BOBBY NALZARO:
Even Team Rama-allied barangay captains are facing arrest following the filing in court of criminal charges against them by the Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office for supposedly failing to return their City-issued vehicles. Sensing that warrants of arrest will be served against them anytime, some of the barangay captains voluntarily went to the court and posted bail. The case stemmed from the failure of the barangay captains to turn over their government-issued vehicles to City Hall on time, after then acting mayor Margot Osmeña issued a memorandum to all village officials last May ordering them to return the vehicles for inventory. But wait. Why did the prosecutors file the cases in court when the respondents stated in their counter-affidavits that they had returned the vehicles to the General Service Office?
Seven Team Rama-allied barangay captains are facing arrest following the filing in court of criminal charges against them by the City Prosecutor’s Office for supposedly failing to return their City-issued vehicles. Sensing that warrants of arrest will be served against them anytime, some of the barangay captains voluntarily went to the court and posted bail.
The case stemmed from the failure of the barangay captains to turn over their government issued vehicles to City Hall on time after then acting mayor Margot Osmeña issued a memorandum to all village officials last May ordering them to return the vehicles for inventory.
But wait. Why did the prosecutors file the cases in court when the respondents stated in their counter-affidavits that they had returned the vehicles to the General Service Office (GSO)? They even attached in the counter-affidavits the certification from the GSO chief that they had indeed complied with the order.
The barangay captains admitted, though, that the vehicles were not returned on time because they first sought a clarification from Margot about her order. Besides, they were also waiting for proper documentation from the GSO, as they were accountable for those vehicles because the memorandum receipts had their names. Article 221 of the Revised Penal Code states: “Failure to make delivery of public funds or property.- Any public officer under obligation to make payment from Government funds in his pos- session, who shall fail to make such payment, shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine from 5 to 25 percent of the sum which he failed to pay.
“This provision shall apply to any public officer who, being ordered by competent authority to deliver any property in his custody or under his administration, shall refuse to make such delivery.
“The fine shall be graduated in such case by the value of the thing, provided that it shall not be less than 50 pesos.”
Now, was there “failure to deliver” by the respondents? None, though the “delivery” was not on time.
The case was pending before the investigating prosecutor for 10 months. Why didn’t the prosecutor consider the certification attached to the counter-affidavits?
If I were the investigating prosecutor, I would have dismissed the case because the objects in question were already returned. The matter is already “moot and academic.”
I can only surmise why the City Prosecutor’s Office still filed the cases in court.
Are the prosecutors beholden to City Hall because they are receiving monthly allowances from the city government? Weren’t some prosecutors appointed to their positions because the person now sitting at City Hall was their “padrino?”
Kun mao ning kalakiha, kun ikiha ta sa City Hall o sa mayor, wala tay dag-anan kay ang mga piskal tua nakapusta sa pikas gumikan sa utang kabubut-on.
Why didn’t the prosecutor consider the certification attached to the counter-affidavits?