Case Digest (A.M. No. SB-14-21-J)
Facts:
Re: Allegations Made Under Oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing Held on September 26, 2013 Against Gregory S. Ong, Sandiganbayan, A.M. No. SB-14-21-J, January 19, 2021, Supreme Court En Banc, Leonen, J., writing for the Court (894 Phil. 99).The matter arises from a Plea for Judicial Clemency filed by former Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong after this Court, in In re: Ong, 743 Phil. 622 (2014) (Per Curiam, En Banc), had dismissed him from the judiciary for gross misconduct, dishonesty, and impropriety in violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. The administrative proceeding that led to that dismissal stemmed from Ong’s concurrence in the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division decision in the so‑called Kevlar case (People v. Espinosa, Crim. Case No. 26768-69, Oct. 28, 2010), where Janet Lim Napoles and others were charged with malversation and falsification relating to the anomalous sale of Kevlar helmets. The Sandiganbayan acquitted Napoles of malversation but convicted most accused of falsification; Napoles was acquitted of falsification for lack of overt acts proving conspiracy.
In the wake of the 2013 “pork barrel” revelations, witnesses Benhur Luy and Marina Sula testified before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee that Napoles had “settled” the Kevlar case through Ong, describing two office visits by Ong, an advance‑interest arrangement involving AFPSLAI checks, and a photograph showing Ong with Napoles and former Senator Jinggoy Estrada. The Supreme Court conducted a motu proprio inquiry and required Ong to comment; he denied impropriety and explained his contacts with Napoles as benign social encounters and explained the photo as taken at a 2012 party.
The Court assigned the investigation to retired Justice Angelina Sandoval‑Gutierrez, whose recommendation the Court adopted. In 2014 the Court found Ong guilty of gross misconduct, dishonesty and impropriety—holding that his association with Napoles created an appearance of impropriety under Canon 4, Section 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct—and dismissed him from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits and a bar to reemployment. Five years later Ong filed the instant Plea for Judicial Clemency seeking restoration of retirement benefits and lifting of the reemployment ban. He submitted testimonials (including from retired Justice Jose P. Perez and other civic and Masonic leaders), an NBI clearance, and a medical abstract showing recurrence of prostate cancer; he also asserted remorse, continued pro bono work, and financial need.
The Court treated the plea as an administrative petition for clemency and reviewed controlling pre...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the Plea for Judicial Clemency filed by Gregory S. Ong merits grant.
- If clemency is warranted, what relief (if any) should be gra...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)