Ombudsman dismisses police official

MANILA, Philippines - The Office of the Ombudsman ordered the dismissal from the service of a police superintendent after he was found guilty of grave misconduct in relation to the illegal search of a house and arrest of two suspects in Makati City in 1998.

In three-page ruling, Superintendent Edjal Gandawali who has then headed the drug enforcement unit of the Southern Police District (SPD) was also stripped of his benefits and is banned from working for the government.

Acting Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro and Deputy Ombudsman for the Military Emilio Gonzalez III approved the decision based on an investigation conducted by graft and investigation and prosecution officer Yvette Marie Evaristo.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Jose Llanes and Jose Jesus Llanes who filed robbery, grave threats, grave coercion and illegal arrest against Gandawali.

The victims said that on Jan. 16, 1998, Gandawali and his men entered their house and conducted a search based on suspicion that they are involved in gun running, drug pushing and kidnapping.

Both claimed to have been arrested and brought to SPD headquarters in Fort Bonifacio in Makati City where they were detained without being charged of any crime.

“Wherefore, in this light, (Gandawali) is hereby found guilty of grave misconduct and is hereby meted the penalty of dismissal from the service, which shall carry with it the cancellation of his eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and his perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service,” the Office of the Ombudsman ruled.

The decision said it “finds that there is substantial evidence that respondent committed the acts imputed thus exhibiting a conduct that warrants the imposition of administrative sanction.”

“Aside from the failure to dispute the charge, there are other relevant and independent evidence proving that he committed the acts imputed,” it added.

Records show that testimonial evidence provided by a barangay official and several other individuals corroborated the victim’s allegations.

“Thus, respondent’s act of barging into the house of the complainants and conducting a warrantless search, are acts constituting a grave misconduct because the elements of clear intent to violate the law and flagrant disregard of established rule are manifest,” the Office of the Ombudsman said.