THE Office of the Ombudsman has denied the motion for reconsideration filed against 33 policemen.
Manny Rio, Joey Yunque Jr., Deolito Morancil, Jimmy Castaños, Rey Asgar, Nelvon Gange, Jay Gange, and Armando Dela Paz filed a motion on December 20, 2017, against the Ombudsman's decision in November 2017, dismissing their criminal and administrative complaints against the respondents.
They filed criminal complaints about arbitrary detention, maliciously obtaining a search warrant, abuse in the service of the search warrant, searching domicile without witnesses, false testimony, planting evidence, violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, incriminating innocent persons, and obstruction of apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders after they were arrested during the policemen's service of a search warrant at the ancestral house of former Pulupandan mayor Magdaleno Peña in Barangay Ubay in May 2013.
They also filed administrative complaints for grave misconduct, oppression, dereliction of duty, misfeasance, nonfeasance, conduct unbecoming of a public officer and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
In a resolution dated May 29, 2018, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales denied the motion, citing that there was no probable cause to indict the respondents of the offenses charged against them based on the allegations, defenses, and evidence presented by the parties. The conduct of a trial is clearly unnecessary, it also said.
The complainants also filed an urgent motion for voluntary inhibition of Morales and the investigator on the case from further acting on the cases. However, the Ombudsman also denied their urgent motion for voluntary inhibition for being groundless.
The resolution said that the complainants offer no evidence to support their claim and merely rely on their self-serving conclusions based on their own observations of how the ruling was crafted.
To cast malicious accusations against the office just because the ruling did not suit complainants' favor, but without providing any proof is plainly out of order. The motion is also without merit, it said.
The Ombudsman cited that the complainants simply rehashed issues that were already passed upon in their consolidated resolution. (GYM/SunStar Bacolod)