VILLAGE CHIEF WARNED ON USE OF GOV’T VEHICLE SANS TRIP TICKET

The Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas has reprimanded the barangay captain and the driver of Budlaan, Cebu City for allegedly using a government-issued vehicle without a trip ticket.

Even without the ticket, Nerissa Antolihao allegedly authorized Pablito Baterna, driver of Lithium Toyota Hi-lux pickup (SKV 429), to bring Necitas Gualiza, a constituent, to the hospital on June 12, 2015, a holiday.

Gualiza was reported to be then suffering from breathing difficulty and dizziness.

Graft investigation and prosecution officer II Michael Mernado, Jr., however, ruled the Antolihao and Baterna's action violated Reasonable Commission on Audit Rules and Regulations as classified under Section 46(b) of Executive Order No. 292.

Under the law, a trip ticket should be secured before using a government vehicle since it is intended for official use only. The trip ticket must indicate the purpose, destination, and duration of the travel.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the Field Investigation Office against Antolihao and Baterna after the vehicle was spotted at around 4:19 p.m. that day in the vicinity of a mall in Barangay Lahug.

In her counter-affidavit, Antolihao admitted authorizing the use of the vehicle without a trip ticket. She, however, explained that it was an emergency since Gualiza, who had stage four lung cancer, had to be taken to the hospital immediately.

“Because the situation calls for an immediate action, respondent Antolihao ordered respondent Baterna to immediately take Gualiza to the Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center (VSMMC) for proper medical attention,” the counter-affidavit read, adding that Antolihao also requested someone to accompany Gualiza to the hospital.

It would turn out later that Gualiza was not actually admitted to the hospital, but was just advised to buy and take pain-killers.

Baterna reportedly stopped at a pharmacy in the mall to buy medicines for Gualiza.

However, Mernardo did not give weight to the defense of Antolihao and Baterna.

“The alibi given by respondents, however, is too convenient to be given credence. First, the identity and existence of Necitas Gualiza was not properly established. Second, there is no proof that indeed this person requested to use the subject vehicle. Third, there is no proof that they went to VSMMC for the medical treatment of Gualiza,” read the decision.

“If indeed Gualiza was suffering from an advanced lung cancer and at that time was experiencing coughing spell, difficulty in breathing and dizziness, it is highly improbable that the medical staff would just advise her to take painkillers, much more for the respondent driver to buy the medicine at (name of the mall) when there are so many pharmacies available in the premises of VSMMC,” the decision read further.

Mernardo warned Antolihao and Baterna that they would face heavier punishment if the same action is repeated.