced to admit the occurrence of the described incident” after he was “confronted” with the video.

4. Another “inconsistency” in Hong’s May 29 statement was when he claimed to have stopped the fishing boat to allow the PCG “to check their vessel but got scared after hearing the gun shots.” The NBI said Hong earlier “made it clear” that “he had no other intention from the beginning than to escape the PCG patrol craft because he did not want to pay any money.”

5. According to the NBI, the change in Hong’s story led to another inconsistency, as “it is clear from the video footage that when the fishing boat decided to stop, no more shots were being fired by the PCG. Hence there was no more reason for Hong Yu Zhi to be scared.”

“This only raises the possibility that after all, Hong Yu Zhi feigned surrender in an effort to trick the patrol craft to get closer to it. For what purpose it is not readily apparent. At the minimum, it was merely to slow down the patrol craft for it to have a harder time to catch up with the fishing boat. At the maximum, it could have been for purposes of eventually ramming the patrol craft as alleged by the PCG,” the NBI said.

6. Hong’s statement that they were “merely escaping is also inconsistent with the fact that the fishing boat never left the area of encounter all throughout the incident, indicating that the fishing vessel was apparently luring the PCG into a cat and mouse game.”

The video that the NBI referred to came from the PCG personnel, who submitted it as evidence that the foreign vessel was shot as it tried to ram the Philippine patrol craft.

The NBI, however, said that nothing in the footage could prove the PCG claims. And it is up to the prosecutors, not the NBI fact-finding panel, to rule on the allegation. 

– With Evelyn Macairan, Aie Balagtas See