Sandiganbayan convicts 4 Cebu City officials of graft

MANILA, Philippines –  The Sandiganbayan convicted four ranking officials of Cebu City of graft charges for allowing a paymaster to accumulate unliquidated cash ad­vances amounting to more than P11 million in 1998.

In a 43-page decision, the first division of the Sandiganbayan found Alan Gaviola, then city administrator; Eustaquio Cesa, then city treasurer; Benilda Bacasmas, then cash division chief; and Edna Jaca, then city accountant; all of the Cebu City government, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act).

Records showed that an audit team conducted a cash examination on the cash and account of various accountable officers, including paymaster Cleofe Delute, of the cash division of the City Treasurer’s Office of Cebu City, covering the period of Sept. 20, 1995 to March 5, 1998.  

This resulted in the discovery that Delute had accumulated unliquidated cash advances of P11,180,033.92. Delute had already been charged for, and convicted of malversation of public funds before the regional trial court of Cebu City. She is now serving sentence at the Bureau of Corrections.

The prosecution led by Assistant Special Prosecutor II Sheri Zales of the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman believed that Delute could not have possibly committed such act without the participation of accused Gaviola, Cesa, Bacasmas and Jaca.

In its decision, the anti-graft court said that “It is well to note that their signature followed a sequence. The voucher could only be forwarded to the next office if already signed by the prior office. The accused were expected to have done what was required of them to be able to truthfully affirm the pre-typed certification in the voucher. This includes the first step in the process and the very basic act of examining the voucher and its attachments, but which the accused had failed to do.”

It said one could readily notice the incompleteness of the documents submitted by Delute for signature. For one, “sheets of bond paper” served as Delute’s requests for cash advances. The requests did not indicate that they were for payment of salaries because each request merely showed a handwritten note reading: “Cash Advance – P1,000,000.” And the net amount of the payrolls as reflected in the adding tape attached to the written requests was rounded-off and the rounded-off amount was entered in the disbursement voucher in violation of paragraph 4.2.1 of COA Circular No. 97-002 which states the cash advance shall be equal to the net amount of the payroll for a pay period.