MANILA -- Taguig police on Wednesday filed obstruction of justice charges against Megaforce Security Agency for failing to report the mauling of Vhong Navarro inside the Forbeswood Heights Condominium last January 22.
Taguig police accused Megaforce and several of its personnel for violation of Presidential Decree 1829 (Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders) at the Taguig City Prosecutor's Office Wednesday afternoon.
In his complaint-affidavit submitted before the Office of Assistant State Prosecutor Ricardo Estrabo, acting Taguig police chief Arthur Felix Asis said Megaforce as well as its personnel -- chief security Roderick Garbin, security officers Jeffrey Veniegas and Romeo Nevado Jr., investigation head Maximo Meregildo and other John Does -- committed obstruction of justice by their failure to report the mauling incident to the police as well as concealing from the investigators several pieces evidence on the case.
Asis said that he only knew of the incident from a television report by ABS-CBN News on January 24, two days after it happened.
Immediately upon obtaining information that it happened at Forbeswood Heights condominium, he dispatched his men to coordinate with the building administration and security management.
The security guard on duty, Jeffrey Deniegas, however, refused to divulge information and barred police from entering the building.
The next day, Asis said Deniegas vehemently denied that such incident occurred.
The security agency also refused to cooperate with the police's formal requests to turn over the closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera footage of the night of the incident, name the owner of the unit where the incident happened, name the security guards on duty during the incident, submit list of the guests at the time of the incident, and turn over the incident report of Megaforce.
This, Asis said, despite the agency's verbal assurances that it will cooperate with the police.
Aside from a criminal case, the Taguig police are also set to file administrative charges against the respondents.