Sandigan: Enough proof in sexual harassment case vs AFP colonel

The Sandiganbayan has junked the plea of an Army colonel to allow him to contest the sufficiency of the Ombudsman’s evidence in his sexual harassment case.

In a three-page resolution dated Nov. 5, the court’s Sixth Division said the evidence against Col. Jessie Mario Dosado, former Philippine Army Procurement Center commanding officer, would be strong enough to lead to his conviction if he failed to prove his innocence.

“After a thorough review of the case and the evidence formally offered by the prosecution, the court finds that, if unrebutted, the same is sufficient to support a verdict of guilt for sexual harassment,” read the resolution penned by Associate Justice Karl B. Miranda.

Motion denied

Thus, the court denied the officer’s motion for leave to file a demurrer which seeks the dismissal of the charges based on the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence.

Dosado could still file his demurrer without the court’s permission, but this would waive his right to present evidence in his defense under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Ombudsman prosecutors had accused him of asking a woman master sergeant to watch him have sex with a certain Miss Glacy on May 16, 2013.

The master sergeant complied, but then, he allegedly asked her to participate in an orgy.

Court documents said that on Oct. 22, 2013, Dosado got naked and asked his secretary, a sergeant, to wipe his back and give him a bath.

Three days later, he asked her to apply lotion on his private part.

Personal queries

Prosecutors claimed Dosado asked the second complainant: “What do you feel now that you see me naked?”

According to the prosecution, the army official also asked his secretary to compare his private organ to that of a certain Dennis, asking her which one was bigger.

All these incidents took place at the Philippine Army’s Fort Bonifacio headquarters.

Dosado, for his part, argued that the testimonies of the two female complainants — whose names were withheld by the Inquirer — were “full of inconsistencies, unworthy of belief and fabricated.”

But Ombudsman prosecutors pointed out that it was unlikely for the women to lie at the risk of losing their jobs or possible reprisal from their superiors.