Yet it is a case that will perhaps haunt Ombudsman Aniano Desierto and the Office he heads for years to come. For many people, it is the one stark example of everything that is wrong with the institution, and the judicial system itself.

This much everyone agrees on about the case: in the early hours of May 18, 1995, 11 men riding a van were shot dead while in the custody of law enforcers on Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City. The fatalities were identified later as members of Kuratong Baleleng, the primary suspect in a series of bank robberies in the metropolis.

The June 21, 1995 joint report submitted by the Senate Committees on Justice and Human Rights, Crime, and National Defense and Security would note that Chief Supt. Jewel Canson was the acknowledged head of the joint operation that resulted in the capture of the Kuratong Baleleng gang members. Canson was also present when the van carrying the 11 men rolled out of Camp Crame as part of a 20-vehicle convoy.

But Canson's men were not the only ones with the suspects when the shooting broke out. So too were teams that belonged to other police agencies that had participated in the operation and that were under the respective commands of Chief Supt. Panfilo Lacson of the Presidential Anti-Crime Commission (PACC) that had Vice President Joseph Estrada as big boss, Chief Supt. Romeo Acop of the Criminal Investigation Command, and Senior Supt. Francisco Zubia of the Traffic Management Command.

Witnesses would later say Gens. Canson, Lacson and Acop, as well as Col. Zubia, were with the law enforcers who raided the gang's Parañaque hideout just hours before the shoot-out, leading to the arrest of nine Kuratong Baleleng members. While that was going on, another team led by Police Inspector Michael Ray Aquino of the PACC was in Alabang, taking two more gang members into custody. All 11 would first land in Camp Crame, and then packed into the van that would have Commonwealth Avenue as its final stop.

In November 1995, the office of Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs Manuel Casaclang's office came out with a 65-page resolution dismissing the case. The papers, which curiously lacked Casaclang's signature, were forwarded to Desierto.

"Well, Desierto couldn't sign it either," said Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco Villa. "He asked for my help and we formed a committee to review it. We came out that there was a case (for murder). Principal si Lacson and the other generals were accessories (after the fact)."

But the Villa Panel's findings were overruled by Desierto, who formed another review panel, this time headed by Special Prosecution Officer Roger Berbano.

On February 14, 1996, two days before the deadline set by the Sandiganbayan for the reinvestigation to end, Berbano called a clarificatory hearing in which SP02 Eduardo de los Reyes was the only one among the five witnesses requested to attend. De los Reyes was considered the state's star witness, having been a member of the joint task group that had captured the Kuratong Baleleng gang. It was also he who had alerted the media about the odd circumstances surrounding the deaths of the suspects, a few days after the generals and Zubia had publicly patted themselves on the back for a job well done.

Two weeks later, the Review Panel—minus Berbano, who had resigned from the prosecutor's office on February 16—submitted its recommendations to Desierto. Its members had failed to reach a consensus, although private prosecutors said there was a "preponderance of opinion" for the maintenance of charges as principal against Lacson and the upgrading of charges against Canson, Acop and Francisco Zubia.

But Desierto downgraded the charges against Lacson while maintaining the findings of the Villa Panel regarding Canson, Acop and Zubia. Desierto based his decision mainly on de los Reyes's testimony at the Valentine's Day hearing, calling it "new evidence." Out of the 26 accused, 11 were found principal players; not one was a high-ranking officer.

"The downgrading effectively removed the case from the jurisdiction of the Sandigan to the Regional Trial Courts," said Teddy Te of the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG). "At the time, the Sandigan rules said the principals in cases like these should include a general for it to hear it."

The private prosecutors were upset—and becoming increasingly wary toward the Office of the Ombudsman. Months earlier, they had found out one of Gen. Canson's lawyers was a daughter of Special Prosecutor Leonardo Tamayo, who in turn had been part of the Villa Panel. Tamayo would later inhibit himself from the case, but only after putting in a dissenting vote in the Villa Panel and after the case was filed in court.

