Criminal Complaints in connection with the Undocumented Departure of Park Sungjun were Approved for Filing

18 December 2013

In a Resolution dated 18 October 2013, State Prosecutor Niven R. Canlapan, with the recommending approval of Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Richard Anthony D. Fadullon, and as approved by the Prosecutor General, resolved the criminal complaints, docketed as NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-13G-00217, filed by the DOJ-NBI Fact-Finding Team on its investigation of the undocumented departure from the Philippines on 19 March 2013 of a fugitive Korean national named PARK SUNGJUN (PARK).

PARK, a Korean national, was included in the BI Blacklist pursuant to an Order of the Board of Commissioners dated 12 July 2012, for being undocumented and undesirable. The Order was issued in view of the request for  assistance by the Korean Embassy from our Fugitive Search Unit (FSU) in the arrest and deportation of PARK, who is wanted for fraud by the Busan District Court. FSU was further informed that PARK's passport no. M88895209 was cancelled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade effective 13 March 2012, and is the subject of the Interpol Red Notice.

It may be recalled that in a Report dated 04 June 2013, the DOJ-NBI Fact-Finding Team; composed of Senior Assistant State Prosecutor AILEEN MARIE S. GUTIERREZ of DOJ, Investigation Agent V DON R. HERNMTDEZ, Investigation Agent III  JONATHAN A. MENGULLO, and both of NBI, recommended that:


a. Bribery defined and penalized under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended;

b. Violation of Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 3019; and

c. Violation of Section 7(d) of Republic Act No. 6713.

2. Respondents ATTYS. ARVIN CESAR C. SANTOS and JING OLIVER A. BALINA be charged for violation of Section 3(j) of Republic Act No. 3019.


The State Prosecutor ruled that after a judicious evaluation of the evidence at hand, he finds probable cause against the Respondents as charged. He agreed with the  findings of the DOJ-NBI Fact-Finding team that Respondents MORALES, SACENDONCILLO, and PEDRAJAS knew that PARK was included in the blacklist even prior to his actual departure; that Respondent MORALES even called Respondent SACENDONCILLO several times regarding PARK's departure; and that Respondents MORALES, SACENDONCILLO, and PEDRAJAS connived with each other to deliberately facilitate the escape of PARK, a fugitive, in consideration of a certain amount of money.

As to Respondent  SACENDONCILLO's assertion that being in the blacklist has no bearing for departing passengers, the State Prosecutor held that since PARK obviously had a derogatory record, due diligence requires that Respondent  SACENDONCILLO report the incident to her Supervisor and prevent PARK from leaving, in compliance to the Memorandum dated 18 December 2012 signed by Executive Director ERIC DIMACULANGAN. In this case, Respondent SACENDONCILLO failed to do so.

As to the charge for violation of Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 3019, the State Prosecutor resolved that Respondent MORALES did induce Respondent SACENDONCILLO, another public officer, to perform an act violating the rules and regulations of the Bureau of Immigration; that there was evidence that Respondent  SACENDONCILLO allowed herself to be "influenced or induced" to commit the act which became the root cause of this criminal case; that Respondent SACENDONCILLO, on her own volition, committed the acts complained of; and that the conspiracy of Respondents MORALES, SACENDONCILLO, and PEDRAJAS was further proven by the CCTV raw footages at the airport as presented by the DOJ-NBI Fact-Finding Team.

The State Prosecutor also held that direct bribery was also committed by Respondents MORALES, SACENDONCILLO, and PEDRAJAS; and that by agreeing to escort PARK inside the airport and to allow PARK to leave the country despite the blacklisting of the latter, in consideration of money, constitutes direct bribery.

Further, the State Prosecutor ruled that the Respondents are liable for violation of Section 7(d) in relation to Section 11(a) of RA. No. 6713; that the prohibition in Section 7(d) is malumprohibitum; that it is the commission of the act as defined by law which determines whether the provision has been violated; and that from the moment that the Respondents solicited or accepted, directly or indirectly, any gift or money from PARK, as established by the DOJ-NBI Fact-Finding Team, there is already a violation of the law.

The State Prosecutor concurred with the findings of the DOJ-NBI Fact-Finding team that Respondent BALINA's excuse that he relied on the BI clearance that Park had no derogatory record cannot be given weight; that Respondent BALINA previously handled the deportation case against PARK; that when the application for Section 9(g) visa was raffled to him, he should have been immediately alerted upon seeing PARK's name, despite the existence of the BI clearance; that more so, because of the watchlist he issued against PARK, he supplied the name entered in the computer system; that Respondent SANTOS, being the Chief of the LID, is also responsible for evaluating the recommendations submitted to him; and that it also appeared that Respondent SANTOS was already apprised of PARK's status because pertinent documents were initially endorsed to him.

Thus, the State Prosecutor resolved that since Respondents BALINA and SANTOS had the records containing information about PARK's status, they should be charged with violation of Section 3(j) of R.A. No. 3019; and that Respondents BALINA and SANTOS processed, approved, and endorsed within their official function, in favor of PARK the privilege of Section 9(g) visa despite knowledge that PARK was not qualified.

Pursuant to said findings, the State Prosecutor recommended that the criminal information for bribery, violation of Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 3019, Section 7(d) of R.A. No. 6713, and Section 3(j) of R.A. No. 3019 against the Respondents be approved for filing before the proper courts of Pasay City and Manila.



More News Articles

We are ISO Certified