Cop face raps for releasing car evidence

FOR allegedly releasing evidence, a police officer will face trial after he was charged with a criminal case by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices.

Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer Maria Teresa Rafols found evidence to charge PO2 Abelardo Biton with violation of Section 3 (C) of the Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Bail was set at P30,000 for the accused.

On Aug. 17 last year, complainant Malik Abato went to the Minglanilla Police Station to request a photocopy of the driver’s license of Jumar Itang, the driver of the van that damaged Abato’s stall.

Biton allegedly did not give him a copy and advised him to come back on Aug. 23.

Abato also noticed the van was no longer parked outside the police station. He later learned the vehicle was already released by Biton, despite the fact that he filed a case against Itang on Aug. 18.

Case

The complainant filed the case after no settlement was reached on Aug. 8. The next day, Itang and a representative of the owner of the van did not show up.

In his counter-affidavit, Biton denied the allegations.

He said there was a verbal agreement that both parties will settle the case. The insurance company allegedly would shoulder the P35,000 payment for Abato.

He also denied he was the one who ordered for the van’s release.

The accused said former Minglanilla Police Chief Laurel Almirante and an insurance employee can testify that there was a settlement.

As to his alleged “unwillingness” to release a copy of Itang’s license to Itang, the police officer said he only wanted Abato to write a request letter.

Proof

In her resolution, Rafols asked for the proof of the settlement, which the accused failed to show.

She described Biton’s defense that he is willing to give a copy of Itang’s license as “flimsy.”

“The complainant was not asking to get the original driver’s license, only its photocopy,” she said. “Therefore, his act of not giving it to the complainant showed his bias and his intention to protect the driver and the delivery van owner,” she
said.