SEVERAL misconduct complaints were filed against 35 Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) personnel, including top ranking police officials. An assistant provincial prosecutor before the Office of the Ombudsman over the gun raid conducted in the residential compound of former Pulupandan mayor Magdaleno Peña in Barangay Ubay, Pulupandan on May 2, 2013.

Manny Rio, Joey Yunque, Jr., Jeolito Morancil, Jimmy Castanos, Rey Asgar, Nelvon Gange, Armando de la Paz, and Jay Gange, who were detained for seven months after charges of illegal possession of firearms were filed against them by the PNP-CIDG, but were eventually dismissed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for insufficiency of evidence, filed multiple misconduct complaints on Tuesday, May 19.

According to the complainants, the charges are in line with the pronouncements and call of President Benigno S. Aquino III against police scalawags, and in line with the findings of the DOJ in the case filed versus Asgar, et al and against Peña, et al by the PNP- CIDG that all police officers involved in the May 2, 2013 implementation of Search Warrant No. 4850 raid be investigated for planting of explosives as evidence and waste of government resources.

The complainants said the police officers involved in the said gun raid “acted for and upon the prodding of politicians, conspired with and acted in concert with one another by maliciously obtaining a void search warrant for the purpose of seizing firearms which they already knew to be licensed, intentionally misrecorded or misstated the serial numbers as well as brands and makes of said firearms to make them appear as unlicensed, maliciously planted explosives.”

The police officers “searched the premises, illegally arrested all the male occupants thereof, and falsely filed charges against the said occupants leading to their incarceration for seven months.”

A total of 16 persons, including 10 farm workers and laborers, who were inside the house of Peña, during the raid were detained.

The complainants are asking the Ombudsman to immediately place the respondents of the case under preventive suspension in order to protect them and their families and witnesses from harassment, and to prevent the respondents from using their respective offices and public resources from influencing the outcome of the complaints and from tampering or destroying incriminatory evidence against them.