Gov’t auditor sued for malversation
CEBU, Philippines - For allegedly falsifying public documents, the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas indicted a state auditor IV of the Commission on Audit (COA) assigned at the National Transmission Corporation (Transco) for a criminal case of malversation.
Graft investigator Amy Rose Soler-Rellin elevated the case before the court after she found sufficient evidence to hold accused Vivien Ortiz for trial.
“Wherefore, premises considered, this resolution is rendered finding probable cause to engender a well-founded belief that respondent committed malversation of public funds through falsification of public/official documents. Let the appropriate criminal Information be filed before the proper court,†the resolution reads.
No bail was recommended for the case.
The issue started in August 26, 2008. According to Rellin, the accused allegedly took advantage of her position by reportedly falsifying public documents consisting of Transco disbursement voucher in the amount of P64,316.
Ortiz was assigned at COA-Transco, Visayas Regional Center, Cebu City.
The disbursement voucher was supported by travel order and itineraries for the travel of Ortiz, state auditor II Ligaya Vallega, Reynaldo Arpon and state auditor II Lilia Castisimo with an affixed signature of COA Regional Cluster Director Francisco Cijas Jr.
Based on the document, Rellin said it would appear Cijas ordered the travel and approved the disbursement voucher. Also, it appeared that Vallega and Castisimo prepared their respective travel itineraries when in truth, the two did not sign the said document. She said the signatures were forged.
The complainants of the case were Vallega, Castisimo and the Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office (PACPO) of the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas.
The complainants said the case stemmed from a cash advance for travelling expense paid to Ortiz.
Vallega and Castisimo said they knew about the cash advance after their attention was called by Cijas. The two denied the signatures appearing in the travel order and itineraries. Cijas likewise denied issuing a travel order.
Meanwhile, Cijas claimed that Ortiz confessed to him on Oct. 10, 2008 that she allegedly “manufactured the documents because she was in need of money.â€
He added Ortiz told him that she would refund the amount once she has available funds.
In her counter-affidavit, Ortiz vehemently denied the allegations. She denied any participation or knowledge in falsifying travel orders.
She said the subject documents were already in her table and ready for signature.
“After going over the documents, and since the travel was scheduled forSept. 1, 2008, respondent acted on it. On 28 August 2008, she was informed that the check was ready. This was not the first time as it was reportedly a regular practice that documents pertaining to travel would reach respondent’s table for her conformity or approval,†the accused stated in her counter-affidavit.
Moreover, she said she went to Transco to return the money but she was told that they could no longer accept it as per COA instruction. She added that she signed the documents on her table because it looked genuine.
However, she claimed that the funds were not missing. Though it was disbursed and received, it remained unused.
Rellin in her resolution recommended the filing of case based on the evidence.
“Since it is undisputed that respondent Ortiz received the proceeds of the voucher, it goes without saying that she is presumed to be the forger of the signatures of Cijas Jr., Vallega and Castisimo appearing in the voucher and or its supporting documents,†the resolution reads. (FREEMAN)
- Latest
