FOR allegedly using the powers of the police to enforce a party’s interest in a purely private property dispute, the police chief of Calatagan, Batangas, has been haled before the Office of the Ombudsman, along with several of his officer, an architect-contractor whom he assisted in retrieving multimillion-peso equipment, and several others.
In a joint complaint-affidavit with prayer for preventive suspension of PMAJ Julius B. Almeda, the complainants denounced his alleged acts in two incidents on Sept 28 and Oct 4, 2026, both in Sandari Calatagan in Barangay Bagong Silang. In both occasions, local police under Almeda’s command swooped down on the premises being developed by Sandari Calatagan in order to assist the group of Architect Rafael Dalmacio B. Tecson and his RDBT Construction Corporation in seizing construction equipment being used for Sandari. Tecson’s group has been engaged with Sandari in a legal dispute over their contract.
The controversy centers on the use of police authority by the Chief of Police of Calatagan, PMAJ Julius B. Almeda, and several police officers to aid Arch. Rafael Dalmacio B. Tecson, a private contractor, in a contractual and property dispute at the Sandari Calatagan project in Barangay Bagong Silang in the seaside town.
The complainants were Engr. John Louel S. Pelaez, SG Mark Angncaya, SG Lester Galac, SG John Michael Andino, SG Jerome Cabali, Marvin Tambaoan, SG Ferdinan C. Diano, and SG Christopher B. Mendoza.
Besides Almeda, they charged ‘Police Officers Sison, Caras, Dano, and Hernandez, and the other unidentified participating police officers, Arch. Rafael Dalmacio B. Tecson, Atty. Victor Angelo F. Tantoco II, Junard Cabillan, Dionecio Hernandez, Jomar Calbo, and Rex Manzano, and the John Doe private participants whose identities remain to be determined, with violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for allegedly acting in conspiracy to give Arch. Tecson and RDBT Construction Corporation unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference through manifest partiality and evident bad faith in the exercise of police functions.’
Almeda and the police officers were also charged administratively for Grave Misconduct, Oppression or Grave Abuse of Authority, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, ‘together with the request to investigate Dishonesty relating to the blotter that their police station issued.’
The involvement of Almeda and the other police officers ‘made the coercion and threats immediate and frightening to those of us confronted by them,’ the complainants said.
During the September 28 incident, ‘the coercion and threats concerned detention and disarming’ of the security guards and on October 4, the coercion and threats included disarming, detention, criminal charges, a report to SOSIA, and action against Eastern Defender, including its closure.’