THE Sangguniang Panlalawigan, in a session last week presided over by Vice-Gov. Dionisio Victor Balite, approved the dismissal of the charges against Dauis Mayor Roman Bullen.
“This committee resolves to recommend to dismiss the complaint for lack of merit,” the good governance and human rights committee said in its report dated July 11, 2023 and reported by its chairman Board Member Atty. Venzencio B. Arcamo.
The said committee report was signed by Arcamo, BM Atty. Jiselle Rae A. Villamor and BM Atty. Tomas D. Abapo, Jr. as vice-chairperson and member, respectively.
The committee considered the said complaint after receiving an indorsement from Dante F. Vargas, deputy Ombudsman for Visayas the complaint docketed as IC-OV-22-0777 against the mayor filed by Ray Ann S. Bullen, a resident of purok 1, barangay Poblacion, Dauis, Bohol.
Ray Ann Bullen’s complaint ensued after he found out that it was not his signature that appeared in payroll that “shows his signature signifying that he has received the amount of P6,480 but he never received such amount nor did he sign the said payroll.”
This he discovered on September 5, 2022 when he inquired with the accounting office where he read and saw the payroll for the July21-31, 2022 and “that his honorarium was supposed to be P6,480.”
He then caused the examination of the signature that appeared in the said payroll by the PNP regional forensic unit in Cebu City and he was issued a “questioned document report No. 23-2022-RFU7. It said that the specimen of the complainant and the signature found in said payroll “were not written by one and the same person.”
Respondents, Mayor Bullen, including senior administrative officer III Ephraim Bomediano, defended their acts of issuing certifications of the complainant being hired and that he rendered service and approved payment of his honorarium.
Besides, the respondents “argued that the actual release and disbursement of funds duly allocated for a specific project is not one of the functions of the municipal mayor,” citing the Local Government Code of 1991 as basis.
They said the respondents did not have an actual participation in the supposed disbursement of the complainant’s claim of his honorarium.
“The respondents also mentioned that they were neither in possession of the questioned document nor were they being tagged as the ones who stood to benefit from the alleged act of falsification. Thus, for failure to establish the actual participation of the respondents in the acts complained of against them, the instant case must fail,” the committee concluded.
Arcamo said that the committee had to resolve whether or not the respondents “had any participation in the act of counterfeiting or imitating the signature of the complainant as punishable by article 171 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.”
The committee cited the said provision: “Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister – The penalty or prison mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000.00 shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee or notary, who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts (1) Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric.”
To satisfy the law cited here, the committee scrutinized the elements of falsification by a public officer: (1) the offender is a public officer or employee or notary public; (2) the offender takes advantage of his official position; and (3) he or she falsifies a document by committing any of the acts mentioned in article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, the committee report showed.
The committee found that “there is an absence of both the second and third elements in this case. There is no obligation that would show that the respondents took advantage of their official position and that they performed any falsification of a document by committing any of the acts” provided by said cited provision of the law.
The committee said that the respondents were not incharge of preparing the said document (payroll) and that they (respondents) did not cause the disbursement of the payment of the honorarium in the payroll. (rvo)