Berbano was to testify in Congress later that when the case was being reviewed by his panel, Tamayo dropped by his office to tell him to hold a clarificatory hearing with de los Reyes. Tamayo admitted this in an interview, although he said he was only "conveying the order of the Ombudsman." In fact, he said, he was still in Berbano's office when Desierto himself called the special prosecuting officer on the phone.

Clarificatory hearings are held primarily to clear up any doubts about certain facts in the prosecutors' minds, Berbano told the legislators. When Desierto rang him up, however, his panel had already drawn up a draft resolution; Berbano felt no need to hold one.

Berbano said of Desierto's call: "It was normal, as far as I was concerned at the time, to remind me of what to do. But I reminded (the Ombudsman) that there was in fact a clarificatory hearing (request), although subsequently...it was withdrawn. But the Ombudsman said, 'I think there is nothing wrong, because they might blame us later on, if you can proceed with the clarificatory hearing.'"

Meanwhile, the private prosecutors met with Desierto. In front of media witnesses, Desierto promised the lawyers that he would not challenge any motion of reconsideration they would file seeking a review of all the charges in the case. The lawyers did precisely that. "But then he came out and opposed (the motion)," said Te, who was at the meeting. "He said, 'You cannot file that without my consent.'"

The private lawyers withdrew as prosecutors in disgust, although they remained counsels for the witnesses. In several legal documents they prepared following the downgrading of charges against the generals, the FLAG lawyers would invariably say what Desierto had described as "new evidence" were distortions of what SP02 de los Reyes had told the Berbano Panel. De los Reyes's replies were twisted out of context by Desierto, they said, in order to justify making Lacson only an accessory after the fact.

Commenting on Desierto's actions a year later, FLAG lawyer Jose Manuel Diokno said, "Given his background during the Marcos administration, it was not altogether unexpected." Diokno was referring to Desierto's 17-year stint as military prosecutor at the Judge Advocate General's Office (JAGO). Casaclang, one of his deputies at the Ombudsman's Office, was his boss there.

To some, Desierto's having been once part of the military was reason enough to suspect him as likely to favor former colleagues being investigated by the Office. But save for that, there seemed to be no tangible connection between Desierto and the accused in the Kuratong Baleleng case before he picked up the phone to call Berbano.

That is, until May 1996, when an Ombudsman insider leaked to media that Desierto had received 10 television sets from businessman Faustino 'Pong' Salud. In a March 1996 affidavit, de los Reyes had mentioned Salud as having contacted his family, claiming to represent "a group of Chinese businessmen who wanted to help" Lacson.

Desierto readily admitted getting the TVs, eight of which had been raffled off to Office personnel during their 1995 Christmas party. But Desierto said he had paid for them, albeit with a hefty discount—which turned out to be 10 times more than what Salud's firm usually gave to customers. Desierto described Salud as a friend "of more than 20 years."

The Ombudsman produced a receipt, but it was dated January 3, 1996, two weeks after the TVs were delivered to his office. Makati Rep. Joker Arroyo wondered if the payment was a mere "afterthought." Sen. Ernesto Maceda remarked then: "Ganyan ba ka-cheap si Ani? Sampung TV sets lang? (Is Ani that cheap? Only 10 TV sets?)"

If Parañaque Rep. Roilo Golez was to be believed, the answer to that question was no—with a twist. Golez was the vice-chair of the House public order and security committee, which was then still conducting hearings on the Kuratong Baleleng case. It was there that Golez revealed that sometime after the Feb. 14 clarificatory hearing, Desierto bought a P10 million house at the upscale Tierra Pura subdivision in Quezon City.

Desierto, whose 1995 Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) showed a net worth of only P6 million, countered that he had sold a house and lot in Marikina to buy the Tierra Pura property. A daily also quoted him as saying, "Kung tutuusin, I'm worth more than that."

But Desierto probably later regretted mentioning the Marikina property. He and his men had said it had been sold in February 1996 for P7.5 million. Desierto's 1995 SAL, however, listed its value as P3 million. A report to the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights also noted that the property's buyer declared its market value at less than P1 million just five days after the sale.

