THE Court of Appeals (CA) has cleared a pilot examiner of the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (Caap) of any criminal and administrative culpabilities over the plane crash that claimed the lives of former Interior Secretary Jesse M. Robredo, a pilot and a Nepalese student-pilot.
In a 12-page decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the CA’s Fifteenth Division denied the petition filed by the Caap seeking the reversal of the joint order issued by the Ombudsman on July 31, 2014, and July 13, 2015, dismissing both the administrative and the criminal complaints filed against Caap’s Flight Operations Control Inspector 1 Nomer Christopher Lazaro.
Lazaro was the one who conducted the pilot proficiency flight check test (PPFCT) on Capt. Jessup Bahinting in relation to his application for renewal of pilot license.
Bahinting was the pilot of Piper Seneca plane that crashed into the waters off Masbate after one of its engines malfunctioned.
Aside from Robredo and Bahinting, copilot Kshitiz Chand also perished in the accident. Only Robredo’s aide, Senior Insp. June Abrazado, survived the incident.
The appellate court held that, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman when it dismissed the complaint against Lazaro.
Lazaro was accused of submitting fraudulent documents to make it appear in the PPFCT report that he conducted a check ride on Bahinting, even when no actual flight test on one engine inoperative emergency procedure was performed.
Based on the Caap’s investigation, Bahinting’s failure to control the aircraft during the one engine inoperative approach and landing, and his lack of training and experience on one engine inoperative emergencies caused the accident.
However, the CA held the Caap failed to state any rule that requires a check ride on one engine emergency procedure, which must be done exclusively through an actual flight.
On the contrary, the CA said, based on the evidence, a check ride on one engine inoperative emergency procedure can be performed through flight simulation pursuant to Civil Aviation Regulations.
The appellate court also noted that, even in its Circular 02-012 on Skill Test Standards for Commercial Pilot-Aeroplane Multi-Engine, it also recognized the use of flight simulator to test the pilot’s proficiency on one engine inoperative emergency procedure.
Thus, the CA said, the Ombudsman correctly ruled that, while Lazaro did not conduct an actual flight test on one engine inoperative emergency procedure, he, however proved that the same was performed through flight simulation.
“From the foregoing, it is apparent that what the Caap regulations require is merely to conduct a simulated one engine inoperative emergency procedure. It does not mandatorily require the pilot examiner to perform an actual engine stoppage or to inoperate any engine while in actual flight as a prerequisite in the renewal of pilot license,” the CA ruled.
Likewise, the CA said the Caap failed to prove it was a mandated duty of Lazaro to submit a flight plan. In fact, the CA said the Civil Aviation Regulations provide that the said duty rests with the pilot in command.
“In this case, no substantial evidence exists to prove the disposition of private respondent to lie, cheat, or defraud. Although there is no evidence of actual flight performed, public respondent aptly held that private respondent was able to show that the grades, as appearing in the PPFCT report, was based on the simulated check ride by him,” the CA held.
“In light of the foregoing, we find dismissal of the administrative complaint to be supported by substantial evidence, thus, giving us no cogent reason to overturn the same,” it added.
Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Ramon Garcia and Leoncia Dimagiba.