The charge of usurpation of authority is over his alleged involvement in the Mamasapano massacre, clearing the way for the filing of the criminal information against Aquino before the Sandiganbayan.


The indictment of the former President comes after several criticisms of Morales being a highly selective Ombudsman and pro-yellow, as she has not sent any yellow former official to jail.


However, Morales still is not sending Aquino to jail, as both graft and usurpation of authority are bailable offenses.


Morales earlierhad had dismissed the more serious case of homicide against Aquino for the deaths of 44 Special Action Force commandos who were massacred.


The Ombudsman in its ruling stated the former president will be indicted for one count of violation of Section 3(a) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) and one count of Usurpation of Official Functions (Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code).


The order which was approved on September 11 resulted in the denial of separate motions for reconsideration filed by Aquino and complainants Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) and affirmed the findings contained in the June 13, 2017 Consolidated Resolution.


According to the resolution, Aquino's act of utilizing the services of the preventively suspended dismissed PNP Director General Alan Purisima for Oplan Exodus prior to and during its implementation, despite an OIC PNP Chief having been already designated, caused Purisima to perform under pretense an official position, the acts pertaining to the PNP Chief without being lawfully entitled to do so, in violation of Article 177 of the RPC on Usurpation of Official Functions.


In utilizing the services of Purisima for the implementation of Oplan Exodus while he was suspended, Aquino constituted an act of persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform acts constituting a violation of the order of preventive suspension and a commission of usurpation of official functions in violation of Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 3019."


Aquino in his motion for reconsideration stated that all the actions he carried out during the briefing for Oplan Exodus and its implementation were perfectly within the bounds of his powers and functions as the President of the Philippines and Chief Executive. 


He argued that "he can directly order any person or any subordinate to do what must be done—including those acting as resource persons to provide vital information and inputs to guide him in fully understanding the nuances of a police operation."


He also said there is nothing irregular, much less illegal, about his act of utilizing all the resources available at his disposal, including sourcing information and inputs from anyone—whether they are in active service or not."


Aquino added that "his only intent was to utilize the expertise of Purisima and not for Purisima to command or plan anything but just to help him understand what Napeñas and his people were talking about and that he was a passive receiver of information regarding an on-going operation." 


Finally, Aquino alleged that he was denied due process as he was not informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him.


For VACC the negligence of Aquino is the proximate cause of the deaths of 44 SAF soldiers within the contemplation of the law on reckless imprudence. 


The group added that the first act that set off the chain of events that led to the death of SAF 44 was then President Aquino's reckless imprudence and negligence in at least three instances approving Oplan Exodus which was later found to have serious flaws; allowing suspended Purisima to lead and oversee Oplan Exodus, tactically, strategically and operationally; and failing to send reinforcements and aid to the SAF 44 as they were besieged by superior anti-government forces, until they died.


Morales in the consolidated resolution said, "in addition to the absence of probable cause, the counsel's theory that 44 counts of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide against respondents is clearly bereft of merit."


She reiterated that "any negligence during the planning, preparation and actual implementation of Oplan Exodus was subsequently broken by the occurrence of an efficient intervening cause," which was the intentional act of shooting by the hostile forces. 


The Ombudsman added that "on certain points of law concerning the quasi-offense of reckless imprudence, the careless act is single whether the injurious result affects one person or several persons, and criminal negligence remains one and the same and cannot be split into different crimes and prosecutions."


In other words, in an instance of reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide, only one count of Information may be filed against an accused regardless of the number of deaths involved, and only one penalty is imposed, not as many counts as the number of deaths.


Expounding on its legal point, the Ombudsman highlighted that the prescribed penalty for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide as insisted to be filed by VACC is only four months and one day to four years and two months (except in an instance arising from the use of motor vehicle). 


Usurpation of Official Functions carries the penalty of six months and one day to four years and two months while the graft charge carries a penalty of imprisonment of six years and one month to fifteen years.


In a resolution approved on September 11, Morales rejected Aquino's motion for partial reconsideration, which argued that his indictment was a "mis-appreciation of facts and specious application of the law" and therefore, warrants the outright dismissal of the complaint against him.


The Ombudsman said Aquino's claim that he was not given the opportunity "to adequately address and refute the charges" filed against him was false.


She stressed that the former President was "accorded the opportunity to be heard during the conduct of (the) preliminary investigation."


It has been noted that much earlier, former Philippine National Police chief Purisima and sacked Special Action Force (SAF) commander Getulio Napeñas were both earlier charged before the Sandiganbayan with graft and usurpation of powers for allegedly bypassing the chain of command. Aquino was only being indicted at this time.


Morales faces an impeachment charge before the House of Representatives on the basis of her engaging in selective justice, a criticism repeated by President Duterte many times.


Aquino was only indicted for usurpation of authority for allegedly conspiring with Purisima and Napeñas.


The indictment of Aquino appears to have been an afterthought on the part of Morales, coming only on the threat of facing an impeachment complaint.


The former police officials' indictment stemmed from their failure to coordinate with the military about the Mamasapano raid, which resulted in the delayed deployment of reinforcements for the elite SAF members, who got trapped in the crossfire with fighters from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters, and other private armed groups in the area. 
</>

The Ombudsman said:

<div class="article-comment">

"President Aquino himself has repeatedly admitted and asserted in his counter-affidavit and in the instant motion that he utilized the services of Purisima for Oplan Exodus, albeit he is insisting that it was only for a limited role of a resource person." 


"To this Office, however, the evidence on record regarding the extent of Purisima's actual participation in Oplan Exodus ... shows that he was certainly much more than being a resource person."

</div>

The Ombudsman added:


Morales found no reason to reverse her earlier indictment for graft and usurpation of powers against Aquino, Purisima and Napeñas, especially because it was Aquino's role which set the motion for Purisima's involvement.

<div class="article-comment">

"In sum, the finding of probable cause against President Aquino in relation to his participation in the violation of Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code (Usurpation of Official Functions) and Section 3(a) of the Republic Act 3019 still stands."


"Let the appropriate information be filed with the proper court."

</div>


The Ombudsman has denied the motion filed by the surviving kin of the slain SAF members, appealing the previous decision of the Ombudsman dismissing the reckless imprudence case against Aquino, Purisima and Napeñas.


Aquino was cleared by the Office of the Ombudsman from homicide charges filed against him for his alleged reckless imprudence in the botched 2015 Mamasapano operation.


Morales, in a resolution, said she is dismissing the reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide and physical injuries filed against Aquino for his alleged hand in the slay of the 44 SAF police officers, who were killed in a firefight during the anti-terror raid.



Sources: 

<ul class="article-sources">
<li>
Ombudsman indicts Noynoy for graft, usurpation, Alvin Murcia , September 15, 2017, <a href="https://goo.gl/ddJW7w" class="news_link" target="_blank" title="Source">The Manila Tribune</a>
</li>
</ul>


(This article is adapted from the source listed above. We are unable to grant permission for any kind of reproduction other than social media shares.)

Aquino faces legal battle before the Sandiganbayan over the Mamasapano massacre