Ex-OMA director, supply officer indicted for graft

CEBU, Philippines - An official of the Office of the Muslim Affairs and its former director in Central Visayas were indicted by the Office of the Ombudsman Visayas for alleged violations of the government auditing code and malversation of public funds, respectively.

Graft investigator Euphemia Bacalso found probable cause to charge Saipal Bazar, OMA supply officer, for violating the Presidential Decree 1445 or the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines after he failed to liquidate his over P.6 million cash advances.

Former OMA director Lacsasa Pangadapun was likewise held accountable in court for his failure to account a total of P142,600 cash advances as of December 31, 2004.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the Public Assistance and Corruption Office of the Ombudsman against Pangadapun, Bazar and a certain Mitchel Sumalipao.

Sumalipao, who was also accused of having P135,204 unliquidated cash advances, was however cleared by the anti-graft office of any criminal liability after she was able to explain that she just inherited the alleged unliquidated amount from her predecessor.

PACPO’s complaint was based on the report of the Commission on Audit wherein the respondents were found to have incurred unliquidated cash advances.

State Auditors Sylvia Almazan and Danilo Saligan found that Bazar, Pangadapun and Sumalipao have not properly accounted the cash advances granted to them.

Demand letters were issued to them but they failed to satisfactorily explain, except for Sumalipao, who claimed that she was not the recipient of the cash advances mentioned in the audit report.

“The subject cash advances were received by the other officials of the Office of the Muslim Affairs as it was granted prior to my assumption to Office as Regional Accountant in January 1997,” Sumalipao explained.

She said there was no proper turn over of the documents to her by the previous accountant when she assumed office.

Bazar admitted he was granted a total of P616,321 and have spent the amount legitimately while Pangadapun failed to explain.

The anti-graft office resolved that Bazar and Pangadapun could be guilty of the crime and recommended for their criminal prosecution in court.  (FREEMAN)