CEBU CITY – For padlocking a disputed property, several officials and personnel of the Mandaue City government are facing graft charges after the Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict them for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
HAPPY Melendres (right), accompanied by her lawyer, answers questions from the media regarding the case that she filed against some officials and workers of the Mandaue City government. (Calvin D. Cordova)
In a July 9, 2024 resolution, Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer II Carl Vincent D. Sasuman ruled that the 27 named respondents and 24 unidentified individuals should be charged in court for violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
The Ombudsman decision stemmed from the complaint filed by Maria Priscilla "Happy" Melendres and Maritoni Melendres who accused the respondents of illegal demolition and padlocking a property that they supposedly own in Barangay Paknaan.
The separate cases of arbitrary detention that the Melendreses filed were dismissed by the Ombudsman for lack of probable cause.
The complainants alleged that on May 3, 2023, city officials and personnel fenced their property on the basis of an undated Notice to Demolish.
The respondents allegedly padlocked two gates and restricted access to the property, preventing the complainants from freely entering or leaving.
Priscilla said the city officials had no legal authority to forcibly enter and secure the property without a court order.
The respondents, led by lawyer Julius Caesar Entise, the city’s assistant assessor, have filed a motion for reconsideration, asking the Ombudsman to reverse its decision. Entice said they were just doing their jobs when they implemented the demolition order.
The respondents added that the property was public land and that the Melendres family lacked fencing and building permits.
"We refute forcefully the allegations of Atty. Julius Caesar S. Entise in their Motion for Reconsideration," the complainants said in a statement.
The complainants pointed out that the Notice to Demolish did not come from the Mayor's Office but from the City Legal Office.
"The Ombudsman is correct in saying that respondents were not authorized to demolish, and that respondents took the law into their own hands. Now they should suffer the consequences of their own acts and face possible jail time," the complainants added.