Case against 10 cops junked

The anti-graft office dismissed the complaints by a former policeman against two police officials and eight others whom he accused of planting evidence against him.

Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices Cyril Ramos approved the decision last month.

“The factual bases of the accusations attributed to them pertain to the exercise of their official functions. It is worth stressing that policemen, as public officers, are presumed to have performed their official duties with regularity and in accordance with law,” reads a portion of the decision.

Complainant Moises Cunanan had filed criminal and administrative charges against Bogo City Police Chief Byron Allatog and Senior Insp. Irish Delim for grave abuse of authority.

The other respondents were SPO4 Reynaldo Rosacena, SPO1 Ryan Alarde, PO3 Aldwin Manlangit, PO2 Jerry Tul-id, PO2 Leo Edano, PO2 Demijoh Puno, PO2 Edfel Joseph Neiz and PO1 Edilberto Tillor Jr.

Allatog, one of The Outstanding Young Men (TOYM) awardees for 2017, wrote on Facebook that Cunanan’s legal action against him is “proof that in this war on drugs, there are...people who malign you when you are doing your job, but you can never put a good man down (police officers who are doing their assigned jobs and determined to cleanse their ranks).”

Last Dec. 19, 2016, the team led by Delim, then Bogo City deputy police chief, led the inspection of lockers and drawers in the police station.

Taytayan Barangay Captain Teresita Ursal and tanod Rene Fernandez witnessed the inspection.

They discovered 30 grams of suspected shabu worth P354,000 and two fragmentation grenades from the locker of Cunanan, who had been transferred to Demiao Municipal Police Station in Bohol sometime in August 2016.

He was later dismissed from the service after he was found guilty of keeping the contraband.

Cunanan, in his complaint, accused the officers of planting the evidence.

The anti-graft office, however, was not persuaded by his arguments.

“There is nothing to support the imposition of administrative sanctions on respondents since there is no showing that they wrongfully inflicted any bodily harm, imprisonment or other injury on complainant or acted with cruelty, severity, or excessive use of authority,” the decision reads. /