Ombudsman orders filing of graft charges against 2 Customs police

Press Release
By Office of the Ombudsman
January 18, 2008

QUEZON CITY, Philippines  –  Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez today ordered the filing of graft charges against two members of the Customs police who connived to misdeclare a shipment of 50 laptop computers and pass these off as electric lamps.

In a three-page resolution, Ombudsman Gutierrez ordered the filing of charges against Alfredo Cruz, a member of the Public Assistance Unit, and Rizalino Calderon, Customs Examiner, both of the NAIA Customs police.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by George Sambre, who alleged that on March 30, 2007, a shipment consigned to one Mario Gonzales arrived aboard Cathay Pacific Flight CX-901.  The contents of the shipment were declared to be Electrical Goods as shown in the airway bill.

The said shipment was duly examined by one R.D. Calderon, who declared it as containing 50 pieces of portable electric lamps, as evidenced by the Examiner’s findings which he signed and was approved by Alfredo Cruz.

However, upon examination of members of the Enforcement and Security Service-Customs Police District (ESS-CPD) of the NAIA District Office, it was found that the shipment actually contained 50 laptop computers.

Moreover, Calderon upon learning that the said shipment was confiscated and was recommended to be placed under a hold departure order contacted the chief of the ESS-CPD and attempted to “fix” the problem.  He was, however, turned down by the ESS-CPD chief.

The Intelligence and Enforcement Group of the Bureau of Customs summoned Cruz and Calderon to explain their side, but both failed to appear and were reported to be on leave. Thereafter, a recommendation was made to file charges against them before the Office of the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman, in turn, directed Cruz and Calderon to file their counter-affidavits and other controverting evidence, which they also failed to do.

In its resolution, the Ombudsman said that Calderon’s act of signing the Examiner’s Findings was an attempt to cover up the items for some special reason, and constitutes a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).

In the case of Cruz, his act of approving the findings of Calderon made him equally liable for violating RA 3019.  Moreover, his attempt to interfere in the confiscation of the laptops constitutes a violation of Section 3(a) of the same act as well as Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code.