MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of Arlan Mendoza, another former immigration officer who rose through the ranks and became a key figure who supposedly exercised operational control in the “pastillas” scheme, which allowed the seamless entry of Chinese nationals without undergoing proper protocols.

Contrary to Mendoza’s argument that the accusations against him were vague and lacked specificity, the appellate court ruled that his designation as a “boss” within the pastillas scheme was a “functional descriptor of his central role in the orchestration, supervision, and sustained operation of an unlawful enterprise that subverted the lawful processes of immigration enforcement.”

In a 17-page decision dated June 30 and penned by Associate Justice Marietta Brawner-Cualing, the CA’s 17th Division denied Mendoza’s petition for review challenging the Ombudsman’s 2022 decision. He was earlier found administratively liable for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, with the Ombudsman imposing upon him the supreme penalty of dismissal from the service.

READ: CA upholds dismissal of BI official in ‘pastillas’ scheme

In a separate ruling, the CA also denied the appeal of Gabriel Estacio, a former immigration officer tagged as one of the group chat administrators of the notorious syndicate, who had sought to overturn the same administrative charges against him.

The scheme, described by the CA as a “multilayered, institutionalized bribery and human trafficking enterprise,” operated within the Bureau of Immigration allegedly from 2016 until it was exposed in 2020.

The illicit arrangement allowed the entry of foreign nationals, primarily Chinese citizens, without undergoing proper immigration protocols and security vetting.

In exchange, the bribe money given to immigration agents involved were hidden inside rolled up sheets of paper which resembled pastillas, a local soft candy wrapped up in wafer-thin paper, to avoid detection.

Both of the whistleblowers, Allison Chiong and Jeffrey Ignacio, identified Mendoza as among those exercising operational command and control over the group.

At the time material to the administrative charges, the CA said that Mendoza held the rank of immigration officer III while concurrently serving as the Deputy Head of the Travel Control and Enforcement Unit  (TCEU) assigned at Terminal 2 of Ninoy Aquino International Airport.

READ: NBI readies 2nd round of cases vs ‘pastillas’ bosses

The court noted that his record indicated a progression through the ranks within the bureau, having served as immigration officer I from 2009 to 2017 and as immigration officer II from 2017 to 2020.

Chiong and Ignacio named Mendoza alongside then Ports Operations Division Chief Marc Red Mariñas, TCEU Chief Erwin Ortañez, and other terminal heads and deputies, as part of the central command group or “bosses” who orchestrated the flow of operations and benefitted the most from the proceeds of the scheme.

Mendoza elevated the case to the CA after the Ombudsman in 2022 found him guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

In his petition he argued that the statements made against him were “vague, sweeping, and general in character, devoid of material particulars as to time, manner, or circumstance.”

The CA, however, was not convinced as it ruled that Mendoza “betrayed [the] solemn trust” given to him being the deputy head of the TCEU.

“His role placed him at the helm of frontline border enforcement, and within an office that demanded unimpeachable integrity, exacting vigilance, and the highest degree of public trust. Regrettably, the record indelibly shows that Mendoza betrayed this solemn trust,” the court said.

The CA emphasized that the whistleblowers’ accounts did not lack specific acts directly attributable to Mendoza.

In fact, the CA pointed out, Chiong and Ignacio identified him specifically as one of the “bosses” who, in their words, “inagaw at pumalit” (seized control and took over the operation), “nag-kontrol ng mga collection” (managed the collection of illicit payments), “nagbibigay ng mga commission” (distributed illegal commissions), and “nagbabasbas, nagcocontrol, at kumukubra ng maraming pera” (conferred his official sanction upon, exercised command over, and personally reaped substantial financial gains from the unlawful activities). /dl