Ex-Senate security chief contests assault raps

Former Senate sergeant-at-arms Mao Aplasca has formally challenged the direct assault complaint filed against him over the May 13 shooting incident inside the Senate, submitting his counter-affidavit to Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors as the preliminary investigation moves forward.

Aplasca filed the document on Oct. 28, responding to allegations arising from the armed confrontation between Senate security personnel and agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) at the Senate premises.

DOJ spokesperson Polo Martinez said the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG), which filed the complaint, has until Nov. 6 to submit a reply to Aplasca’s counter-affidavit.

Should the police investigators file a response, Aplasca and two other officials of the Senate Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms (OSAA) named in the complaint will have the opportunity to submit their respective rejoinder affidavits.

Prosecutors have set Nov. 13 as the tentative deadline for the submission of all required documents.

After the preliminary investigation, the prosecution will determine whether sufficient evidence exists to establish a prima facie case and warrant the filing of formal charges in court, Martinez said.

The complaint stemmed from the May 13 shooting inside the Senate complex, when Aplasca fired warning shots during an encounter involving Senate security personnel and NBI agents amid efforts to locate Sen. Ronald Dela Rosa, who faces an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Aplasca maintained that he believed unidentified armed individuals posed a threat to the Senate and that firing warning shots was necessary under the circumstances.

The incident triggered panic among Senate employees, media practitioners and other individuals inside the building.

In a separate administrative proceeding, the Office of the Ombudsman ordered Aplasca’s dismissal from government service after finding him guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty.

The Ombudsman ruled that his decision to fire warning shots was unjustified, endangered lives and violated established rules governing the use of force.

The administrative ruling, however, is separate from the ongoing criminal complaint, which remains under preliminary investigation before DOJ prosecutors.