Wednesday, April 30, 2008 Military court discharges 5 mutineers
A MILITARY tribunal on Tuesday convicted five junior officers guilty for the charges filed against them in connection with the short-lived Oakwood mutiny in July 2003 and sentenced them to discharge from the military service.
Discharged were Army 1st Lieutenants Lawrence San Juan, Sonny Sarmiento, Nathaniel Rabonza, Jason Panaligan and Christopher Orongan. Two of the accused -- Panaligan and Orongan -- were given an additional penalty of seven years and six months imprisonment.
San Juan, Sarmiento and Rabonza were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the general court martial after they changed their plea to guilty to the charge of violation of the Article of War (AW) 96 or conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman.
On the other hand, the court -- presided by Brigadier General Nathaniel Legaspi -- convicted the two other accused on a charge of violation of AW 97 or conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline.
Panaligan and Orongan earlier entered into a plea bargaining, agreeing to plead guilty to the charge of violation of AW 97, in exchange for the dropping of four other charges, including AW 67 or mutiny or sedition.
The prison term given to the two officers had been deemed time served, deducting the four years and nine months they have been in detention and the three years representing for three mitigating circumstances -- peaceful surrender, long period of confinement, and good behavior while detained.
In the order, the court said its members unanimously found the two officers "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" of the charges and specification under AW 97 for following unauthorized orders outside the chain of command.
On the other hand, San Juan, Sarmiento and Rabonza were also found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by the military court for a lone charge of AW 96, to which they earlier pleaded guilty to without any condition in the previous proceedings.
The court decision, read by lawyer-member Lieutenant Colonel Anna Escarlan, said the three officers brought dishonor to the military for violating their solemn oath of constitutional duty and attempting to oust the "legitimate and duly-elected government" they have vowed to protect.
However, the court did not say if its order to discharge of the three -- part of the 29 officers originally charged with violation of AW 96 before the court -- was dishonorable or honorable.
Last year, 12 of the mutineers led by Captains Gerardo Gambala and Milo Maestrecampo also changed their plea to guilty. The court also ordered their discharge but the discharge has yet to be approved by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Legaspi said the discharge of the officers would be effective after the President's approval of the sentence. He also said it will be up to the President whether or not to continue giving the convicted officers their salary.
When asked why the court was silent on whether the discharge of San Juan, Sarmiento and Rabonza should be dishonorable or not, defense lawyer Edgardo Abaya said it will be the President who should determine that.
"If you are going to see the Articles of War 96, it says that the penalty is discharge. In the Articles of War, it just says 'discharge'. That's the language of the article," Abaya said.
"That's subject to the discretion of the President on how they would implement the kind of discharge," said Abaya, who represents Sarmiento, Rabonza, Panaligan and Orongan.
On why his clients changed their plea and entered into a plea bargaining agreement, Abaya said: "That's their decisions. They made their individual decision because some previously pleaded guilty and some entered into a plea bargaining so they decided to follow it."
On whether the decisions of his clients were right, he said: "I think that is what they think. They might have grown impatient rather than take the risk because at the end of the day, they are going to be found guilty and discharged also." (VR/Sunnex)
