Prosecutor dismisses complaint against barangay council member

CEBU, Philippines — The Office of the Mandaue City Prosecutor has dismissed the case filed by five job order (JO) employees against the budget committee chairperson of the barangay council of Umapad, Mandaue City, Libertine Lumapas, for lack of prima facie evidence.

Mandaue City Prosecutor Mary Francys Daquipil approved the recommendation of Associate City Prosecutor Chauncey T. Boholst finding nothing “to support that the respondent acted with negligence, evident bad faith or manifest partiality” which would warrant the filing of a complaint for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The complaint stemmed from the non-payment of salaries of complainants Gemma Mata Ortega, Girlie Reyes Gabisan, Lea Gabisan Jimenez, Lima Sotchesa Orogan, and Erwina Batula Cano, who are JO employees under the barangay’s “Clean and Green Program.”

They complained of not receiving their P5,000-monthly honoraria for January to April 2024, because “Lumapas has refused to sign the payroll to certify the existence of available appropriation for the honoraria payments.” They filed the complaint for grave abuse of authority and oppression.

But the city prosecutor’s Sept. 5 resolution of dismissal of the complaint stated that “respondent’s refusal to sign the payroll was justified, and the complainants’ claims against the respondents are not supported with evidence that warrants criminal liability.”

In its findings and recommendations, the Prosecutor’s Office said that based on the evidence, Lumapas “acted in good faith by bringing the issue to the attention of the City Council, ensuring transparency in the decision-making process.

The resolution stated that Lumapas' concerns and communications with the complainants about missing documents and the lack of Sanggunian concurrence suggest a genuine effort to comply with the law, rather than commit any malicious act or intent.

“As the chairperson, the respondent had the responsibility to ensure proper disbursement of public funds, which could explain the cautious approach. Importantly, there is no evidence of malice or material gain,” the city prosecutor said.

It further said that Lumapas’ refusal was “made in good faith without malicious intent or discrimination, and was ultimately validated by the subsequent SB (City Council) approval.” — (FREEMAN)