For allegedly planting evidence against a woman whom they arrested apparently for peddling drugs five years ago, the Office of the Ombudsman has filed charges against three Manila policemen before the Manila Regional Trial Court.

Insp. Oliver Lucero, P03 Faustino de Guia and P02 Rodney See, all assigned at the Manila Police District (MPD), were charged with planting of evidence under Section 29 in relation to Section 5 of Republic Act 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) on arbitrary detention and violation of domicile.

The Office of the Ombudsman, however, dismissed the complaint against the respondents' colleagues, namely P03 Ferdinand Belandres, P02 Miguel Potente and SP02 Felina Alagos for insufficiency of evidence.

A robbery complaint was initially filed against the respondents but it was also dismissed for lack of evidence.

The information filed in court by Jamila Cruz-Sarga, graft investigation and prosecution officer at the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices, showed that the policemen allegedly planted evidence against one Lilia Santos, a resident of San Andres Bukid.

Complainant Leandro Santos, the victim's son, claimed that the respondents allegedly made it appear in a criminal complaint that two small sachets containing illegal drugs were confiscated from her during a buy-bust operation on Sept. 8, 2005 while his mother was sleeping.

He said De Guia, Lucero and See searched the house, while the others remained outside.

When his mother was awakened from sleep, the policemen asked if she was “Nenet,” to which she answered in the negative and showed them her barangay identification card to prove her real identity.

The complainant added that when two of the three policemen went outside, he noticed that his cell phone, which he placed on a chair, was missing.

He said his brother Lester was able to take a picture of the policemen with his cell phone camera but it was also confiscated by De Guia.

In order to get back the cell phones, their mother acceded to the policemen to go with them to the police station. However, she was detained and charged with RA 9165, the complainant said.

The respondents denied the allegations of the complainant, saying the arrest of Lilia Santos was pursuant to a legitimate buy-bust operation. However, Cruz-Sarga said the evidence speaks otherwise because of the disclaimer made by Belandres.

Cruz-Sarga noted that in the affidavit of apprehension accusing Lilia as a drug pusher, it appeared that De Guia acted as the poseur buyer, Potente held the victim and Belandres confiscated the marked money from the victim's companion.

However, in his counter-affidavit, Belandres belied his participation in the actual buy-bust operation and claimed that he only acted as a back-up of the arresting team.