It was the deed of absolute sale itself that attracted Golez the most, though. For it bore the signature of Elizabeth R. Desierto, the Ombudsman's first wife, who by then had been residing in Australia for more than a decade and had remarried. Elizabeth would deny by fax, phone, and post any knowledge of the document. She would also say the last time she visited the Philippines was in 1983.

Further checks by Golez revealed the notary public whose name, signature and registry number were affixed on the deed may not have been in the country at the time the papers were supposedly prepared and signed. The residence certificate number that was supposedly Elizabeth R. Desierto's turned out to be issued to someone else. The tax account number also said to be hers was declared invalid by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

On July 24, 1996, Rep. Golez filed an impeachment complaint against Ombudsman Desierto. Included among the three charges was the "falsification after falsification" Desierto allegedly committed in the Marikina property sale. Golez said these were tantamount to "acts of betrayal of public trust, and also (constituted) corruption."

The complaint said Desierto "committed further violations of the provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019) and related statutes, in the purchases, at a drastically reduced price, amounting to a prohibited gift, if not a bribe, of a number of television sets, through the intercession of the same intermediary who had allegedly negotiated for the 'success' of the clarificatory hearing in the Kuratong Baleleng case."

But Desierto never had to defend himself in Congress. The complaint was dismissed for "insufficiency in substance." Of the 42 members of the House Committee on Justice present at the hearing, only nine voted in favor of impeachment. Said an irate Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman: "The majority decision has erroneously meandered outside of the averments of the complaint. It mistook the navel for the asshole."

In an interview a year later, Aniano Desierto said he "prepared the information personally to make sure I did not commit a mistake…so that they would not say later that I favored the military." He said he did not know the officers involved in the case because they were junior to him. But he hinted that it would not have mattered otherwise.

"Since I assumed office," said Desierto, "I have filed charges against 17 generals. So why would I choose (to help) Lacson? .... What could I get out of him? Don't tell me I was afraid of him. I've been ambushed before. Besides, if I was really scared, why would I charge the majors, the sergeants? These are the more dangerous people. These are the killers." He added: "I knew that the moment I made (Lacson) principal, the court would dismiss the case immediately. With accessory, they can't dismiss it. Because it's true."

Desierto said his critics, whom he scoffs at as mere "corporate lawyers," did not realize that an accessory after the fact in a murder case can be punished with a maximum jail term of 15 years per count if found guilty. "There were 11 crimes," he said, "so that means 65 years. Now, the other one is life imprisonment, if he's principal. Which one do you want, the 65 years or life imprisonment, which is up to 40 years only?"

But Diokno, who is known for his work in human rights cases, noted: "E hindi pala siya marunong magbilang (Well, he doesn't know how to count). You'd have to multiply that 40 years by 11 counts, too. So that's actually 440 years as against 65 years."

The Ombudsman's flawed mathematical ability, however, is not the only problem here. The truth is that while Desierto may not have been found guilty of any wrongdoing, neither has his innocence been proven. Like an untreated wound, the suspicion about Desierto has festered as a result, and a foul smell has hung over his Office as well.

Sen. Raul Roco said it best during the 1996 Senate hearings the Ombudsman had chosen not to attend: "(When) there is any cloud, when there is any accusation against the man, it should be answered and explained fully. Because refusal to explain tends to suggest not so much fleeing from the truth, but fleeing from the questions and fleeing from the committee. And it does not therefore strengthen, it does not therefore bolster, the standing of both the institution and the Ombudsman."

This all seemed rather lost on Desierto, who would not only refuse to resign, but would even declare at one point that he was "at par with t he President." More than a year after he struck a good great deal on 10 TV sets and then generously gave most them, he would be a portrait of confidence, saying his Office had regained its bearings quite quickly from the scandal that ensued. This proved, he said, that it was "formidable."

But some insiders were not as cocksure, with one admitting outright that "there is still that stigma." The same official also commented: "If there is integrity in the leadership, it would follow that the institution would also have that. If the leadership is corrupt, expect a ripple effect in the entire organization to follow the leader."