Raps vs. BI employee, private persons for 'demanding' money from Korean

CEBU, Philippines – The Office of the Ombudsman has recommended the filing of charges for direct bribery and violation of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act against an intelligence officer of the Bureau of Immigration and three private individuals for allegedly demanding money from a Korean national in 2007.

In its order dated September 21, 2010, the anti-graft office find a "persuasive circumstantial evidence of the commission of the offenses" against Dilausan Montor, immigration officer I of the Bureau of Immigration in Mandaue City and private individuals Mabert Impas, Sr., Daniel Gumba and Maria Donna Bella Deriada.

The respondents were caught by elements of the National Bureau of Investigation during an entrapment operation.

Lee Dong Bum, who has business establishments in the city, sought the help of the NBI after the respondents allegedly demanded P500,000 from him.

The Ombudsman ruled that in entrapment cases, credence is given to the narration of an incident by prosecution witnesses who are officers of the law and presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

The anti-graft office said the testimony of the NBI operatives, who facilitated the entrapment operations, was "very much worthy of credit."

NBI operatives confirmed having recovered from Montor the marked bills they prepared for the entrapment operation.

The respondents had questioned how the Ombudsman allegedly failed to take into considerations certain circumstances - that Impas reportedly never talked with Dong directly on the day of the entrapment; that Impas was found negative of fluorescent power; that Impas was reportedly never privy to Montor's plans; and that Deriada was reportedly not around during the entrapment operation. 

But the Ombudsman ruled that such motion does not warrant reversal of their previous resolution, which recommended the filing of the charges in court.

The Ombudsman said the explanatory statement proffered by respondents can qualify as their defense in court and that they can raise their arguments during the trial of the case.

"For now, their arguments are too trivial to topple the unmistakable presence of probable cause against them," the Ombudsman said. (FREEMAN)