The Court of Appeals has reversed the dismissal of seven Philippine Army soldiers previously found guilty of grave misconduct over allegations of torture, paving the way for their reinstatement with full backwages and benefits.

In its 28 October 2025 decision penned by Associate Justice Emilio Rodolfo Legaspi III, the CA’s Special 14th Division ruled that there was insufficient evidence to uphold the soldiers’ dismissal and noted the affidavit of desistance filed by the complainants, who admitted they were not certain that the soldiers were the individuals who tortured them.

The court said the affidavits showed that the alleged acts constituting grave misconduct were not specifically attributed to the accused servicemen.

This reverses the CA’s earlier August 2020 ruling that upheld the Office of the Ombudsman’s decision dismissing the soldiers from the service. The Ombudsman had indicted them for violations of the Anti-Torture Act and attempted murder, and found them administratively liable for grave misconduct.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by two individuals whom the military described as suspected members of the New People’s Army.

Ordered reinstated to their former posts were Staff Sergeant Tranquilino Pillos, Corporal Sherwin B. Palaruan, Technical Sergeant Dominador Medina Jr., Staff Sergeant Russel John Favian Nueva, Sergeant Jackel Dela Cruz Cantuba, and Corporal Jake Mangaser Cuevas, all formerly assigned to the 71st Infantry Battalion.

The CA noted that the complainants only referred to “soldiers” without providing identifying characteristics. It said the identification of the specific soldiers appeared questionable given that no prior descriptions were recorded and no explanation was provided as to how or why the accused were named.

It added that the complainants identified the soldiers more than three months after escaping captivity, which could have affected their ability to recall the alleged perpetrators.

“While these factors do not wholly discredit the private respondents’ recollection of events, the same cast significant doubt as to the accuracy of the identification of the petitioners,” the ruling stated.

The CA further said the Ombudsman-Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices ruling was based on “mere assumptions and generalizations.”

It added that the complainants’ affidavit of desistance was the “final nail in the coffin.” While such affidavits are normally treated with caution due to the possibility of coercion, the court said there was no indication of fraud or duress in this case.