The Supreme Court has paved the way for the trial of an official of the Sulpicio Lines Inc. for his alleged criminal liabilities, in connection with the 2008 M/V Princess of the Stars tragedy that resulted in the death of 227 passengers.”‹
In a 20-page decision, the SC’s Third Division through Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes Jr. ordered the Manila City Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, to reinstate the criminal case for reckless imprudence against Edgar S. Go, SLI first vice president for Administration and team leader of the Crisis Management Committee.
The tribunal ruled that the Court of Appeals committed an error in coming up with a decision last March 22, 2013 decision and a resolution dated Jan. 8, 2014, which granted Go’s petition to reverse and set aside the resolution of the Department of Justice issued in 2009 that found him liable for reckless imprudence and ordered the filing of the said case before the Manila City RTC.
The DOJ’s panel of prosecutors ruled that Go was involved in making decisions on whether a vessel should be allowed to sail such that he should have canceled or discouraged the voyage considering the severe weather at that time
The high court ruled that the DOJ resolution clearly supports a prima facie finding that reckless imprudence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code has been committed.
“In this case, the criminal action instituted against respondent involved exclusively the criminal and civil liability of the latter arising from his criminal negligence as responsible officer of SLI. It must be emphasized that there is a separate civil action instituted against SLI based on culpa contractual incurred by it due to its failure to carry safely the passengers of Stars to their place of destination. The civil action against a shipowner for breach of contract of carriage does not preclude criminal prosecution against its employees whose negligence resulted in the death of or injuries to passengers,” the SC held.
The Office of the Solicitor General, in its motion for reconsideration, argued that there is no proof that the DOJ erred in finding probable cause to indict Go since their findings were based on records and evidence submitted by the parties, as well as those elicited during clarificatory hearings.
The OSG said the appellate court erred when it interfered with the discretion of the prosecutors in the determination of probable cause, reversing its findings against Go.
In their appeal, the families of the victims of the tragedy argued that Go’s failure to order the master of the M/V Princess of the Stars to stop sailing and take shelter during the storm would fall under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code which punishes any person for reckless imprudence and negligence.
They insisted that Go had active control and supervision in the operations of SLI vessels.
The Princess of the Stars sailed from Manila at 8 a.m. on June 20, 2008, bound for Cebu City but sank off Sibuyan Island, Romblon, on June 22 after being battered by strong winds and big waves brought about by typhoon ‘‘Frank’’.
As this developed, Public Attorney’s Office chief Persida Acosta welcomed the Supreme Court ruling against the Sulpicio Lines Inc. executive.
“The relatives of the victims and survivors are happy to know that the criminal case [be] filed against them [Sulpicio Lines] through the free assistance of PAO after waiting for almost 10 years pending on petition filed by accused Edgar Go,” she told the Manila Standard.
“At least, the Supreme Court has spoken for the victims seeking justice,” she said.
Acosta earlier lamented that despite the Department of Justice’s presentation of nine witnesses before the Manila lower court, the appellate court “halted the trial by ruling that there is no probable cause.”
“PAO representing the victims filed criminal charges before the DoJ’s National Prosecution Service in September 2008. Then on June 22, 2009, the DoJ panel filed the criminal case with the Manila City Regional Trial Court,” Acosta said.
With the latest SC ruling, PAO chief said that “now, there would be no more bar for the continuation of the trial by the criminal court which has acquired jurisdiction over the case since 2009.”