A FORMER sheriff of the Regional Trial Court Branch 20 in Tacurong City is facing charges before the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao for allegedly demanding "monetary consideration" from his clients for implementing writs of execution.

Facing eight counts of violation of Section 3b and 19 counts of Section 3f or Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and estafa charges is former Sheriff Carlos P. Diaz.

Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I Rosemil Robles Banaga, in a resolution dated February 10, found probable cause to charge Diaz based on the complaint filed by Supreme Court (SC), Court Administrator Jose P. Midas Marquez.

The complaint, dated April 4, 2014, was filed by Marquez pursuant to the mandate of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) under Presidential Decree 828 and in compliance with the SC Decision in Administrative Matter (AM) P-07-2300 dated November 29, 2011 where SC directed for criminal action against the respondent who was dismissed from the service for grave misconduct.

AM P-07-2300 arose from the complaint filed before OCA by lawyer Rutillo B. Pasok, which involved a number of civil cases handled by the plaintiff's side.

"In all the civil cases subject of the administrative complaint against him, he unduly demanded monetary considerations from Pasok and his clients; and in two of those instances, he actually received the sums as he demanded (P50,000 and P2,000) all in connection with the implementation of writs, a function inherent in his office as a court sheriff, thereby violating Section 3b of RA 3019," the resolution read.

Banaga found Diaz in violation of section 3f of RA 3019 after the respondent did not implement the writs of execution in 19 cases after he was not paid for the amount he demanded from his clients.

The respondent was recommended for estafa charges for taking P2,000 from Loyola couple (Pasok's clients) for "making them believe that the amount is necessary for the implementation of the 16 writs of execution issued in their favor," yet the respondent still failed to act on it. (KGL)