3 Mandaue execs, 22 JOs  seek graft case dismissal

CEBU, Philippines — Three city officials and 22 job-order employees of Mandaue City government filed a motion for reconsideration before the Office of the Ombudsman yesterday seeking for the dismissal of the graft complaint filed against them.

This came after the Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict the officials for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on July 9, 2024.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Maria Priscilla S. Melendres and Maritoni S. Melendres, accusing the respondents of unlawfully implementing a notice to demolish on a disputed property in Barangay Paknaan, Mandaue on May 3, 2023.

The complainants filed criminal and administrative cases against Housing and Urban Development Office (HUDO) Head Johnbee Biton, Assistant Assessor Julius Ceasar Entise, Janitorial and Security Services Unit Head Teodorico Montojo II, and other City Hall employees before the Office of the Ombudsman.

The respondents, through their counsels, have only filed a motion for reconsideration before the Office of the Ombudsman yesterday, despite the resolution being issued on July 9, 2024, as they just received a copy of it on Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2025.

However, in a decision signed by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Carl Vincent D. Sasuman, he cited only Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 that has probable cause to indict the respondents.

Meanwhile, the criminal case for arbitrary detention under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code against the same respondents has been dismissed for lack of probable cause.

In their motion for reconsideration, the respondents argued that they were merely carrying out their duties as part of a legally constituted composite team formed to enforce the City’s demolition order.

The respondents include personnel from the Office of the Building Official, HUDO, the City Legal Office, the Office of the City Engineer, the Joint Assistance Security Services Unit (JASSU), and the Mandaue City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office (MCDRRMO).

They contend that they were enforcing a valid notice to demolish issued by the City Legal Office and that the demolition was necessary to address severe flooding in Paknaan, where the property is located.

The respondents said that the area in question had been illegally reclaimed and was contributing to water obstruction.

The motion also included a detailed information on how the flooding in Paknaan has worsened in September 2022 that affected many families.

On Sept. 13, 2022, the Mandaue City Council passed Resolution 16-626-2022, declaring a state of calamity due to the flood damage.

Additionally, City Assistant Assessor Atty. Julius Ceasar Entise, one of the respondents, told reporters yesterday that the notice to demolish was issued to clear the area from illegal structures.

“Under the Local Government Code as amended particularly Section 455 the city mayor is authorized to cause the demolition of illegal structures even without a court order,” said Entise.

On May 3, 2023, the Composite Team proceeded with the demolition, arguing that public welfare necessitated the clearing of the land.

The motion added that one of the complainants, Maritoni Melendres, allegedly pepper sprayed two JASSU personnel.

Despite this, respondents claimed they maintained maximum tolerance and restraint throughout the operation.

The Ombudsman ruled that the respondents acted without authority—a claim they strongly refuted.

“It cannot be considered undue because there was a notice to demolish. It would have been different if there was none kanang giguba lang nimo wa kay notice,” said Entise.

The respondents stated that a representative from the Office of the Building Official (OBO) was present and that the demolition was supported by city ordinances, specifically City Ordinance 13-2016-1105 and City Ordinance KK/035.

Entise said that they are confident the Ombudsman’s decision will be reversed. He added that while the notice to demolish was specifically addressed to the OBO head, there is a memorandum from the Mandaue City Administrator's Office that created the composite team.

The lawyer explained that in Mandaue, the OBO does not have a demolition team. The demolition team, as far as Mandaue is concerned, is HUDO, which exists by virtue of an ordinance.

“HUDO is authorized to conduct demolition activity so that's why a composite team was created to implement the notice to demolish,” said Entise.

He said that the Ombudsman was not aware of this, which is why they decided that when the structures were demolished, even though it was by virtue of a notice to demolish, they were informed that they were not authorized because it was not addressed to HUDO.

Entise said that if this had been raised during the clarificatory hearing, they could have clarified the setup in Mandaue City, but this matter was not addressed.

But since this has already been stated in their motion for reconsideration, Entise said they are confident that the previous decision will be reversed.

“We hope and pray the Office of the Ombudsman will look at it differently this time,” said Entise.

The respondents also claimed that the Ombudsman’s finding of "undue injury" is baseless.

They contend that the complainants failed to quantify any damage suffered and that the alleged harm resulted from the lawful enforcement of regulations.

The motion referenced People v. Cumigad (2023), in which the Supreme Court ruled that undue injury under RA 3019 must be "specified, quantified, and proven to the point of moral certainty."

The respondents also rejected the allegation that they acted in bad faith or conspired to commit graft. They refer to Supreme Court rulings, such as Soriano v. People (2022) and People v. Marty (2022), which define bad faith as involving a "dishonest purpose" and conspiracy as requiring "active participation" in a crime.

They asserted that their actions were driven solely by the necessity to enforce the law and resolve a public safety crisis.

The motion pointed out that had they refused to carry out the demolition, they could have been held accountable for dereliction of duty.

“Dili sad mi pwede nga di namo i-implement ang notice to demolish, we will be risking the dereliction of duty, administrative case na pud na. We have to follow orders,” Entise said.

The respondents further contend that the City of Mandaue held prior juridical possession of the disputed property, supported by several city resolutions from 1973 that granted foreshore lease agreements to the complainants' predecessor.

The respondents argued that the complainants' lease expired in 2002, meaning they no longer had any legal claim to the property.

In a bid to overturn the Ombudsman's decision, 26 officials and job order workers are presenting their arguments, hoping to have the case against them dismissed.

Entise said that he was no longer concerned about his part, but his focus is on the JO employees who were included in the case, as they were merely doing their job during the demolition.

“They were just there to do their job implement the notice to demolish. Wala silay kalibutan other than there is a notice to demolish and they need to do it because they were ordered to do so,” said Entise.

He lamented by saying, "Instead of being acknowledged, instead of being commended for a job done ma punish na hinuon mao nay sakit." JG (CEBU NEWS)