Last nail on Mendoza’s coffin: Ombudsman affirms dismissal

MANILA, Philippines—Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez has affirmed an earlier decision recommending the dismissal of slain hostage-taker, Senior Insp. Rolando Mendoza, and four other policemen from the service for extorting money from a young chef two years ago.

After Mendoza hijacked a bus full of Chinese tourists to demand his reinstatement, Gutierrez promised the irate policeman that she would personally review the case and render judgement in 10 days.

The Office of the Ombudsman Monday released Gutierrez’ ruling, which denied Mendoza’s motion for reconsideration and found no reason to reverse the earlier finding that Mendoza and his colleagues had unlawfully arrested the complainant, Christian Kalaw, and extorted money from him.

Dismissed cops

Dismissed along with Mendoza were Insp. Nelson Lagasca, SPO1 Nestor David, PO3 Wilson Gavino and PO2 Roderick Lopena.

Kalaw had accused the policemen of arresting him and forcing him to swallow a substance he suspected to be shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride), then demanding P20,000 for his release.

The police officials had denied Kalaw’s allegations and contended that the Office of the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction over the case because it was already pending before the police’s Internal Affairs Service. They also pointed out that the complaint was based only on photocopies of the complaint affidavit.

But in her order dated Sept. 1, Gutierrez said Mendoza and his co-accused failed to present any new evidence to support their claim of innocence.

Illegal parking

She said Kalaw’s arrest for alleged driving without a license and illegal parking were questionable. If indeed Kalaw was “illegally parked,” then his vehicle should just have been impounded and there was no reason to arrest and detain him.

Gutierrez said Kalaw’s detention for a traffic violation was “unreasonably long” and not commensurate with his alleged offense.

The policemen’s blanket denials, she said, were “practically worthless and cannot prevail over the positive assertions of and unequivocal identification by the complainant,” who was not shown to have any ill motive in filing the complaint.

Gutierrez also said the Office of the Ombudsman can assume jurisdiction over any investigation by a government agency.

As for the use of photocopies, she said there was no basic requirement on the form of a complaint against public officials.

Extortion case

Meanwhile, Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzalez III confirmed Monday that he talked to Mendoza over the phone during the hostage drama, and that the hostage-taker told him about a P150,000 demand to settle the case.

In a press conference, Gonzalez said he immediately told Mendoza that he knew nothing about such a demand.

“I told him ‘That is not true. I have not met you, I have not seen you,’” Gonzalez said in a press conference.

When Mendoza complained to him about “being set up,” Gonzalez said he asked him who, when and where the supposed set-up took place.

But Mendoza, he said, did not respond to his questions.

Gonzales said Mendoza did not throw invectives at him during the conversation, disputing police accounts of the incident.

Assistant Ombudsman Jose de Jesus, who was also at the press conference, balked at suggestions that the Ombudsman investigate Gonzalez for supposedly asking Mendoza for money.

“In front of you all, he is declaring—short of vowing before God—that he did not do that. So why would we investigate?” De Jesus said.

Leila Salaverria, Phil. Daily Inquirer