SENIOR Insp. Rolando Mendoza, the policeman who took hostage a busload of Hongkong tourists and ended up killing many of them in August 2010, was an “extortionist” whose dismissal from the service as ordered by the Office of the Ombudsman was valid, the Court of Appeals (CA) ruled.

In a two-page resolution, the appellate court’s former 13th division affirmed the dismissal from the service of the late police officer and his men for grave misconduct after they extorted money and forced a chef to swallow shabu in 2008.

Ruling with finality on its level, the division has junked the motions for reconsideration filed by the group of Mendoza through his surviving men, namely: Insp. Nelson Lagasca, Senior Police Officer 1 Nestor David, Police Officer (PO) 3 Wilson Gavino and PO2 Roderick Lopeña

Associate Justices Magdangal de Leon and Angelita Gacutan concurred with the ruling.

The appellate court stressed that the issues raised by the police officers in seeking a reversal of a previous court ruling that upheld their dismissal were mere rehashed.

Vindicated
The ruling, a copy of which was obtained by The Manila Times, vindicated former ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and deputy ombudsman Emilio Gonzalez 3rd, who took the blame for the deadly Luneta hostage-taking after the officials ordered Mendoza’s sacking.

The names of Gutierrez and Gonzalez were also cleared by the Audit resolution that affirmed allegations that Mendoza and his men were indeed “extortionists.”

“It can well be inferred from the records that the petitioners tried to extort money from [complainant Christian] Kalaw by virtue of their position as police officers and thus, constitute grave misconduct,” it said.

The Appeals court ruled that the Ombudsman office was correct in ruling that Mendoza and his men should be removed from the roster of the Philippine National Police.

Following the August 23, 2010 incident, Malacañang dismissed Gonzalez and pressured Gutierrez to resign on the mere allegation that the dismissal of Mendoza caused him to snap and triggered the hostage-taking that claimed the lives of a number of tourists.

Several news reports had said that it was the assailed Ombudsman decision dated February 16, 2009, which ordered the dismissal of Mendoza, et al, that prompted the police officer to do the unthinkable in his bid to be reinstated in the police force.

The Ombudsman disqualified Mendoza and his men from holding any government position. They were also disqualified from availing of their retirement benefits.

Complaint
Records of the case showed that on April 9, 2008 in Manila, the policemen accosted Christian Kalaw, a chef who worked for the Mandarin Hotel, for illegal parking, driving without license and alleged use of illegal drugs.

In his complaint, Kalaw said that he parked his car along Vito Cruz and was accosted by Mendoza, et al. He alleged that Mendoza and his men tried to extort P3,000 from him after he was accused of being a drug user.

The complainant further said that the policemen attempted to extort P20,000 from him at the headquarters of the Mobile Patrol Unit of the Manila Police District.

When he resisted, Kalaw was allegedly forced by the policemen to swallow a sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

Mendoza was slapped with administrative charges on April 25, 2008 and he was relieved as head of the Mobile Patrol Unit.

The Internal Affairs Service of the National Police, on October 17, 2008 recommended the dismissal of the case when Kalaw did not attend the three consecutive proceedings.

The case, however, was taken to the Ombudsman office, which rendered a decision on February 16, 2009.

On September 1, 2010, the antigraft body denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, prompting the respondents to bring the case before the appellate court.

Strong evidence
In its ruling, the appeals court did not agree with the petitioners’ argument that the Ombudsman had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.

According to the appellate court, an examination of the recorded evidence strongly brings them to agree with the findings of the Ombudsman, thus, there was reasonable ground to hold Mendoza and the others liable for the following acts: “they forced Christian Kalaw to swallow a suspected shabu; they took the amount of P3,000 from him; they asked Kalaw, under the threat of being detained, to withdraw from his ATM [automated teller machine] card and pay them P200,000.”

Under the Rules of Procedure of the Ombudsman, the court said: “the Ombudsman is allowed to render decisions in administrative disciplinary cases solely on the basis of the evidence on record, without the need of any formal hearing.”