Ombud charges DPWH engineer

CEBU, Philippines - The anti-graft office recommended the filing of a criminal case against an employee of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)-7 for grave threats.

Graft investigation and prosecution officer Maria Regina Hagad-Fernandez said based on the evidence of complainant Amelita Lacuna, she found probable cause to file a criminal case against Engineer IV Mario Montejo, chief of the Planning and Design Division of DPWH 7 in Cebu City.

"Leave my land! Otherwise, I'll shoot you!- is clear on the action that respondent intends to take against complainant and her family, that is, to shoot her if they do not leave his property. Clearly, the utterance falls under Paragraph 1 Article 282 or grave threats," the resolution stated.

In her complaint, Lacuna said that she and her family lived in a land owned by the respondent.

They cultivated the land and  every harvest, they will bring fruits and vegetables to the respondent.

On May 14, 2011 at around 9 a.m., upon reaching the house of the respondent, they saw a person doing the laundry and asked if respondent was home.

However, to her surprise, respondent came out mad and threatened them in a loud voice, "Leave my land! Otherwise, I'll shoot you."

She said she was scared because they know what the respondent is capable of doing. She explained that they were only there to bring him some fruits and vegetables.

Lacuna reported the incident to the police.

Fernandez summoned Montejo and directed him to file his counter-affidavit and other evidence but the respondent failed.

The summons were sent back to the Office of the Ombudsman with annotations that respondent was either on leave or out of office.

Fernandez also directed Montejo to file a verified position paper but he also failed to comply.

With the annotation "on leave and out of office", Fernandez concluded that respondent refused to receive their office's order.

"If indeed complainant's allegations are without basis, respondent will be eager or gladly welcome the chance given to him to give his side of the incident. Instead, this Office's orders were refused, respondent is clearly evading with reasons such as being on leave or out of the office at the time the orders were delivered," the resolution further stated. —(FREEMAN)