CA clears BI officer in forgery case

A Bureau of Immigration (BI) officer accused of falsifying Philippine travel records for former Wirecard executive Jan Marsalek has been acquitted by the Court of Appeals.

In a decision dated 21 November 2025, penned by Associate Justice Lorna Catris-Chua Cheng, the CA cleared BI supervisor Marcos Nicodemus on the ground of reasonable doubt.

The ruling overturned the Pasay Regional Trial Court’s conviction of Nicodemus for violations of the Cybercrime Prevention Act and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which previously carried a penalty of up to 18 years’ imprisonment.

The BI officer was accused of directing Immigration Officer (IO) Darren Ilagan to input false data showing that Marsalek arrived in the Philippines on 23 June 2020, despite having never entered the country, allegedly to make it difficult for authorities to track the fugitive.

Ilagan claimed Nicodemus phoned him to instruct a derogatory check on Marsalek even without his physical presence, prompting him to input the former Wirecard official's name and date of birth in the immigration database to create a false arrival record.

Nicodemus argued that the prosecution failed to prove that the call ever happened. The CA agreed, saying the case relied almost entirely on Ilagan’s testimony without corroborating evidence, including phone logs or the testimony of the colleague who allegedly first received the call.

“Indeed, the absence of evidentiary support renders IO Ilagan’s testimony dubious and unconvincing,” the CA stated.

The appellate court also noted that other prosecution witnesses had no personal knowledge of Nicodemus’ alleged instruction, nor proof that he persuaded, induced, or influenced Ilagan to conduct the derogatory check. It further highlighted that Nicodemus was not on duty as Ilagan’s supervisor when the check was performed.

The CA also ruled that the prosecution failed to establish that Nicodemus acted in evident bad faith or that Marsalek received unwarranted benefits on his account.

“Considering that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crimes charged, an acquittal must therefore follow,” the decision read.